Major TV problem looming immediately for the NFL

[Chaos81]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmood88

Well then I don't know what's special with Kansas but I've had Time Warner in Columbus, Raleigh, and Wisconsin and we've never gotten nbatv.

Couldn't tell you.

Maybe they figure we get sick of seeing Dorthy, Toto and Tornado's, so they threw the channel in?

[jmood88]

Lol maybe

[HitDoctor]

All of our A$$es are over a barrell!!! You just have to choose your poison. I want to watch the phillies and flyers and the only way to do that is to have premium comcast. To get all of the NFL, DirecTV. Back in 2000, I just got DTV to watch NFL on one tv in my house. One year later, after realizing that I could get the DTV premium chanels for half the price of comcast, the choice was easy. So, no phils or flyers but great HD and NFL and sports instead!

Sucks but thats the way it is.

[fsquid]

No one is "wrong" in this. It's a business negotiation. The cable companies want the channel in their "digital sports" tier and the NFL wants in on the digital cable or maybe even basic cable tier. The NFL wants their side so they can charge the advertisers more. The cable company wants their way so they can recoup some of the cost through the extra fees.

[rudyjuly2]

People need to realize that each channel charges a different amount to cable companies. The cable/satellite companies have to pay each TV channel so much money for every subscriber and that's typically in the 50 to 60 cent range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_c...ubscriber_Fees). ESPN is the most expensive channel at $2.90 per subscriber.

The NFL Channel used to charge 20 cents per subscriber and cable companies were complaining that was fairly high for a brand new channel with little viewers. As soon as the NFL Network added games, they upped their charge to $1 per subscriber. As soon as you add 80 cents to a channel, that charge has to be passed onto the basic consumer or the cable company will take a hit on its profits. If satellite TV adds it to the basic package, you have to realize the basic cost was increased to cover this.

The big beef with the NFL Network and networks like the Big 10 Network is that the cable companies want to put them on a higher sports tier and only pay a fee for those that subscribe to that tier. That lets them keep the costs down for the basic subscriber and only charge extra for those that want those specialty channels. But of course that means less money for the NFL-N and they won't let them do this. What I find laughable is that the NFL creates this network, takes games aways from the free networks and is trying to sue the major cable companies to force them to pay them whatever they want for their channel to make money. The NFL created this solely to make a ton of money through the use of charging cable companies and now its crying no fair when they don't want to pay (and have even sued over it). Millions of dollars are at stake over this. It was reported the increase would cost Time Warner cable in LA over $100 million annually (http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/lo...1/daily46.html).

[zappa55]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

Couldn't tell you. Maybe they figure we get sick of seeing Dorthy, Toto and Tornado's, so they threw the channel in?

I never used to get NBATV either but this made me check and I do get it now. I did not make any changes either. I do have the digital package.

[skydog71]

The NFL should have waited a few years and built some strong ratings before price gouging the cable companies.

[snepp]

I just realized that next week's matchup of 10-1 teams (Dallas/Green Bay) is on the NFL Network and won't be seen by, oh, a few million people. Way to stick it to those cable companies NFL. This is the perfect way to market your product, bravo!

[/rant]