Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
NFL Network Vs Time Warner
- Thread starter axman40
- Start date
I blame Time Warner. They suck and NFLN rules!! 
Brando
Hall of Fame
I blame Time Warner. They suck and NFLN rules!!
Ditto. The only thing Time Warner is good for is Road Runner High Speed.
TheIronDuke
All Pro
I have Comcast, am I going to be able to add NFLN? I thought Comcast and NFLN worked out a deal.
Yankee_In_TX
Dance Lindsay!
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.
Yes, Comcast has it. It is part of a $4 sports package. TW refuses to carry it unless it is for free.
TheIronDuke
All Pro
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
Utopian Dreamer
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
All Pro
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.
nfl r greedy bastids........
most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....
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
Ayo
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.
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
Got JJ?
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.
Specnatz
Hall of Fame
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."
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.
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.
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
Hall of Fame
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/
most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....
That's funny, because NFLN is probably on my TV approximately 90%+ of the time.
Texans Chick said:
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
Bigimus Wigimus
Its free from Direct TV, why pay?
TexanSam
Hall of Fame
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
Bigimus Wigimus
nfl r greedy bastids........
most ppl won't watch this channel besides the nfl games it has on it every season......i never watch it any other time....
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?
Specnatz
Hall of Fame
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
Dance Lindsay!
I'd rather pay $4 than not have it at all (TW before Comcast took over in Houston).
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.
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
Administrator
That's funny, because NFLN is probably on my TV approximately 90%+ of the time.
Not mine, Discovery and TLC are probably on it 90% of the time
And don't forget the Indy combine.
Porky
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
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.
You lucky Pig!!!!!!!
*ahem* NFLN > CNN
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
Discovery and History Channel are my other 10%. They run a lot of reruns, as well.
Texan_Bill
Hall of Fame
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. 
Oh, and channels 700 to 716 on Sundays.
Oh, and channels 700 to 716 on Sundays.
Porky
Hall of Fame
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.
Oh, and channels 700 to 716 on Sundays.
I'm a channel 360 man myself.
Texan_Bill
Hall of Fame
I'm a channel 360 man myself.
Shhhhh... I avoided mentioning that channel due to the poltical police...
hollywood_texan
All Pro
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...
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...
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
Hall of Fame
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!!!
BigWig
Bigimus Wigimus
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.
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
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
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
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
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:
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.
hollywood_texan
All Pro
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.
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
Dance Lindsay!
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.
To offset this fee demanded by the NFL, cable companies want to implement NFLN as a pay channel.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
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:
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.
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.
Texans Chick said:
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.
Texans Chick said:
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
Dallas Frog
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
Waterboy
Amen