Games on the NFL Network
 

So tomorrow is the debut of games on the NFL network. I think this is a terrible idea, especially since the NFL network is not widely available. Especially since there are some good games coming up, Den at KC and Bal at Cincy. Guess I'll go back to listening to games on the radio. The only good part is I won't have to see Cris Collinsworth.

:mad:

blame the cable companies for not making a deal with the NFL folks. The NFL folks are certainly hoping you do..

isn't the NFL Network pretty widely available now? I know direct tv and dish network have it, and I'm pretty sure most cable companies do to.

I have the NFL network, but my in laws don't even have cable! :(

Now that my daughter is sick, I guess I'll just have to stay home. :)

I just read in an article that its viewable in 41 million homes, seems pretty widely available to me.

Score, Cox cable just added the HDTV version of NFL Network to our plan yesterday ;)

Oceanic/Time Warner doesn't get it. :(

I realize that the NFL probably has enough popularity that people whose TV providers don't provide will hear it from the fans. Actually a pretty smart power play by the NFL. I just wish they would have aired games in the early season and left important, late season match-ups available to all fans.

That's only about half of ESPN's reach. I had NFL Network in New Orleans, and I have NFL Network here, but I can imagine that there are many areas that don't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15840378/

Snippet:



From my perspective, it's two giants battling it out over $ (neither of which is going poor, IMHO) and the consumer loses out.

Just to pipe in on the original post, Baltimore doesn't play Cincinnati tomorrow, they both play Sunday. Against different teams.

I know that, they meet Nov 30 on the NFL network. I was lamenting the decent games I'll miss. ;)

Dammit, are you serious?? No local coverage for a game that big (for the Bengals right now). Boo. Piss. Crap!

I believe that over-the-air stations in each team's area will broadcast the game, so if you're in the Cincinnati area, you don't need NFL Network (or even cable) to see the game, just as if it were on ESPN.

In Cincy you don't but Dayton will not carry the game as it's considered a secondary market.

Ok let's blame the cable companies. Because it's not like it's their fault they would have to pass the cost that the NFL Network was going to charge (per customer) to air the channel. And it's not like it's their fault that they were requiring the cable companies to include the channel on their basic tier of service.

I mean the cable companies should just eat the cost.

In all honesty Time Warner had a deal on the table that would have allowed those that wanted the NFL Network to get it, but the NFL didn't want to have the channel included on the sports tier, they insisted that it was included on basic cable. But it's all the cable companies fault, those bastards!


And yes I work for Time Warner Cable and have followed the issue closely.

Um.. Jeebies. Read my sentence again. I'm saying that while the NFL hopes you pressure the cable company to get the NFL network added, it takes two sides to make an agreement.

I'm sorry to hear this.

I have Comcast here in Atlanta and its part of 3rd tier of digital premium package - and the NFL Network is the only decent station on that package. I have the expanded digital (2nd tier) and its already about $15 more than the same package on DirectTv but it's no NFL network for me through Comcast.

Maybe if they would stop charging $2.50 a month for a remote control, $5 for a ten cent paper guide, $6.75 for each additional box that I have set-up, or $50 for a service guy to come out and plug a DVR into my wall when I can do it myself I would believe they are such a customer friendly industry. Maybe if they would quit lobbying the state legislatures to not allow competition, make agreements that don't allow certain pay movie channels on the dish networks, not charge $60 for internet access, etc... I could go on and on about the poor cable networks. However through all of this somehow Directv and Dish network are able to offer comparable rates to cable while having the NFL network as part of their programming package.


So I am sorry but your employer is full of shit. They are in a poker game with the NFL and played the wrong hand. It is business, I understand that and I don't even fault them for trying to get a better deal on the NFL network. But they are losing this one in the court of public opinion and have decided to have people like you pass on the "We are losing too much money!" bullshit angle. Good for you for standing up for your company! Shame on you for buying their line of complete and utter bullshit.

Too bad more companies don't get this.

Bwahahahahaha.

Limit that statement to the handful of live games they'll offer & it isn't quite as absurd. But on the whole {giggle} it's pretty funny.

On a different subject, their distribution. If the 41m figure is correct, here's some perspective (neither pro nor con, just for comparison)

ESPN = 90m
The Golf Channel = 60m
BBC America = 43m
FitTV = 36m

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure if we can be friends anymore.

;)

Yeah, if in the past you would have gotten an ESPN game on a local ABC/CBS/FOX affiliate, you shouldn't have anything to worry about as you will get your team's game over the air.

Here in LA we don't charge $2.50 for a remote (it's included with the cable box), $5 for a paper guide (get a newspaper), $6.75 for a cable box, they cost money to purchase and maintain (especially after customers that know nothing about cleanliness let cockroaches get in them). You can pick up a DVR at the cable store and plug it in yourself doesn't cost anything to do that, now if you need a new line ran that costs money, but I think that's the same for Direct TV. It's $34.95 for 1.5 Mbps x 384 kbps high speed service. Besides the hundreds of free service calls we do a day to fix customers issues with their lines (but I don't think Dish does that do they?)

Maybe you forgot that DirectTV and Dish have agreements with the NFL to carry the NFL Network since they have an exclusive contract agreement with the NFL to provide the NFL Game package?

I'm not saying the cable company is perfect, because it is far from that, but they aren't completely in the fault.

Timewarner must have major differences in their various localities. Here, that rate for the cable box is about right. But for the remote it is $0.30 and why the hell would you need a paper guide with digital cable?

Most impressive is that they installed a brand new line at our house for a whopping fee of $24.00.

So I think Timewarner's prices are quite reasonable. I wish they were a little more ahead of the game on channels (they always seem to be last to get any decent channels... currently it's ESPNU and NFL Network). But overall Timewarner's service & pricing is NOT something I'd complain about.

Even as a guy who has nothing but bad things to say about cable companies & their service to consumers, I would have to agree with you on this one.

It's a business decision, plain & simple. And the truth is that the cost of adding the network is a bad move for a lot of cable companies if they can't put it on the premium tier to more directly recover the cost.

What NFL Network knows is that if it goes on the premium tier then it's likely to stay there. And they can't build their subscriber base (which is pitched heavily to advertisers) fast enough that way, because not enough people are willing to pay specifically for it. It's their right to take a hardline negotiating stance, but there's nothing obligating the cable companies to bend over & take it either.

At the dollars quoted in the article (roughly $10 per person), TW would have to be really stupid to agree to the deal to pick up NFLN. And I can't really blame them for not doing something stupid.

If it's any consolation, I'd gladly give someone the network from my Dish if I could. It's just one more channel that I have to surf past getting to the ones that I actually watch.

Yeah I have seen them break up the cost of the box and remote seperate, I think they do that for inventory so if they didn't charge you the .30 they would probably just include that cost into the box.

I think the reason why we are slow on getting new channels is that they only normally make channel changes at the end of the year when they also do the annual price raise (because of the new costs of channels, be them new or existing).

That pretty much sums up one side of the argument. I side with TW, considering what the NFL wants to carry a pretty useless network for all but about 100 hours of the year.

SI

I threw this together while waiting for my baked beans to cook. I put comparable services of both DirectTV and Time Warner Cable and saw what the cost was, it's basically the same.

Direct TV
Startup Costs
2 DIRECTV® HD Receiver
$198.00
Instant Online Rebate -$99.00
1 Off-Air Antenna
$49.00
1 Handling and Delivery Fee
$0.00
1 Standard Professional Installation
$0.00
Total Startup Costs: $148.00
Your First Month's Bill
TOTAL CHOICE® PREMIER
$99.99
DIRECTV™ HD Package
$9.99
Lease Fee
$4.99
$22.99 credit for 12 Months -$22.99
First Month's Total: $91.98
1st year of service $1251.76
2nd year of service $1379.64



ALL THE BEST PACKAGE
Digital Cable Package
with Variety Tier
Installation 0.00
Digital Cable Package Charge:
39.95 (44.95 after 12 months)
Bonus Tier
Choice
(free for 6 months) included ($5.00 after 6 months)
Additional Tiers
Sports 5.00
HDTV 5.00
Premium Channels
HBO 15.00
Showtime Unlimited 12.00
Cinemax 10.00
STARZ! 8.00
Equipment
HDTV Receiver 7.50
HDTV Receiver (2nd TV) 7.50

Total: $108.95

1st year of service $1289.40
2nd year of service $1367.40

Something just doesn't seem right to me here. When we had a regular receiver from DirecTV we had to pay the lease fee. When we bought our HD-DVR we got rid of the lease fee, so I'm not sure that is an applicable cost. Also, there are various deals out there that will get the cost of DirecTV down further.

Then again, the Time Warner costs may be inflated as well with similar start-up deals as well.

As a not-so-proud customer of both Time Warner and DirecTV, I would say that DirecTV is far more reliable than Time Warner in both service and reliability.

What also pisses me off is that a guy I work with has the Dish Network and he gets the NFL Network in HD. DirecTV doesn't offer the NFL Network in HD so I'm stuck watching the game in crappy regular programming. I probably won't watch it anyhow since I'm rolling at 8:30 PM to Best Buy. Oh well.

Well those are the numbers the websites put together, so I dunno.

To clarify, we didn't buy our receiver from DirecTV; it just came with the installation. We bought our HD-DVR from DirecTV and the lease fee went away.

I was thinking the precisely same thing, and oddly enough about the exact same networks. We have Time Warner Cable and have all three of those channels on our standard tier. I think the Golf Channel debuted on the standard tier, but both BBC America and FitTV started on a digital tier and moved to the standard tier eventually.

On one hand, I don't blame the NFL for not wanting Time Warner to put the NFL Network on a sports tier and benefit from that. Right now, the subscription sports tier available on my TWC where the NFL Network would go is basically a couple of Fox Sports Nets, CSTV, the Tennis Channel and Fuel. The only reason to subscribe is if you're crazy about Pac-10 football or Alabama State basketball. The NFL Network would be the loss leader to sell this other crap. TWC wants the NFL Network to help it sell other networks, and I don't blame the NFL for not wanting to get thrown in with those dogs.

But the NFL wants it both ways -- they want to charge a premium price to cable and charge a premium price to advertisers based on subscribers. They seem to think its 1979 and cable networks are struggling to find networks to fill out their lineups and that millions of people are dying to see Scott Linehan's press conference every week. If the NFL dropped their price, I'm sure TWC would cave and put it on their standard tier. What the NFL basically wants is to charge HBO prices and get on a standard tier. That's completely unreasonable.

I also wonder how much the Sunday Ticket issue plays into this. There is no doubt that the cable networks are ticked that the NFL renewed the exclusive deal with Direct TV. I'm sure cable companies see no reason to pay $5-10 per subscriber for countless promos for buying a dish.

Very true, that probably has a good deal to do with it as well. We thought that once the last contract was up it was going to be open season for both Cable and Direct TV and then Direct TV basically overpaid to keep Sunday Ticket and is using it as a loss leader to get more customers. Oh well all part of the game of capitalism.

Considering the first two games were pure crap, looks like the best of the bunch is the nighttime 830 NFL network kickoff game.

Already got myself some KC -1 for those looking to pick up some 'stocking stuffers'

Hmmm, I have the NFL network, but there is a message scrolling across the screen that says my cable provider has decided to not show live primetime games. WTF? :mad:

Same here, nice semi pro film from 20 years ago!!! I called my provider an was told the NFL Network charged additional fees for the live games so they passed!!!!:mad:

weird. Dish Network is alive and kicking with the game here in Hawaii.

That sucks. I have Comcast and I have their basic-expanded (non on-demand), but I do have the additional HD package. I turned on my TV and I was surprised to see the game on one of my HD channels even though I don't have the premium package that contains the NFL Network.

Who is the play-by-play guy on this Broncos telecast? I'm a big fan of Collinsworth, but his partner is killing this telecast :(

Bryant Gumbel.

Didn't this clown spend a few years butchering NFL games on a different station in the 90's?

Bryant Gumbel is brutal. Have you seen him on realsports lately? He looks like he weighs about 120 lbs.

Gumbel actually goes way back with the NFL - that's where he got his first network experience, iirc, with NBC doing studio work in the early 80's (if not back into the late 70's).

[hrm, looks like he signed on to do that in '75, and lasted through '82: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_Gumbel#NBC_Sports ]

If the Broncos weren't playing, I wouldn't even be watching this. Bryant Gumbel is horrible. :(

Yeah, Bryant hasn't done play by play in 20 years and he sounds like it's been 40 years. He's not the only brutal part of the telecast. Fortnuately the HD signal is being transmitted on our Fox affiliate, but other than the fact that it is in HD, the production values have been horrible -- late in and out of breaks is par for the course. We've heard Gumbel talking to people off air a couple of times.

Both Gumbels are bad. I'd rather have Barney Gumble on there.

Since I can't see the game, I wonder.....is it Theisman bad? Sterling Sharpe bad? Give me a reference point.:D

Btw, want to chime in and agree with those that say in the PR battle, the cable companies are coming off better. People aren't blaming Time Warner or Comcast for not being able to see the game tonight, they are blaming the NFL, because they are putting it on their own network, which they want to charge major prices for and are using these games as leverage. Fully within their rights to do so, but people (at least those I've spoken to) seem to blame the NFL for doing so.