Cugalabanza Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I blame us, the viewers. If we all did our part and went out and bought more lite beer, huge pick-up trucks and male enhancement pills, then the damn thing would pay for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I blame us, the viewers. If we all did our part and went out and bought more lite beer, huge pick-up trucks and male enhancement pills, then the damn thing would pay for itself. some of us need no enhancement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 some of us need no enhancement That's what they all say. But consider this: when a girl says to you, "what an unbelievable prick!" she might not be talking about what's in your pants. I'm just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 That's what they all say. But consider this: when a girl says to you, "what an unbelievable prick!" she might not be talking about what's in your pants. I'm just sayin'... But, we could still be 'just friends' couldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 But, we could still be 'just friends' couldn't we? Sure, maybe you could hang out and listen to the new Gnarls Barkley cd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Exactly. My complaint with the cable company, and why I side with the NFL, is that they're trying to force the NFL to put the network on a sports tier. If the NFL doesn't want their product on the sports tier, then they shouldn't be forced to, but NYS did just that. http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6441200.html Then the NFL should lower its price demands to get on a lower tier. By putting the network on a sports tier ensures that people who want NFL Net will get it by paying for it. Not a difficult concept. The NFL over reached and now wants politicians to bail them out. You know what? I think that paying $60 for an NFL game is too much. I think every resident of Erie County should chip in $.10/game, so I can pay less for that ticket. What's the big deal, it's only a dime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Then the NFL should lower its price demands to get on a lower tier. By putting the network on a sports tier ensures that people who want NFL Net will get it by paying for it. Not a difficult concept. The NFL over reached and now wants politicians to bail them out. You know what? I think that paying $60 for an NFL game is too much. I think every resident of Erie County should chip in $.10/game, so I can pay less for that ticket. What's the big deal, it's only a dime? In essence, isn't that already happening now (with all the incentives teams get from the local communities)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 Then the NFL should lower its price demands to get on a lower tier. By putting the network on a sports tier ensures that people who want NFL Net will get it by paying for it. Not a difficult concept. The NFL over reached and now wants politicians to bail them out. You know what? I think that paying $60 for an NFL game is too much. I think every resident of Erie County should chip in $.10/game, so I can pay less for that ticket. What's the big deal, it's only a dime? In essence, isn't that already happening now (with all the incentives teams get from the local communities)? I was gonna put a after his post but after reading your response I realized it's not funny, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Then the NFL should lower its price demands to get on a lower tier. By putting the network on a sports tier ensures that people who want NFL Net will get it by paying for it. Not a difficult concept. The NFL over reached and now wants politicians to bail them out. You know what? I think that paying $60 for an NFL game is too much. I think every resident of Erie County should chip in $.10/game, so I can pay less for that ticket. What's the big deal, it's only a dime? The NFL wants politicians to bail them out, yet Comcast is the one who went to court to force the NFL to sell their product on a tier they didn't want it on? I don't see the big deal. NFL says "If you want our product, here's what you need to give us." If cable companies don't want it, great. But to FORCE the NFL to sell their product on terms they don't want seems wrong. Comcast doesn't like it, don't put it on ANY tier. What's wrong with that? Your argument doesn't hold water because if everyone chipped in $0.10, you'd still have to pay for the game, as proven when Adelphia raised their rates, then TW ditched NFL and kept the rates the same So your example, everyone would chip in 10 cents and you'd still have to pay $60 for a ticket CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The NFL wants politicians to bail them out, yet Comcast is the one who went to court to force the NFL to sell their product on a tier they didn't want it on? I don't see the big deal. NFL says "If you want our product, here's what you need to give us." If cable companies don't want it, great. But to FORCE the NFL to sell their product on terms they don't want seems wrong. Comcast doesn't like it, don't put it on ANY tier. What's wrong with that? Get your facts straight. NFL sued Comcast because Comcast dropped NFL Net from the digital tier. They already had an agreement in place. It's a contract squabble. One round has been decided and it's going back to court to determine whose interpretation of the contract is correct. There's no court case with Cablevision, because Cablevision said no to digital tier from the outset. Your argument doesn't hold water because if everyone chipped in $0.10, you'd still have to pay for the game, as proven when Adelphia raised their rates, then TW ditched NFL and kept the rates the same So your example, everyone would chip in 10 cents and you'd still have to pay $60 for a ticket CW Except in the meantime, TWC added a bunch of other features & channels to the service that Adelphia didn't offer. It's like you still paying $60 for the Bills ticket, but then get Sabres & Bisons games for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Except in the meantime, TWC added a bunch of other features & channels to the service that Adelphia didn't offer. It's like you still paying $60 for the Bills ticket, but then get Sabres & Bisons games for free. Isn't it more like you paid $60 for the Bills ticket, were given Sabres and Bison tickets for "free," and then they revoked the Bills ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 Get your facts straight. NFL sued Comcast because Comcast dropped NFL Net from the digital tier. They already had an agreement in place. It's a contract squabble. One round has been decided and it's going back to court to determine whose interpretation of the contract is correct. There's no court case with Cablevision, because Cablevision said no to digital tier from the outset. Except in the meantime, TWC added a bunch of other features & channels to the service that Adelphia didn't offer. It's like you still paying $60 for the Bills ticket, but then get Sabres & Bisons games for free. NY Post article Time Warner Cable, which is piped into 1.4 million homes in the metro area, and Cablevision, with 3.1 million subscribers, do not carry the NFL Network at all, claiming there isn't wide enough appeal for the channel. "Cablevision and Time Warner are abusing their monopoly power," says Seth Palansky, a spokesman for the NFL. "They treat independent networks, like the NFL Network, differently than their own despite the FCC guidelines. People need to contact their government officials and have them stop Time Warner and [Chuck and Jim] Dolan." The NFL wants the providers to carry it on basic service - thus assuring wider distribution. TWC plans to include the NFL Network as part of its $1.95-a- month sport tier package - if it picks it up. Cablevision hasn't said where it will place the NFL Network should it decide to offer it. _____________________________________________________________ The NFL Network, in hopes of getting the cable companies to carry the channel, are dangling sweeteners like having the channel pick up the cost of providing high-definition broadcasts and providing up to 18 units of free advertising spots, Polansky said. "You have two private companies here, there's no need to get the government involved," said Maureen Huff a TWC spokeswomen. "We're doing our best to hold costs in line for our customers." "There are only seven out-of-town games all season on the NFL Network, and the NFL is trying to force cable customers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the channel all year round," said Cablevision spokesman Jim Maiella. Does that really mean they weren't offering the cable companies any local advertising spots before? I can't think of a cable channel off the top of my head that doesn't have local advertising on it. Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, they are commercials after all, but I can't think of one. If that's true then I understand the cable companies side even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Isn't it more like you paid $60 for the Bills ticket, were given Sabres and Bison tickets for "free," and then they revoked the Bills ticket? Then to take the analogy further, they gave me back the $60 to decide whether I want to spend it on a Bills game or the other games, since subscribers are free to switch to DirecTV if they can't get their fix of NFL from cable. It's amazing the lengths you go to to slam the cable companies. We get it. You hate them. Don't give them any of your money. They can live with that. But stop manufacturing half truths to validate your opinion. If the NFL really wanted most fans to see its games, it would offer the channel for free to every distributor - cable, satellite & telco. They don't. So please stop whining that one side is more greedy than the other. It's a commercial disagreement, and as a consumer you have alternate choices to watch a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Except in the meantime, TWC added a bunch of other features & channels to the service that Adelphia didn't offer. It's like you still paying $60 for the Bills ticket, but then get Sabres & Bisons games for free. You got to refresh my memory and tell me what TW gave me. All I see is nonsense channels that no one would ever in their right mind pay for. ie: more shopping, religious, and community channels Verizon just got approval with Hamburg to start putting in FIOS TV later this year. Hurry up to West Seneca because I'll be the first customer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 If the NFL really wanted most fans to see its games, it would offer the channel for free to every distributor - cable, satellite & telco. They don't. That's hilarious. I bet Coke wants most people to drink their soda. Doesn't mean they give it out for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 That's hilarious. I bet Coke wants most people to drink their soda. Doesn't mean they give it out for free. Wow you got me. Coke also doesn't dictate to the retailers that they must sell the bottles at a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 You got to refresh my memory and tell me what TW gave me. All I see is nonsense channels that no one would ever in their right mind pay for. ie: more shopping, religious, and community channels Verizon just got approval with Hamburg to start putting in FIOS TV later this year. Hurry up to West Seneca because I'll be the first customer And if you speak to someone else, they'd be miffed why their cable bill went up by $5 to get some random football channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 And if you speak to someone else, they'd be miffed why their cable bill went up by $5 to get some random football channel. I thought it was only $0.70/person? If the cable bill goes up $5/person, then they're really ripping people off more than I thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Wow you got me. Coke also doesn't dictate to the retailers that they must sell the bottles at a loss. Neither did the NFL. They sold the channel to Comcast for 70 cents/customer under the impression based on the contract that it was on the "everyone gets it" tier. Comcast signed the deal and then tried putting it on the sports tier. Why? Probably so that the people who wanted it would pay $5/month (or however much the sports tier costs) for it, while they're only paying an extra $0.70/person for the product. Good deal for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I thought it was only $0.70/person? If the cable bill goes up $5/person, then they're really ripping people off more than I thought! It was $.70 when the NFL just showed preseason & looped total access 24/7. When they got the games, the price went up substantially. That's when Comcast bumped them up to the sports tier. Neither did the NFL. They sold the channel to Comcast for 70 cents/customer under the impression based on the contract that it was on the "everyone gets it" tier. Comcast signed the deal and then tried putting it on the sports tier. Why? Probably so that the people who wanted it would pay $5/month (or however much the sports tier costs) for it, while they're only paying an extra $0.70/person for the product. Good deal for them. No, the contract was for the digital tier, not the basic "everybody gets it" tier. But don't let that get in the way. As above, the were moved up after they tried to jack up the rates while still staying on the digital tier. Cable's position is very simple, they'll carry the network on a sports tier meaning that only fans interested in that programming will pay for it. The offer is on the table at most cable companies. The NFL won't take the offer because without the subsidy from the cable subscribers who never watch NFL (a bigger number than do watch) they make a lot less money. But, hey let's make it out to be the cable companies' fault on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts