PDA

View Full Version : NFL Network Vs Time Warner


axman40
11-26-2007, 06:46 PM
Who do you blame for not getting a deal done?
I will not be calling my Congressman on this , no matter how many times I hear Jerry Jones commercial. Would I call me Congressman because I cannot buy a Big Mac at Burger King?

Double Barrel
11-26-2007, 06:51 PM
I blame Time Warner. They suck and NFLN rules!! :shades:

Brando
11-26-2007, 07:05 PM
I blame Time Warner. They suck and NFLN rules!! :shades:

Ditto. The only thing Time Warner is good for is Road Runner High Speed.

TheIronDuke
11-26-2007, 07:37 PM
I have Comcast, am I going to be able to add NFLN? I thought Comcast and NFLN worked out a deal.

Yankee_In_TX
11-26-2007, 07:39 PM
I blame the NFL. Why not let it be part of a $4 sports package?

Yes, Comcast has it. It is part of a $4 sports package. TW refuses to carry it unless it is for free.

TheIronDuke
11-26-2007, 07:47 PM
I blame the NFL. Why not let it be part of a $4 sports package?

Yes, Comcast has it. It is part of a $4 sports package. TW refuses to carry it unless it is for free.

Doesn't everyone in Houston have Comcast now? Where is Time Warner providing service?

I'm going to add NFLN right before the Broncos game.

Texans_Chick
11-26-2007, 08:17 PM
I have Comcast, am I going to be able to add NFLN? I thought Comcast and NFLN worked out a deal.

No. Comcast sued for the right to put NFLN on a sports tier. The court agreed. NFLN is appealing that and is trying to rip the NFLN off of Comcast again unless it is part of the basic package with Comcast absorbing the cost and/or passing it to all of their customers.

So, if you are a Comcast customer currently receiving NFLN because you are paying for it, note that you might get that taken away.

The cable companies have not banned NFLN. They want it.

NFLN is choosing not to make itself available unless it is on their terms. They chose to not let their product be shown.

This is not about giving the NFL to the masses. NFLN is ripping games away from a broader market--you know GB-Cowboys would have been a huge free game.

MLB tried to get an exclusive deal with DirecTV but Congress wouldn't let that happen because of Red Sox fans who don't have DTV.

NFL does have an exclusive deal with DTV, so they don't care if they hurt cable companies or consumers who can't use satellite.

The NFL wants to create scarcity for their product so they can get more money. They do not care about consumers who can't get DirecTV for whatever reasons.

The NFL is the bad guys. They are taking a product that used to be free and making it more exclusive and charging for it. They will continue to do more and more of that until someone stops them.

TheIronDuke
11-26-2007, 08:30 PM
No. Comcast sued for the right to put NFLN on a sports tier. The court agreed. NFLN is appealing that and is trying to rip the NFLN off of Comcast again unless it is part of the basic package with Comcast absorbing the cost and/or passing it to all of their customers.

So, if you are a Comcast customer currently receiving NFLN because you are paying for it, note that you might get that taken away.

The cable companies have not banned NFLN. They want it.

NFLN is choosing not to make itself available unless it is on their terms. They chose to not let their product be shown.

This is not about giving the NFL to the masses. NFLN is ripping games away from a broader market--you know GB-Cowboys would have been a huge free game.

MLB tried to get an exclusive deal with DirecTV but Congress wouldn't let that happen because of Red Sox fans who don't have DTV.

NFL does have an exclusive deal with DTV, so they don't care if they hurt cable companies or consumers who can't use satellite.

The NFL wants to create scarcity for their product so they can get more money. They do not care about consumers who can't get DirecTV for whatever reasons.

The NFL is the bad guys. They are taking a product that used to be free and making it more exclusive and charging for it. They will continue to do more and more of that until someone stops them.

This won my vote against the NFLN.

Will I still be able to pay a few bucks more to watch the Broncos game at least? I used to be all about satellite but I got tired of having to worry about the weather to be able to watch the TV.

Khari
11-26-2007, 08:34 PM
nfl r greedy bastids........:woot2:

most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....:pirate:

Hookem Horns
11-26-2007, 11:37 PM
nfl r greedy bastids........:woot2:

most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....:pirate:

Agreed, other than the few games they are carrying I have been real disappointed in the NFL Network. It's not what I thought it would be. I thought it would be a lot of cool NFL Films stuff, etc however they just show the same old recaps and previews every day. It's like watching the late night news on Monday and then that channel showing Monday's news everynight the rest of the week.

RazorOye
11-27-2007, 05:24 AM
I agree with the $4/month idea, since that's probably the budget for NFLN's woefully substandard network.

Their programming is poor. Studio talent is substandard. Booth analysts are mind numbing.

Rich Eisen is a flat out terrible host. He was okay on Sportscenter. These days, all he does is use his trademark fake, insincere laughter to try and convince the audience that whatever lackluster show he's hosting is actually worth watching.

Bryant Gumbel + Chris Collingsworth > Ny-Quil for helping you get to sleep

Their commercials are the most repetitive I've seen on any network. During the offseason, it's absolutely terrible. United Way. NFL Network. Fathead. NFL Network. Viagra. NFL Network. United Way. Back to the studio. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Put up your Dukes. College Football Now. These aren't good shows.

The NFLN only survives because there are so many NFL-addicted fans who are willing to put up with all of these shortcomings because it is, after all, football.

It doesn't mean it's quality programming.

It's an insulting cash grab by an organization that is already making billions on its product - so the response by Jerry Jones et. al. to such a loyal sports fanbase? Hold the product hostage.

I have the NFLN only because I don't have to pay extra for it.

And even knowing it's free, most of the time I can't watch it.

NFL Replay is cool to catch during the week, sometimes - depending on the games they show.

But that's not even an NFLN product.

They are just using the efforts of other stations that know how to package an NFL broadcast like professionals, not the sporting equivalents of Wayne and Garth in their basement with a Sony Handycam and a Budweiser-can UHF Broadcast Antenna on top of mom's roof.

Showtime100
11-27-2007, 06:23 AM
I've had NFLN for a couple of weeks now and it's a real pleasure to get my football news and commentary from those guys and not YESPN. I haven't been yelled to or told I'm a fool if I disagree since.

kastofsna
11-27-2007, 11:10 AM
i agree about Dukes and the commercials. they show the same ones every commercial break. literally.

Specnatz
11-27-2007, 11:12 AM
No. Comcast sued for the right to put NFLN on a sports tier. The court agreed. NFLN is appealing that and is trying to rip the NFLN off of Comcast again unless it is part of the basic package with Comcast absorbing the cost and/or passing it to all of their customers.

So, if you are a Comcast customer currently receiving NFLN because you are paying for it, note that you might get that taken away.

The cable companies have not banned NFLN. They want it.

NFLN is choosing not to make itself available unless it is on their terms. They chose to not let their product be shown.

This is not about giving the NFL to the masses. NFLN is ripping games away from a broader market--you know GB-Cowboys would have been a huge free game.

MLB tried to get an exclusive deal with DirecTV but Congress wouldn't let that happen because of Red Sox fans who don't have DTV.

NFL does have an exclusive deal with DTV, so they don't care if they hurt cable companies or consumers who can't use satellite.

The NFL wants to create scarcity for their product so they can get more money. They do not care about consumers who can't get DirecTV for whatever reasons.

The NFL is the bad guys. They are taking a product that used to be free and making it more exclusive and charging for it. They will continue to do more and more of that until someone stops them.

I have done a lot of digging on this recently this was in another thread and I moved it to here.

This is from 2006 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116347066760722270.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks

"The NFL is asking a very stiff price when you consider the network is currently unrated," says Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad, whose company boasts 13.5 million subscribers in 33 states. He adds that the network would jump to the fourth-priciest Time Warner carries, despite airing its marquee programming only six weeks a year. Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN is the most expensive cable network, charging operators in the neighborhood of $3 a subscriber each month.

With Time Warner, Cablevision and other companies that the network has yet to strike a deal with, the league hasn't only insisted on its high price, but also pushed to keep it part of its standard cable package, which doesn't charge subscribers premium fees to get the network. The NFL is in a legal battle with the nation's largest cable company, Comcast Corp., over the channel being in a special tier of sports channels. Cox Communications Inc. will continue showing the games on a special tier for digital-cable subscribers, but neither company will comment on how they worked out such an arrangement."


2007 - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118756679294202415.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

As football season approaches, the cable industry is gang-tackling a fledgling network created by the powerful National Football League.

Time Warner Cable Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. are refusing to carry the NFL Network, launched in 2003, on the league's terms. Charter Communications Inc., whose controlling shareholder owns the Seattle Seahawks, stopped carrying the network in late 2005 because of a contract dispute. Comcast Corp., the country's largest cable operator, yanked the NFL Network out of millions of homes after a bitter battle. The NFL tried to stop Comcast by suing, but lost. The case is now on appeal.


Oct 2007 - http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/other/10/23/1023cable.html


"It is too expensive. It doesn't make sense for our business," said Ron McMillan, Time Warner's Texas vice president for government affairs, who added that increases in programming fees are the main factors behind rising cable subscriber rates.

The NFL Network says it is asking cable operators to pay "about 2 cents a day per subscriber" for its programming, which amounts to just more than $7 a year. The cable companies counter that they would rather put the NFL Network in a special programming tier aimed primarily at sports fans.

On Monday, the cable operator made what it described as a new offer in its two-year negotiations with NFL Network. The network could charge customers whatever it wants to cable customers who want to watch the games, and the cable company would simply pass the charge on to its customers.

NFL Network dismissed the offer out of hand.

"That is a proposal?" asked network spokesman Seth Palansky. "It's a desperate gimmick."


http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o195/Specnatz/PriceyTicket.gif

This shows what it would cost the cable company per month per customer, no matter if they want the channle or not. I think it would cost over $1.60 per month in my house. Just counting degital box receivers, and not the regular cable hook ups.

The NFL is doing what Microsoft was accussed of doing and was found guilty of. They are trying to extort money from the cable companies and using fans passions against fair business practices. Now I would pay a few bucks for NFL Network but of course I think Cable companies would in-turn try and gouge the customers, so it is a double edged sword at this point.


During the game last night JJ kept showing his commercial and so did TWC (Time Warner Cable). Granted I was flipping around very boring game and was doing other things at the sametime the game was on so I am not sure how much the saturation was.

Anyway the Website for TWC had some info on it but I cannot cut and paste certain parts of it to here because it is in a picture format in a pdf. I assume they did this so people could not change or edit it as easily and I am not going to.

To put the interests of fans first, we have submitted a new proposal, which is in addition to our prior proposals to carry the NFL Network on a sports tier or premium basis and which still stand. In particular, Time Warner Cable would be willing to make the NFL Network games available to our customers on a pergame basis, at a retail price set by the NFL, with 100% of the revenue collected for this programming going to the NFL. While carriage with no mark-up to us is far from ideal from our point of view, we are willing to take this step to make sure no interested fan is unable to watch these games on our systems

What I think this means is that the games will be pay-per-veiw since we do not have NFLN, great can I get a reach around with this screw job.

The NFL Network appeals to only a small segment of our customers on a yearround basis and it is highly priced. We still believe that the most appropriate place for the NFL Network is on a sports tier, like Comcast presently makes it available. Carriage in this manner permits customers who want to watch the NFL Network to do so, but those who do not won’t be forced to bear the costs associated with the NFL Network.

Now here is where TWC is trying to screw the customers, they already have a sports package that cost notmally $2.50 a month but because of having Phone, Cable and RoadRunner it cost me $1.95 a month. From My understanding this is not the package that NFLN will be put on, there will be an even more costly charge. Now in the bloded area it mentions about subscribers not having to pay for the NFL Network if you are not watching it, I am curious does that mean I will get a discount now for all the spanish channels and those damn shopping networks I do not freakin cant? This is where TWC wants it both ways, they want to give the customers the NFLN but they want the customers to pay for and make a profit off the customers and the NFL wants to make a profit off the Cable comapanies without them making any money because they are in bed with Direct TV. So neithone gives a damn about how the individual customer feels.

Now try and find a phone number that is not answered by a call center to get info is almost virtually impossible.

Specnatz
11-27-2007, 11:20 AM
The government shouldnít be involved in deciding whether, and the terms on which, private companies do business with one another.

I forgot this and the links, so first this quote. Can someone please tell Microsoft that the Government should not be involved in how they do business because i do not think they have gotten the memo as of yet.



Everything I have used is here. and the other sources I quoted.
http://nflbadcall.com/

Double Barrel
11-27-2007, 02:41 PM
most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....:pirate:

That's funny, because NFLN is probably on my TV approximately 90%+ of the time. :D

NFLN is choosing not to make itself available unless it is on their terms.

Capitalism 101. Create a demand and then maximize profits. That is why they are in business.

I could turn the table and say the cable companies want something for nothing. I switched from a crappy cable company - Charter (who still does not offer HD) - and went with DirecTV. The price IS THE SAME, yet now I get HD, NFLN, and a host of other channels that were upper tier packages with cable. I don't feel sorry for cable companies when they refuse to upgrade their equipment and provide a garbage signal to begin with. So to me, it's all about your chosen perspective.

BigWig
11-27-2007, 02:55 PM
I blame the NFL. Why not let it be part of a $4 sports package?

Yes, Comcast has it. It is part of a $4 sports package. TW refuses to carry it unless it is for free.

Its free from Direct TV, why pay?

TexanSam
11-27-2007, 02:56 PM
I blame the NFL for trying to overcharge to watch their product on TV. It's ridiculous. I think I read somewhere that CNN charges about .25 cents per household for it to be shown on the basic cable channel. The NFL Network wants to charge about .90. I'm not sure if the numbers are correct, but the disparity is huge. I hope Time Warner keeps their ground

BigWig
11-27-2007, 02:58 PM
nfl r greedy bastids........:woot2:

most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....:pirate:

Why?
I watch it a lot, except when they rerun stuff, but man its got all the game stuff, hype, commentary, and you name it, its the friggin NFL Network, what else do you want?

kastofsna
11-27-2007, 03:01 PM
the NFL Network is best in the offseason with all the free agency and draft talk.

Specnatz
11-27-2007, 03:10 PM
Its free from Direct TV, why pay?

Yes it is free because of the deal that was worked out before hand and this is the reason why the NFL does not want cable companies to charge customers anything, so that the cable companies lose money. I wonder how much the NFL is charging Direct TV versus what they want to charge the cable companies.

Yankee_In_TX
11-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Its free from Direct TV, why pay?

I'd rather pay $4 than not have it at all (TW before Comcast took over in Houston).

4Texans
11-27-2007, 03:24 PM
I blame Time Warner, for everything... My dealings with them a long time ago were not good regardless of any issue between them and the NFL now. I've been a DirecTV guy for 10 years, and have no reason to ever put cable in my house.

Also, anyone who thinks "satellites go out every time it rains" must have their's hooked up wrong... Yes mine has gone out for 30-45 minutes if there's a REALLY REALLY BAD THUNDER STORM.... but I'll take that anyday over losing cable TV for days at a time.

Khari
11-27-2007, 03:46 PM
That's funny, because NFLN is probably on my TV approximately 90%+ of the time. :D


Not mine, Discovery and TLC are probably on it 90% of the time :doot:

nunusguy
11-27-2007, 03:48 PM
the NFL Network is best in the offseason with all the free agency and draft talk.

And don't forget the Indy combine.

Porky
11-27-2007, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure what you anti-nfln people are complaining about, but personally I love it. It's not on 90% of the time, but I probably have it on 10-20% of the time which still is up there with my favorite cable channels and the major networks. I probably watch it even more in the offseason, when I am jonesing for some NFL coverage.

It's going to get even better Friday when DirecTV comes out and upgrades me from standard def to HD with DVR on my new 56" big screen. :heart:

4Texans
11-27-2007, 04:18 PM
It's going to get even better Friday when DirecTV comes out and upgrades me from standard def to HD with DVR on my new 56" big screen. :heart:

You lucky Pig!!!!!!!:shades:

Double Barrel
11-27-2007, 04:56 PM
I blame the NFL for trying to overcharge to watch their product on TV. It's ridiculous. I think I read somewhere that CNN charges about .25 cents per household for it to be shown on the basic cable channel. The NFL Network wants to charge about .90. I'm not sure if the numbers are correct, but the disparity is huge. I hope Time Warner keeps their ground

*ahem* NFLN > CNN :cowboy1:

I doubt anyone would really care if they lost CNN (I wouldn't), and I seriously doubt that anyone would go from cable to DirecTV just to get CNN (like I did just to get NFLN).

Not mine, Discovery and TLC are probably on it 90% of the time :doot:

Discovery and History Channel are my other 10%. They run a lot of reruns, as well.

Texan_Bill
11-27-2007, 05:12 PM
Funny... I've had DirecTv for a couple of years now and I am just finding out that there are actually more channels than NFLN, FoxSports Houston, ESPN, EPSN2, ESPN classic, ESPNU, and Vs. :howdy:


Oh, and channels 700 to 716 on Sundays.

Porky
11-27-2007, 05:20 PM
Funny... I've had DirecTv for a couple of years now and I am just finding out that there are actually more channels than NFLN, FoxSports Houston, ESPN, EPSN2, ESPN classic, ESPNU, and Vs. :howdy:


Oh, and channels 700 to 716 on Sundays.

I'm a channel 360 man myself.:cowboy1:

Texan_Bill
11-27-2007, 05:21 PM
I'm a channel 360 man myself.:cowboy1:

Shhhhh... I avoided mentioning that channel due to the poltical police...

gwallaia
11-27-2007, 05:26 PM
The NFL is very clever. Take away games from viewers that used to always be free and blame the cable companies for not letting us see them.

Tedc
11-27-2007, 06:12 PM
Time Warner is the Anti-Christ!

hollywood_texan
11-28-2007, 04:50 PM
The issue is technology development and both sides are negotiating for something that is going to change rapidly in the near future.

Very soon, your Internet connection will be used for your TV viewing. When that happens, you will be paying for the pipeline to the cable company but that payment will probably have nothing to do with the content you watch.

Then there will be no need for a middleman on delivery of content in the near future for probably all content. Which is one of the reason's why you have this writer's strike.

There is too much overlap right now and this is an ugly situation brought about from 10 - 20 years of negotiations with the Networks and cable providers.

If you guys want to blame the NFL for this, I think it is misplaced and the situation is much more complicated.

Besides, if you really want to watch a game or listen to it on the radio, you can do it no problem. I don't see any reason why someone should get upset or ask a politician to get involved because they don't get some football delivered into their living room TV. There are so many other opportunities to viewers, besides their TV in some room in their house.

This country has much bigger issues to address...

Double Barrel
11-28-2007, 04:57 PM
The NFL is very clever. Take away games from viewers that used to always be free and blame the cable companies for not letting us see them.

Actually, that's not entirely true. We still get our Sunday afternoon and night games, along with MNF. With the exception of ESPN, these games are available via broadcast.

Saturday and Thursday night games are a recent development, so those were never 'free' to begin with. And these games are still broadcast in the respective cities, so the NFLN feed is just for the rest of the country.

One thing cool I forgot to mention about NFLN is the NFL Replay. Getting a chance to watch the five best games of the week in condensed form is cool. I've seen quite a few Texans games on NFL Replay this year, too.

Texan_Bill
11-28-2007, 05:21 PM
One thing cool I forgot to mention about NFLN is the NFL Replay. Getting a chance to watch the five best games of the week in condensed form is cool. I've seen quite a few Texans games on NFL Replay this year, too.

Except this past monday v. the browns. During the actual game, someone mentioned that the announcers were pretty bad, but during the Monday nights 'Replay', I 'did' noticed. They were horrible. Thats on CBS not the NFLN obviously.

But I agree, its pretty cool. We get the best games without all the commercial breaks and BS... Good stuff! Good stuff!!!

Joe Texan
11-29-2007, 02:22 PM
Time warner is the real crook, trying to pawn off Comcast as a good company, Ha.

BigWig
11-29-2007, 02:37 PM
The ad TW has is incorrect, they state we pay, I dont its free, and who cares if they force it to an old lady who doesnt need it what about EWTN, I really dont watch that but my wife loves the channel.
Besides TW also states NFLN is taking games away, when in fact they added the games. They had 8 on last year also and no one complained.
Its just TW and the cryboys fans, maybe some cheeseheads too but in our area not too many of them.

Second Honeymoon
11-29-2007, 03:15 PM
Time Warner and Comcast are for noobs. Both are money hungry conglomerates that hold their customers and the channel providers at ransom.

Once Comcast took over, I knew I was done as a cable customer. If you want truly great selection, good pricing, and loads of hidden features, go to:

AT&T UVERSE.....i get 300 channels...45 HD Channels...NFLN in both digital and HD...On Demand free stuff....quality XXX...just about every movie channel in existence for free for a year...Fiber Optic High Speed Internet with up to 10MB dedicated...and home phone...

all for around $140 with all the HBO channels or $125 without HBO

that is awesome. I get top notch TV, phone, and elite high speed internet all for under $130

oh and the gateway/router is a built in WIFI router and 8 port LAN hub which means less cables and less problems. The WIFI works great.

oh and that is with up to 4 receivers at no charge..one of them HD DVR (up to 4 channels recording at once capability or 2 HD channels recording at once)...

...oh and did I mention free installation

the only drawback is that you have to have Fiber installed and enabled in your neighborhood. If you live in the country its doubtful its available...but if you live in a neighborhood or in a residential area in the City of HOuston you should be good to go. Most of the neighborhoods will have fiber by the end of 2008 if they dont already.

Just imagine telephone, internet and television all through your existing phone lines....no more coaxial cables or dishes strapped to your home and not being able to pick up a signal through storms or trees. If you have a phone outlet in a room, you already are wired for TV, phone, and internet in that room with no extra wires....and they will install jacks in your room if need be. I think if you need more than 1 new jack installed there is a fee though...existing jacks incur no cost.

I will be watching the Packers v. Cowboys in HD tonight for no charge at all....now if they could only stop the Sunday Ticket DirectTV monopoly I would be set.

axman40
11-29-2007, 05:01 PM
:fortune:
Super Bowl only $25.95!
:gun:

Texans_Chick
11-29-2007, 05:52 PM
The NFL is very clever. Take away games from viewers that used to always be free and blame the cable companies for not letting us see them.

Actually, that's not entirely true. We still get our Sunday afternoon and night games, along with MNF. With the exception of ESPN, these games are available via broadcast.

Saturday and Thursday night games are a recent development, so those were never 'free' to begin with. And these games are still broadcast in the respective cities, so the NFLN feed is just for the rest of the country.

One thing cool I forgot to mention about NFLN is the NFL Replay. Getting a chance to watch the five best games of the week in condensed form is cool. I've seen quite a few Texans games on NFL Replay this year, too.

Nah, this is a game that would have been a freebie. Texans-Broncos is one that most people wouldn't have seen back before Thursday games.

Packers-Cowboys, pre-NFLN would have certainly been a Sunday night or MNF game because of their respective national fanbases.

The freaking NFL better be careful for what they wish for asking people to call their congressmen. Because they might get an outcome that they don't want.

For example, a large part of the country are not able to get DirecTV or Sunday ticket. For various reasons, DTV isn't a good solution for me. On many military bases, individuals can't use DTV as well. In many parts of the country, it isn't available and is the reason why John Kerry on the Red Sox nation's behalf got involved with the exclusive deal that DTV was trying to do with MLB (as a lot of people who had the service would have been without it).

If the NFL is crying about letting people see NFLN on its terms, then they might have to be forced to disolved the exclusivity relationship with DirecTV. DTV wouldn't pay the same deal for a non-exclusive relationship, I'm guessing.

As for the content of NFLN:

I wish it had more of the NFL films.
I wish it had more game/play analysis--that is my favorite part.
I wish it had less Deion Sanders doing game recaps because I oft want to punch him in the face.
I wish it had didn't have to repeat the same three commercials over and over again.
I wish it had more interviews with players and coaches.

It's a channel I watch a lot of, but it is also a channel that often looks like it is amateur hour produced.

The NFL doesn't care about access to its product by cable. I am a cable subscriber who has it because Comcast sued for the right for me to buy it on a sports tier. And the NFL is appealing that, trying to take it away. They want people who have no interest in this channel to have to pay for it. That might make my price go down in the end, but why should I expect others to subsidize my raging football habit?

Specnatz
11-29-2007, 06:11 PM
Nah, this is a game that would have been a freebie. Texans-Broncos is one that most people wouldn't have seen back before Thursday games.

Packers-Cowboys, pre-NFLN would have certainly been a Sunday night or MNF game because of their respective national fanbases.

The freaking NFL better be careful for what they wish for asking people to call their congressmen. Because they might get an outcome that they don't want.

For example, a large part of the country are not able to get DirecTV or Sunday ticket. For various reasons, DTV isn't a good solution for me. On many military bases, individuals can't use DTV as well. In many parts of the country, it isn't available and is the reason why John Kerry on the Red Sox nation's behalf got involved with the exclusive deal that DTV was trying to do with MLB (as a lot of people who had the service would have been without it).

If the NFL is crying about letting people see NFLN on its terms, then they might have to be forced to disolved the exclusivity relationship with DirecTV. DTV wouldn't pay the same deal for a non-exclusive relationship, I'm guessing.

As for the content of NFLN:

I wish it had more of the NFL films.
I wish it had more game/play analysis--that is my favorite part.
I wish it had less Deion Sanders doing game recaps because I oft want to punch him in the face.
I wish it had didn't have to repeat the same three commercials over and over again.
I wish it had more interviews with players and coaches.

It's a channel I watch a lot of, but it is also a channel that often looks like it is amateur hour produced.

The NFL doesn't care about access to its product by cable. I am a cable subscriber who has it because Comcast sued for the right for me to buy it on a sports tier. And the NFL is appealing that, trying to take it away. They want people who have no interest in this channel to have to pay for it. That might make my price go down in the end, but why should I expect others to subsidize my raging football habit?


Well said. rep later yadda yadda yadda.

Grid
11-29-2007, 06:31 PM
NFLN is charging the network the same thing that channels like HBO and Showtime charge.. but demanding that it be made available as part of the basic package, not a sport package or premium package.

What this means is that Time Warner ends up paying out the wazoo and is basically forced to provide a premium channel to all of thier subscribers (which increases the amount of money they have to pay the NFL as well).

So yah.. the NFLN has alot of hefty demands..so it is their fault. They are much more interested in obtaining obscene amounts of cash than providing thier channel to as many fans as possible.

Double Barrel
11-30-2007, 10:17 AM
Nah, this is a game that would have been a freebie. Texans-Broncos is one that most people wouldn't have seen back before Thursday games.

Packers-Cowboys, pre-NFLN would have certainly been a Sunday night or MNF game because of their respective national fanbases.

That's a bit of speculation on your part, TC. There are games from week-to-week that are good matchups but we don't get to see because of NFL deals with Fox and CBS. The NFL just picked a game from the schedule to put in their Thursday slot, and it just happened to be a good matchup of two 10-1 teams *cough*Patriots/Colts*cough*.

The freaking NFL better be careful for what they wish for asking people to call their congressmen. Because they might get an outcome that they don't want.

For example, a large part of the country are not able to get DirecTV or Sunday ticket. For various reasons, DTV isn't a good solution for me. On many military bases, individuals can't use DTV as well. In many parts of the country, it isn't available and is the reason why John Kerry on the Red Sox nation's behalf got involved with the exclusive deal that DTV was trying to do with MLB (as a lot of people who had the service would have been without it).


I'm not sure what part of the country cannot get satellite signals: :um:

http://satellitetv.digitalinsurrection.com/directv/images/directveirp.gif

Understandable that military bases would have limits, but they probably have limits on many forms of communication due to security reasons. But I'm sure the NFL could work out a deal to give our military a signal, especially if it avoids Congressional involvement.

And actually, it's not exclusive to DirecTV (the Ticket is, but c'mon, you pay out the nose for that service), but you can get NFLN through Dish Satellite and quite a few cable companies, as well.

As for the content of NFLN:

I wish it had more of the NFL films.
I wish it had more game/play analysis--that is my favorite part.
I wish it had less Deion Sanders doing game recaps because I oft want to punch him in the face.
I wish it had didn't have to repeat the same three commercials over and over again.
I wish it had more interviews with players and coaches.


I don't disagree with you, but you'll see a lot more of NFL Films during the off-season. I think it's the majority of NFLN's programming during that time of year.

As far as coverage...it could be better, but it beats ESPiN, Fox, and NBCBS by a long shot, IMHO.

The NFL should just let cable companies put the Network on a sports tier package, like Fox Southwest does at the end of the day. I think both sides are being a bit greedy, which is really nothing new to professional sports.

hollywood_texan
11-30-2007, 11:57 AM
To me this is non-issue for the following reasons:

1. There are many other opportunities to catch NFL football games outside of someone's TV in their house (meaning, it's not like they are cornering the market here and seems some people are a bit lazy or stuck in their ways in finding other options).

2. There are a lot of games that people don't have access to on Sunday. So just because it's played on prime time, you should have access?

3. There are so many other things to fix in society besides this. The last thing I want to hear is some blow-hard politician getting ridiculous free points to stay in office over an issue that is really meaningless to the country as a whole. The US isn't going to self-destruct on this issue.

4. The NFL owns the product and they can do whatever they want to do with it, period, end of story.

This issue is a lot more complicated than just the NFL being an evil money hungry organization. The cable companies are no different. The issue is technology, in the near future cable providers probably will not be the middle-man for content, and why should they anyway? Which is why the NFL is playing hard ball on this, the cable companies leverage is fading fast and this is solid proof.

So, some people feel they are stuck in the middle and I understand that feeling because I feel the same way on different issues. However, I say, get over it and find a solution to watch the game in other manner. It's out there if you look and try something different.

IMO, just because you don't get the game on a TV in your house is not reason to get all upset.

Yankee_In_TX
11-30-2007, 12:04 PM
Part of the problem (I don't have the numbers in front of me) - NFL demands a high PER SUBSCRIBER cost from the cable networks to have the right to carry NFLN. High relative to other channels.

To offset this fee demanded by the NFL, cable companies want to implement NFLN as a pay channel.

Texans_Chick
11-30-2007, 12:08 PM
That's a bit of speculation on your part, TC. There are games from week-to-week that are good matchups but we don't get to see because of NFL deals with Fox and CBS. The NFL just picked a game from the schedule to put in their Thursday slot, and it just happened to be a good matchup of two 10-1 teams *cough*Patriots/Colts*cough*.



I'm not sure what part of the country cannot get satellite signals: :um:

http://satellitetv.digitalinsurrection.com/directv/images/directveirp.gif

Understandable that military bases would have limits, but they probably have limits on many forms of communication due to security reasons. But I'm sure the NFL could work out a deal to give our military a signal, especially if it avoids Congressional involvement.

And actually, it's not exclusive to DirecTV (the Ticket is, but c'mon, you pay out the nose for that service), but you can get NFLN through Dish Satellite and quite a few cable companies, as well.



I don't disagree with you, but you'll see a lot more of NFL Films during the off-season. I think it's the majority of NFLN's programming during that time of year.

As far as coverage...it could be better, but it beats ESPiN, Fox, and NBCBS by a long shot, IMHO.

The NFL should just let cable companies put the Network on a sports tier package, like Fox Southwest does at the end of the day. I think both sides are being a bit greedy, which is really nothing new to professional sports.


Lots of people can't get satellite because of excessive large trees or where they live in cities. Or they can get it, but have to spend extra money on additional equipment to make the system work right.

Many apartments won't allow you to have them.

When I had it, I liked how fast it was to flip channels, but I did not like the service interruptions when it rained and I didn't like the dish sitting on my house. At my current house, we have a lot of trees, so DTV is not a good option (even if I were inclined to deal with that company--I think they are corporate lawsuit abusers but that is a different story). All those people can't get Sunday Ticket, but can get the MLB package because Congress threw a fit and wouldn't let MLB get an exclusive deal.

There are some people who claim that the quality of signal for HD is not as good with satellite as it is with cable. I do not know.

The cable company's latest proposal is to pass through the cost of the service with no mark up. The NFL says no. The NFL is trying to play victim in this, but they are the ones who are removing games that used to be free and putting them on a channel and restricting access to that channel.

The NFL might as well be saying, "Call your cable companies, we want to make more money than they are letting us make." Such crap.

Double Barrel
11-30-2007, 02:26 PM
This issue is a lot more complicated than just the NFL being an evil money hungry organization. The cable companies are no different. The issue is technology, in the near future cable providers probably will not be the middle-man for content, and why should they anyway? Which is why the NFL is playing hard ball on this, the cable companies leverage is fading fast and this is solid proof.

This made me think of an interesting aspect that has been overlooked: the cost to produce an NFL game.

Networks lose money in doing NFL games, but they make it up in the shows they advertise to draw the audience. Those shows make ad revenue which counters the loss of covering NFL games.

The NFL Network does not have that luxury, since they do not have any sitcoms or tv drama shows to make up the difference. So when they produce a game, it has to be made up from some place. I would not expect the NFL to lose money on it's network just because it's making so much money as a league. Every facet has to be revenue generating, so operating costs might have as much with this issue as anything else. Food for thought.

Lots of people can't get satellite because of excessive large trees or where they live in cities. Or they can get it, but have to spend extra money on additional equipment to make the system work right.

Many apartments won't allow you to have them.

When I had it, I liked how fast it was to flip channels, but I did not like the service interruptions when it rained and I didn't like the dish sitting on my house. At my current house, we have a lot of trees, so DTV is not a good option (even if I were inclined to deal with that company--I think they are corporate lawsuit abusers but that is a different story). All those people can't get Sunday Ticket, but can get the MLB package because Congress threw a fit and wouldn't let MLB get an exclusive deal.

I honestly don't think this is a high number of people. I've got loads of pine trees in my back yard, but I still get a signal. Apartments are a bit different, but many of them are updating their policies to allow dishes as these services become more mainstream.

Many folks cannot afford cable, while other areas have no cable service, so is Congress going to get involved with those that can no longer watch Monday Night Football because it's on ESPiN? That primetime game used to be free via broadcast.

As far as storms are concerned, I lost cable signals all the time because of weather. While it could take upwards of 24 hours to restore service, satellite comes back within an hour, usually right after the storm calms down. The signal is always there, and it's just a matter of the dish getting it.

I can understand aesthetics, but it doesn't bother me anymore than those whirly things or people's giant tv antennas. Just part of modern society, IMO.

There are some people who claim that the quality of signal for HD is not as good with satellite as it is with cable. I do not know.

My old cable company did not offer HD, and advised me that they had no plans to upgrade. So that's pretty obvious to me.

I've got a buddy (Captain in the TDC) that had Warner/Comcast before going DirecTV, and he says he can't tell the difference. This is a tech guy who is big on this stuff, so take it for what it's worth.

HoustonFrog
11-30-2007, 02:29 PM
I have had Direct TV for 3 years and I think the HD is awesome. We just upgraded TVs and the system this year. I love it.

Noblesse Oblige
11-30-2007, 02:44 PM
No. Comcast sued for the right to put NFLN on a sports tier. The court agreed. NFLN is appealing that and is trying to rip the NFLN off of Comcast again unless it is part of the basic package with Comcast absorbing the cost and/or passing it to all of their customers.

So, if you are a Comcast customer currently receiving NFLN because you are paying for it, note that you might get that taken away.

The cable companies have not banned NFLN. They want it.

NFLN is choosing not to make itself available unless it is on their terms. They chose to not let their product be shown.

This is not about giving the NFL to the masses. NFLN is ripping games away from a broader market--you know GB-Cowboys would have been a huge free game.

MLB tried to get an exclusive deal with DirecTV but Congress wouldn't let that happen because of Red Sox fans who don't have DTV.

NFL does have an exclusive deal with DTV, so they don't care if they hurt cable companies or consumers who can't use satellite.

The NFL wants to create scarcity for their product so they can get more money. They do not care about consumers who can't get DirecTV for whatever reasons.

The NFL is the bad guys. They are taking a product that used to be free and making it more exclusive and charging for it. They will continue to do more and more of that until someone stops them.

Amen

Noblesse Oblige
11-30-2007, 02:46 PM
Agreed, other than the few games they are carrying I have been real disappointed in the NFL Network. It's not what I thought it would be. I thought it would be a lot of cool NFL Films stuff, etc however they just show the same old recaps and previews every day. It's like watching the late night news on Monday and then that channel showing Monday's news everynight the rest of the week.

Agree, NFL films shows on Great Games would be awesome. I really don't get why they don't show more of this

hollywood_texan
11-30-2007, 06:10 PM
This made me think of an interesting aspect that has been overlooked: the cost to produce an NFL game.

Networks lose money in doing NFL games, but they make it up in the shows they advertise to draw the audience. Those shows make ad revenue which counters the loss of covering NFL games.

The NFL Network does not have that luxury, since they do not have any sitcoms or tv drama shows to make up the difference. So when they produce a game, it has to be made up from some place. I would not expect the NFL to lose money on it's network just because it's making so much money as a league. Every facet has to be revenue generating, so operating costs might have as much with this issue as anything else. Food for thought.


I work in the TV syndication business as an accountant. I am by know means an expert. But, I can say that in our company, our shows are paid on ratings provided by Nielsen.

Which brings me to this Thursday Night game situation. Maybe the NFL Network is not building their business model off of Nielsen ratings, at least as it is related to these Thursday Night games? The adds I saw last night, just seemed strange for a prime time NFL game.

Like I said, technology is changing rapidly and it seems strange that it appears the NFL Network is not concerned about ratings. If they were concerned about ratings and they made money off the ratings, they would be concerned about getting this channel in every household. But, they are not.

I have to deal with Nielsen on a regular basis. You want to talk about a monopoly that should be busted up, there is one. I am just speculating here, but if this NFL Network thing means they don't pay one dime to Nielsen for research fees, I am all for it no matter the impact to society. Nielsen is an extremely difficult company to deal with from my end and should be driven into the ground, including a few of their employees that I deal with on a regular basis for good measure. Just difficult people that are mind numb robots.

The old days of free TV are probably coming to an end. It's hard to make money just off of advertising on a produced show. Trust me, I see it!

TV is going to pay per view and probably will be just over the Internet (which means the satellite and cable companies are not providers of content, but merely providing a service similar to a phone or some other utility company).

hollywood_texan
11-30-2007, 06:34 PM
Kind of long article about this NFL network issue.

This paragraph sums it up (this guy is basically writing himself a letter 20 year into the past so he will have the proper reflection to this issue):


...H. In 2006, the NFL launched its own network and decided to keep eight Thursday night games for itself, even though most cable systems weren't carrying the NFL Network at the time. A bitter war ensued that was never resolved, leading to the week after Thanksgiving 2007, when the 10-1 Cowboys were hosting the 10-1 Packers -- the first game between two 10-1 teams since 1990 -- and half of America couldn't watch the game from the comfort of home.

Did the "older you" complain about this particular slight? Actually, no. You happened to be working in New York City that day; once you discovered that your hotel room didn't offer the NFL Network, you got off your ass, met up with some friends and watched the game in a crowded sports bar that was screaming on every big play. Ironically, it turned out to be a more entertaining night than just sitting at home (or in this case, a hotel room) and watching the NFL Network. Is it a bad thing to get off your ass every once in awhile? Probably not. Everyone's incessant whining about "missing" NFL Network games made you realize that too much time was spent complaining about stupid stuff and far too little time appreciating everything that's happened for sports fans over the past 25 years. If traveling 5-10 minutes to a sports bar or a neighbor's house to watch the Packers-Cowboys game is our biggest dilemma of the sports week, then we must be in pretty good shape in 2007, right?


Here is entire article,
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/0711130&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1

Yankee_In_TX
11-30-2007, 06:54 PM
Like putting Ohio State on the Big Ten Network. I don't care if you do it, I don't care if you charge for it, but for God's sake, when the majority of Ohio redisdents can't watch the game from home, that's just lame.

My point? NFL, Big Ten Network, figure your sh*t out and get the network available one way or the other.

(thank you Comcast for buying TW Houston so I can buy NFLN)

gary
11-30-2007, 07:14 PM
I blame who ever started the NFLN channel because if they didn't there wouldn't be any of this to worry about. So there you have it.

Yankee_In_TX
11-30-2007, 07:22 PM
I blame who ever started the NFLN channel because if they didn't there wouldn't be any of this to worry about. So there you have it.

That would be the NFL :):specnatz:

gary
11-30-2007, 07:26 PM
Then it's them.

Specnatz
11-30-2007, 07:28 PM
Kind of long article about this NFL network issue.

This paragraph sums it up (this guy is basically writing himself a letter 20 year into the past so he will have the proper reflection to this issue):



Here is entire article,
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/0711130&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1

So basically the NFLN and the Cable companies lost money so sports bars could get rich and the patrons could drive home drunk. Yep that makes a lot of sense.

gary
11-30-2007, 07:40 PM
At the start Comcast made it sound like they were just going to add it on and not charge extra money for it.

GuerillaBlack
11-30-2007, 07:53 PM
This made me think of an interesting aspect that has been overlooked: the cost to produce an NFL game.

Networks lose money in doing NFL games, but they make it up in the shows they advertise to draw the audience. Those shows make ad revenue which counters the loss of covering NFL games.

The NFL Network does not have that luxury, since they do not have any sitcoms or tv drama shows to make up the difference. So when they produce a game, it has to be made up from some place. I would not expect the NFL to lose money on it's network just because it's making so much money as a league. Every facet has to be revenue generating, so operating costs might have as much with this issue as anything else. Food for thought.



I honestly don't think this is a high number of people. I've got loads of pine trees in my back yard, but I still get a signal. Apartments are a bit different, but many of them are updating their policies to allow dishes as these services become more mainstream.

Many folks cannot afford cable, while other areas have no cable service, so is Congress going to get involved with those that can no longer watch Monday Night Football because it's on ESPiN? That primetime game used to be free via broadcast.

As far as storms are concerned, I lost cable signals all the time because of weather. While it could take upwards of 24 hours to restore service, satellite comes back within an hour, usually right after the storm calms down. The signal is always there, and it's just a matter of the dish getting it.

I can understand aesthetics, but it doesn't bother me anymore than those whirly things or people's giant tv antennas. Just part of modern society, IMO.



My old cable company did not offer HD, and advised me that they had no plans to upgrade. So that's pretty obvious to me.

I've got a buddy (Captain in the TDC) that had Warner/Comcast before going DirecTV, and he says he can't tell the difference. This is a tech guy who is big on this stuff, so take it for what it's worth.

You didn't lose cable service because of weather. Someone probably hit the main cable pole thing (forgot what my mom calls it) in your area.

GP
11-30-2007, 08:16 PM
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes:

It's the consumer's fault.

1. DirecTV offers Sunday Ticket and NFLN.

2. You want to see the Texans, you want NFLN.

3. Switch to DirecTV.

Perhaps one of the easiest things to do. Ever.

But I guess Americans love to gripe and whine, and so it must be.

BTW...if you have housing restrictions/codes or obstructions that don't allow dishes on the house, then disregard this message.

Yankee_In_TX
11-30-2007, 08:26 PM
Remember when someone on here's apartment complex went around and cut/removed/swiped every dish in the complex? Yeah.

Also, the weather thing is a big deal for me. Went to a buddy's house ofr a UT watch party this year, but about a whole quarter was missed because of a storm.

gary
11-30-2007, 08:29 PM
That's just it. What if you don't have that kind of housing. Then your only hope is Comcast.

SA Texan
11-30-2007, 08:30 PM
I have DirecTV and the NFL Network is part of the basic packages. There is no reason TWC couldn't do the same thing without raising their prices, which they claim they would need to do.
I don't think the NFL is totally blameless in this because they are just as greedy as TWC, but if it works for DirecTV and Dish, then why can't it work for Time Warner.

gary
11-30-2007, 08:32 PM
Very well put.

Specnatz
11-30-2007, 09:06 PM
I have DirecTV and the NFL Network is part of the basic packages. There is no reason TWC couldn't do the same thing without raising their prices, which they claim they would need to do.
I don't think the NFL is totally blameless in this because they are just as greedy as TWC, but if it works for DirecTV and Dish, then why can't it work for Time Warner.

Actually you are extremely wrong. NFL made a deal with Direct TV so the cost is minimal for Direct TV to carry the channel. There is no deal in place with cable or the dish network so the cost for them to carry the channle is higher. So they want people to switch to Direct TV so they make more money, but if a cable company wants the channel they have to pay NFLN a sum of money but they can not put it on a sports package so the cable company does not make any money only loses money or they can raise their rates and charge everyone to cover the cost and upset customers who do not even watch NFL so they leave and a percentage of them would goto Direct TV so now cable loses more money and Direct TV makes more money. So the NFL makes its money and Direct TV makes its money and cable loses. Sounds like the only people winning here is NFL and Direct TV and mean while the fans and the customers get screwed without even the courtesy of a reach around.

As far as me switching to Direct TV or Dish as GP would say and blames me because I do not. WOW thanks for saying I am the problem because the cost for me to have two rooms with digital cable and DVR and the small sports package I do have (so I get ESPNU, CSTV SPEED and few other crappy channles) and 3 rooms with basic cable, plus home phone and RR is $150 a month. If I switch to Direct TV and do not bundle my cost I would end up paying roughly $185 for what I get now. So I am the problem because I want to save money and not spend more to get one freakin channel.

My fault? Ya know this is the same crap Microsoft said and everyone was pissed about exclusionary deals as well. If what Microsoft did was illegal so is the deal between Direct TV and NFL and they should be taken to task just like Microsoft did.

TheIronDuke
11-30-2007, 11:26 PM
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes:

It's the consumer's fault.

1. DirecTV offers Sunday Ticket and NFLN.

2. You want to see the Texans, you want NFLN.

3. Switch to DirecTV.

Perhaps one of the easiest things to do. Ever.

But I guess Americans love to gripe and whine, and so it must be.

BTW...if you have housing restrictions/codes or obstructions that don't allow dishes on the house, then disregard this message.

Is DirecTV better with bad weather than Dish Network? I had Dish for years and every time there was a storm the TV went out. It's retarded to have to schedule your TV viewing around if a bad weather front was coming. After 5 years with the dish I got tired of it and moved to cable.

If I can have my far more reliable cable and pay $5 to see one Texans game and cancel, I'm good with that. I doubt the Texans will be a mainstay on NFLN.

kastofsna
12-01-2007, 01:44 AM
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but here goes:

It's the consumer's fault.

1. DirecTV offers Sunday Ticket and NFLN.

2. You want to see the Texans, you want NFLN.

3. Switch to DirecTV.

Perhaps one of the easiest things to do. Ever.

But I guess Americans love to gripe and whine, and so it must be.

BTW...if you have housing restrictions/codes or obstructions that don't allow dishes on the house, then disregard this message.
that's unbelievably idiotic. DirecTV sucks.

Joe Texan
12-01-2007, 05:50 AM
I will take anybody other than Bryant Gumby as the commentater

Even Jaws knows the players names, especially the star players

ActualTexan
12-01-2007, 09:50 AM
The NFL is very clever. Take away games from viewers that used to always be free and blame the cable companies for not letting us see them.

The cable companies have gotten really fat over not paying for their stuff. In the late 60's Congress forced the nets to give their signals to the cable companies for free in order to help the cable companies have something to build a market around. Then the cable companies stabbed everyone in the back by selling advertising against the nets and jacking their rates to the consumers at the same time. That edict remainded in effect for almost 30 years, and when the nets tried to change it, the cable companies said the exact same thing then that they are now saying about the NFL.

I say let them fry. I dig HD satellite.

GP
12-01-2007, 04:08 PM
that's unbelievably idiotic. DirecTV sucks.

Okey dokey.

All I ever said was this: If you want the service, get the carrier.

My parents have Dish AND DirecTV in their house on separate TVs. I absolutely hate to watch the TV that has Dish on it....HATE it. I think the on-screen interface is lousy and cumbersome, the controller is a jumbled mess, and I don;t think they offer Sunday Ticket yet, or do they?

Thanks for coming right out and calling me names, though. I wish someone would have told me a long time ago. All these years and I've been a moron...

GP
12-01-2007, 04:11 PM
The storm has to be a pretty bad one, where I live, for it to affect me.

I lose service about 3 times a year, and it seems to stay on during most of the storm anyways.

If you get THAT upset over losing a signal for what amounts to be a short amount of time, then perhaps you depend on watching TV too much.

I just can't stand the thought of paying a landline cable company. They jack with your rates ALL the time. I mean, ALL the time. Might be different for you in your area, but the cable company in my town is an absolute tyrant.

gary
12-01-2007, 04:48 PM
Any chance that they will add the NFLN?

steelbtexan
12-01-2007, 06:11 PM
I have direct tv. Their customer service stinks. I also do'nt like the fact when the hurricane hit Miami last year & they changed the K.C.-MIA. game to Thursday I couldn't get the game. Direct TV is very heavy handed, but they are the only game in town if you want the best N.F.L. coverage. The N.F.L. Direct T.V. partnership has helped Direct T.V. compete with cable. The partnership also helped the N.F.L. over take M.L.B. as the no.1 sport in america.

Yankee_In_TX
12-01-2007, 06:12 PM
Any chance that they will add the NFLN?

Who is "they?"

gary
12-01-2007, 06:46 PM
Who is "they?"
Comcast.

axman40
12-02-2007, 09:56 AM
"When the Cowboys games aren't on TV in Austin, I figure Jerry Jones has an obligation to provide Cowboys fans free shuttle service to sports bars.
If you're going to make it so folks have to go to a saloon to find the game on the tube, you should give them a ride so they can make it home in one piece. "
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/02//1202kelso.html

:cool:

BigWig
12-03-2007, 07:51 AM
"When the Cowboys games aren't on TV in Austin, I figure Jerry Jones has an obligation to provide Cowboys fans free shuttle service to sports bars.
If you're going to make it so folks have to go to a saloon to find the game on the tube, you should give them a ride so they can make it home in one piece. "
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/02//1202kelso.html

:cool:

That would have helped with all the DWI's girls fans got after the last game.

shinerbock_girl
12-03-2007, 08:55 AM
Well i did it:splits: I called Direct TV and getting it installed next Tuesday...Not only being upset TWC still didn't carry the NFLN, i was tired of their high prices...My cable bill went up $12 for no reason, and when you question it, they act like we should be appreciative and honored to have them...They said cable prices are going up for everyone...2 of my friends got an increase as well. I mean i could understand if they upgraded their service or added more HD channels, but for no reason, come on. I am also getting DSL and a AT&T Phone line..So even after the years discounts i'll be getting from Direct TV, i'll be saving $65/mo on my total costs of TV, DSL and phone, compared to TWC, RR, and Digital phone.and thats for 275 channels, all preminum channels, as opposed to only ONE preminum channel with TWC...After the year, i'll probably downgrade to the next level since i really don't need all those preminum channels, i very seldom watch the one i have. Thanks Darrell for your imput on your service with Direct TV.

Yankee_In_TX
12-03-2007, 09:31 AM
Comcast.

Comcast has NFLN and NFLN HD. 113 and 300 in Houston.

Porky
12-03-2007, 10:10 AM
I just upgraded to DirecTV HD on Friday and love it. The channels that broadcast in native HD are just stunning on my new TV. Even the upconverted similcast channels are excellent. I have been a customer of thiers close to ten years, and lose a total of 1-2 hours a yr due to bad weather. If that's a problem for you, don't get it. The picture, etc are all perfect imho.

Now, the cust svc? That's a different story. The people in Nazi concentration camps probably got treated better than DirecTV treats it's customers. At times, they can be downright hostile, and their policies are extremely rigid. As long as you don't have a problem you're fine. If you do, expect to be treated like dirt.

axman40
12-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Plus, take this dose of hard hitting fact from David Cohen, executive VP of Comcast.
"While the NFL claims that it wants its games to be seen by the widest possible audiences, it's actually their rules that limit which games fans can watch. It's the NFL that designates which cities can have over-the-air broadcasts of specific games. It is also the NFL that decided to take these eight games off of free broadcast television and to try to enrich themselves at the expense of their fans by creating a multi-billion dollar asset called the NFL Network."
Amen.
Suddenly the NFL is worried about my wallet. Oh, thatís rich.
http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2007/11/index.html#a000603
:cowboy1:

SA Texan
12-04-2007, 08:50 AM
Now, the cust svc? That's a different story. The people in Nazi concentration camps probably got treated better than DirecTV treats it's customers. At times, they can be downright hostile, and their policies are extremely rigid. As long as you don't have a problem you're fine. If you do, expect to be treated like dirt.

Time Warner's customer service sucks as well, at least in San Antonio. DirecTV doesn't have the market cornered on bad customer services; they are both about equal from my experiences. I'm not making excuses because bad customer service in inexcusable, I'm just saying they are both very bad in that area.

shinerbock_girl
12-04-2007, 06:48 PM
Time Warner's customer service sucks as well, at least in San Antonio. DirecTV doesn't have the market cornered on bad customer services; they are both about equal from my experiences. I'm not making excuses because bad customer service in inexcusable, I'm just saying they are both very bad in that area.

And i agree 100%...When i was going back and forth with a twc customer rep online and told him i was not happy with the recent increase in my bill, His response, "Well i would be happy to assist you with the disconnect of your TWC service if you like" I told him, no thank you, i can figure out how to dial the phone and have it disconnected myself, and thats just what i did.....

Double Barrel
12-05-2007, 10:37 AM
Plus, take this dose of hard hitting fact from David Cohen, executive VP of Comcast.
"While the NFL claims that it wants its games to be seen by the widest possible audiences, it's actually their rules that limit which games fans can watch. It's the NFL that designates which cities can have over-the-air broadcasts of specific games. It is also the NFL that decided to take these eight games off of free broadcast television and to try to enrich themselves at the expense of their fans by creating a multi-billion dollar asset called the NFL Network."
Amen.
Suddenly the NFL is worried about my wallet. Oh, thatís rich.
http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2007/11/index.html#a000603
:cowboy1:

That's kind of lame on his part. The TNF games are broadcast on regular tv in the cities of the teams that are playing. And unless someone has the NFL Ticket, chances are many of these games would not be seen because of conflicting television schedules and broadcast rules.

What was the NFL supposed to showcase on Thursday Night Football if not it's own product?! idonno:

I don't hear him whining about poor folks who can't afford cable and miss out on Monday Night Football on ESPiN!

False Start
12-05-2007, 10:53 AM
I just upgraded to DirecTV HD on Friday and love it. The channels that broadcast in native HD are just stunning on my new TV. Even the upconverted similcast channels are excellent. I have been a customer of thiers close to ten years, and lose a total of 1-2 hours a yr due to bad weather. If that's a problem for you, don't get it. The picture, etc are all perfect imho.

Now, the cust svc? That's a different story. The people in Nazi concentration camps probably got treated better than DirecTV treats it's customers. At times, they can be downright hostile, and their policies are extremely rigid. As long as you don't have a problem you're fine. If you do, expect to be treated like dirt.

I upgraded recently too . Its the coolest thing I've ever seen . They have a TON of HD channels , and they keep adding more . Soon , they will have a HD alternate for every channel .

I have never really had any serious problems with reception . Even during Allison , I had reception . I stayed in town for Katrina and we lost reception for maybe 6 hours . When the "storm" rolled through , I was back to having TV . In the 6 years I've had the service I've had maybe 12 hours of no reception , thats including the outage during Katrina . They have really worked to correct the problems with losing reception during bad weather . My brother recently and grudgingly switched from Comcast to DirecTV , and he said he wishes he would have done it a long time ago . He can finally see the full effects of his 60" 1080 .

powerfuldragon
12-05-2007, 10:57 AM
i'm pissed because comcast has HD theater by discovery, and History Channel HD, but no Discovery HD...

False Start
12-05-2007, 11:25 AM
http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380112

Thats the HD line-up for Directv . I just found out there are some new ones . :cool: :jam:

kastofsna
12-05-2007, 01:38 PM
it's great living in Florida and having DirecTV. there are times when the signal is lost for 2 weeks out of a month.

Double Barrel
12-05-2007, 02:55 PM
it's great living in Florida and having DirecTV. there are times when the signal is lost for 2 weeks out of a month.

I find that hard to believe considering the signal is coming from space. :rolleyes: but if you say so...

Texan_Bill
12-05-2007, 02:57 PM
That is pretty funny considering I don't think I've lost DirecTv for more than two hours.

kastofsna
12-05-2007, 02:58 PM
I find that hard to believe considering the signal is coming from space. :rolleyes: but if you say so...
it rains a lot here. and i don't mean it'll be out for 2 weeks straight, it just goes in an out for an accumulative time of 2 weeks. it's rare, but still.

Double Barrel
12-05-2007, 03:05 PM
it rains a lot here. and i don't mean it'll be out for 2 weeks straight, it just goes in an out for an accumulative time of 2 weeks. it's rare, but still.

That sucks. Definitely the Achillesí Heel of satellite television.

Porky
12-05-2007, 03:49 PM
http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4380112

Thats the HD line-up for Directv . I just found out there are some new ones . :cool: :jam:

Yup. That's the list I just got recently. The Food network broadcasts in native HD and looks great. Several others do as well. Most right now still upconvert their regular signal. It still looks good, but it's not as stunning as the native HD broadcasts. They are nearing 100 total channels in HD. That beats the pants off of any other service right now. Dish has some catching up to do (and I am sure they will over time)

powerfuldragon
12-05-2007, 05:23 PM
That sucks. Definitely the Achillesí Heel of satellite television.

think they could broadcast tv over fiber optics?

Errant Hothy
12-19-2007, 06:23 PM
Interesting development, to say the least:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5391680.html

NFL Network flap may jeopardize league's antitrust exemption
Senators threaten to take away protection if games aren't available to wider audience
Associated Press

WAHINGTON — Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the NFL on Wednesday threatening to reconsider the league's antitrust exemption if it doesn't make games on the NFL Network available to more viewers.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., expressed concern that many fans in their home states will not be able to see games on the channel involving the New England Patriots or the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Leahy is the committee's chairman, and Specter is its ranking member.

This might just prompt something to get done, the NFL would have to seriously change if it lost it's antitrust exemption.

axman40
12-19-2007, 06:47 PM
Interesting development, to say the least:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5391680.html



This might just prompt something to get done, the NFL would have to seriously change if it lost it's antitrust exemption.
Gee Jerry ,do you still want us to contact our Congress Critters?
:cowboy1:

Kaiser Toro
12-19-2007, 06:51 PM
Screw Time Warner and any government official that gets involved on this. Let the private sector and the best value proposition win out.

Koolaid Time
12-19-2007, 06:59 PM
NFL does have an exclusive deal with DTV, so they don't care if they hurt cable companies or consumers who can't use satellite.

Who can't get DTV? Who can't use satellite??

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, DBS systems are legal everywhere... condos, apartments, etc.

The FCC has recently came down hard on apartment complexes, condo associations, etc. that tried to regulate residents subscribing to DTV.

Yes, DTV is part of Fox (News Corp.), but politics aside they are a pretty decent company.

The bogus mass litigation over "flashed" system cards stopped once Fox bought them.

Specnatz
12-19-2007, 07:32 PM
Screw Time Warner and any government official that gets involved on this. Let the private sector and the best value proposition win out.

Like I have stated before it is very similar to how the Govt got involved with Microsoft. It is about fair business practices and exclusionary deals that hurt other companies.


Who can't get DTV? Who can't use satellite??

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, DBS systems are legal everywhere... condos, apartments, etc.

The FCC has recently came down hard on apartment complexes, condo associations, etc. that tried to regulate residents subscribing to DTV.

Yes, DTV is part of Fox (News Corp.), but politics aside they are a pretty decent company.

The bogus mass litigation over "flashed" system cards stopped once Fox bought them.

That is well and good but just as the same a person living a very rural area may not have an option of cable a person living in a condo may not be able to have a dish because of the surroundings and where their place is. the condos are for more privilant in the North to Northeast part of the US.

It is an exclusionary deal and after all the Microsoft rullings it is pretty much that those are not going to be allowd if they are challenged correctly.

Double Barrel
12-20-2007, 10:33 AM
Congress is a bunch of unaccountable, irresponsible career political a-holes. Anyone that takes this issue to those doofuses has my scorn. This is an issue that can be resolved by the free market.

Cable companies are monopolies in each area that they serve!!!!! We HAVE NO CHOICE of cable companies. You use the ONE that is in your area or you are screwed!! How they can sit here and whine about this issue is beyond me, especially when they charge premium prices but fail to upgrade equipment. Charter does not offer HD, does not offer DVR services, and advised me that they have no plans to do so. How is it competitive in my area when we only have ONE CHOICE?!

Hopefully NFLN will let the games be broadcast, but the cable companies that do not want to pay their price get none of their other programming. I doubt I ever go back to cable and their crappy customer service with antiquated equipment. [/rant]

Specnatz
12-20-2007, 10:39 AM
Congress is a bunch of unaccountable, irresponsible career political a-holes. Anyone that takes this issue to those doofuses has my scorn. This is an issue that can be resolved by the free market.

Cable companies are monopolies in each area that they serve!!!!! We HAVE NO CHOICE of cable companies. You use the ONE that is in your area or you are screwed!! How they can sit here and whine about this issue is beyond me, especially when they charge premium prices but fail to upgrade equipment. Charter does not offer HD, does not offer DVR services, and advised me that they have no plans to do so. How is it competitive in my area when we only have ONE CHOICE?!

Hopefully NFLN will let the games be broadcast, but the cable companies that do not want to pay their price get none of their other programming. I doubt I ever go back to cable and their crappy customer service with antiquated equipment. [/rant]


See I do not agree with that either I want a completely free to chose market. If I want to go with TWC Comcast, Charter or BillyJoe-JimBobs I should be able to do so.

when it comes to cable/dish it is just one F'd up thing after another.

gary
12-21-2007, 10:44 AM
Just do away with the NFLN period the end.