Is TW not carrying the game tonight?

[LabattBlue]

Funny, DirecTV has the game on....

Pouring gas on the fire again?

[Fezmid]

When i went there earlier it was just a bunch of guys talking - maybe it was before the game started...

Yeah, probably.

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/tnf/WOW.html?...TR_Live_DENvCLE

 

There's a couple of feeds and you can choose which to watch as well which is kinda neat.

[Fezmid]

Pouring gas on the fire again?

 

[JinVA]

TW has total control over carrying the NFL Network. Pay the NFL their price, and put it on a basic channel. See how easy?

Yep, my cable carrier had NFL since 2003.

[cåblelady]

Pouring gas on the fire again?

Chris and I really love each other. Really. Huh, Chris?

[Fezmid]

Chris and I really love each other. Really. Huh, Chris?

Of course! I tease because I care.

[stuckincincy]

The NFL can sit on their thumb and rotate.

 

 

That's a quotable keeper !

[WVUFootball29]

Chris and I really love each other. Really. Huh, Chris?

 

Hate to say it, but these guys are right...TW should be carrying NFL Network...there are plenty of customers who would still be with TW instead of other options of NFLN was carried. This is one department where TW dropped the ball by sticking to their guns.

 

I am very happy though that we have the NHL network...and we could just save some bandwidth by getting rid of the NBA TV channel and a few of the lifetimes.

[stuckincincy]

Hate to say it, but these guys are right...TW should be carrying NFL Network...there are plenty of customers who would still be with TW instead of other options of NFLN was carried. This is one department where TW dropped the ball by sticking to their guns.

 

And if the NFL agreed to let NFLN be aired on a sports tier on cable, for those that want it, instead of sticking each and every subscriber with increased cost - there are people who don't give a flying F about NFL football - it would be there.

[WVUFootball29]

And if the NFL agreed to let NFLN be aired on a sports tier on cable, for those that want it, instead of sticking each and every subscriber with increased cost - there are people who don't give a flying F about NFL football - it would be there.

 

Same could be said for lifetime or cspan or the vast majority of the other basic tier cable crap

[The Dean]

Same could be said for lifetime or cspan or the vast majority of the other basic tier cable crap

 

 

In fact, the audience for a mid-week NFL game is far larger than anything on BET, Lifetime, Discovery Health, VS (except in some hockey cities), etc.

[WVUFootball29]

In fact, the audience for a mid-week NFL game is far larger than anything on BET, Lifetime, Discovery Health, VS (except in some hockey cities), etc.

 

Exactly my point....and please don't forget I'm a TW subscriber and don't plan on changing that unless I'm living somewhere they aren't the cable provider...then its DirecTv all the way.

[IDBillzFan]

Was anyone else surprised to find out the NFL Network has seven more Thursday games scheduled through the end of December? Not sure how I missed that when the schedule came out, but it starts next week again with NYJ vs. NE*. I suspect a lot of Bills fans will want to watch that game, but won't be able to.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

Was anyone else surprised to find out the NFL Network has seven more Thursday games scheduled through the end of December? Not sure how I missed that when the schedule came out, but it starts next week again with NYJ vs. NE*. I suspect a lot of Bills fans will want to watch that game, but won't be able to.

real Bills fans have DTV and Sunday tickey

[MarkyMannn]

Got my Fios last week, and enjoyed the game. Picture quality is way better too than TW.

 

Won't miss TW, they can "can sit on their thumb and rotate"

[stuckincincy]

In fact, the audience for a mid-week NFL game is far larger than anything on BET, Lifetime, Discovery Health, VS (except in some hockey cities), etc.

 

Wow..those are the big channels...

 

You've been in the biz. The NFL wants the larger exposure on basic cable to sell their advertising deals at higher prices, and has "energized" sports fans and somehow has successfully developed an Apologist Cadre to pimp for their bottom

$$$ line.

 

Mr. Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.".

 

Mr. Spock the NFL fan "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...and I want the many to pay for my rocks! ".

 

 

How many times does it have to be said?

 

The cable biz has no problem with a sports tier offering - for those that want to dig into their own wallet to see every fart, burp, game, 12 month's worth of blather, whatever, that the exclusive Gang of 32 can hawk one's way.

 

Dean - you've given insight on the LIM - cable - WIBV Ch. 4 thing. Much appreciated.

 

If your contention is that NFLN on basic cable is even close to a win-win situation for both the Gang and the cable outfits, it would have been a fait accompli some time ago.

 

The NFL owners have a problem - they face an equally canny entity who also sees the bottom line.

 

Most everybody can buy dish service if they choose.

 

I see no justification in sticking all cable subscribers with increased charges for the benefit of a minority. A Sports Tier for folks that want NLFN has always been on the table, AFAIK.

[Fezmid]

I see no justification in sticking all cable subscribers with increased charges for the benefit of a minority. A Sports Tier for folks that want NLFN has always been on the table, AFAIK.

And yet you're not complaining about the 14 iterations of ESPN being on the basic tier, are you...? Why are they given a special place over NFLN?

 

And why has every other cable and sat carrier in the country (I believe) signed a deal to put it on the basic tier...?

[Fezmid]

Was anyone else surprised to find out the NFL Network has seven more Thursday games scheduled through the end of December? Not sure how I missed that when the schedule came out, but it starts next week again with NYJ vs. NE*. I suspect a lot of Bills fans will want to watch that game, but won't be able to.

 

You can always watch it on nfl.com. They even had multiple feeds so you could watch different angles last night, although the PQ wasn't the greatest.

[The Dean]

If your contention is that NFLN on basic cable is even close to a win-win situation for both the Gang and the cable outfits, it would have been a fait accompli some time ago.

 

The NFL owners have a problem - they face an equally canny entity who also sees the bottom line.

 

Most everybody can buy dish service if they choose.

 

I see no justification in sticking all cable subscribers with increased charges for the benefit of a minority. A Sports Tier for folks that want NLFN has always been on the table, AFAIK.

 

Cable carriage of the NFL Network should be a win-win situation, for both sides. That blank channels exist on every basic cable system (at least on the many cities that I have lived) suggests they have the room to carry the channel on the basic tier. That the NFL Network is very likely to attract far more viewers than many of the channels they choose to assign to the basic tier suggests that it would be in their benefit to, if necessary, move junk channels to another tier to make room (physical, if really necessary, and financial) for a more popular network. But, all of that only works IF ratings, and programming popularity were as important to the cable system as they are to the networks providing the programming. That simply isn't the case, unfortunately.

 

Let's be frank, the NFL has very little regard for the audience, truth is the cable systems don't have half that regard. TW would much rather package the NFL Network with other rarely watched sports channels so they can charge customers for a package of garbage, in order for them to simply get the one channel they want. And, if they actually can push the NFL Net to that tier, they may actually sell that garbage at a good price.

 

The dirty little secret of cable carriage of these marginal channels is, they own (in full or in part) many of these comparatively useless channels. (By "useless" I mean very low rated, so they have utility to very few customers.) They pay themselves (and charge the subscribers) a healthy fee for each of these junk channels. They take a percentage of all the shopping channels' sales, so that stuff has to stay, too.

 

When looked at from that perspective, it's hard to side with the cable system, when they cry about lack of channel space, and threaten to raise rates if they have to carry the NFL Network.

 

But, there is probably a compromise position, that, if cable systems had ANY regard for the customer, they could negotiate for, and still keep collecting their pimp-shares from these mostly unwanted networks. Here is my, haven't thought all that much about it, seat of the pants, proposal:

 

First thing we need to realize is that, for many reasons (some of which I outlined above) a total a-la-carte menu is in nobodies best interest. It would be far too expensive for most households, and wouldn't allow the cable systems to continue their outrageous money grab (which, in a way, at least keeps the cost of a subscription somewhat stable).

 

But, just because a total a-la-carte system is unlikely, how about a small "roll your own" package included with basic digital?

 

[...A quick aside. In a few months, "basic" cable (no box) will still be available, but what will actually be on it? My understanding is that cable systems will be required to supply the local channels on an analog feed, but what other stations will be required? My Comcast system is now pulling stations from the basic level while running commercials that tell people that the coming change to digital will not effect them. I've already lost MSNBC, National Geo, and a few others. Maybe GG or Cablebabe can tell us what cable systems are going to carry on the basic/analog feed, after February 2009. My inquires to Comcast have all gone unanswered. I'm guessing it all depends on the contracts with networks and some huge customers demand...]

 

Assuming that we can dismiss the issue of analog basic, and discuss basic digital, for a second, how about the cable systems offer instead of, or in addition to, their cockamamie tiers, a roll-your-own package of channels that is included at the basic digital price? This would allow customers who really want the NFL Network to get it, but instead of paying more, they simply don't get another or (if it is weighted by the amount paid for the programming) two other channels.

 

So for example, basic digital would come with channels 1-120 (or whatever) and your choice of 5 of the following channels: a large assortment of targeted, non premium, channels. I would think that this would make the carriage negotiations much easier. Many providers would likely be happy to know that those who want the channel, can actually get it without having to also pay for channels they have no interest in.

 

Of course, some networks (NFL Net may be one) want to be greedy and get paid for households that have no interest in their programming. But, I'm guessing that they could be sold with a plan like this, as opposing it would be an obvious revelation of their greed.

 

OK, that's as much as I have in me at the moment. I'm sure there are many holes that need to be addressed, but I think the idea has some value. This approach (as a boss of mine used to say) has "big breasts". I think it could appeal to the cable systems, the networks and the subscribers if properly executed.

[stuckincincy]

Cable carriage of the NFL Network should be a win-win situation, for both sides. That blank channels exist on every basic cable system (at least on the many cities that I have lived) suggests they have the room to carry the channel on the basic tier. That the NFL Network is very likely to attract far more viewers than many of the channels they choose to assign to the basic tier suggests that it would be in their benefit to, if necessary, move junk channels to another tier to make room (physical, if really necessary, and financial) for a more popular network. But, all of that only works IF ratings, and programming popularity were as important to the cable system as they are to the networks providing the programming. That simply isn't the case, unfortunately.

 

Let's be frank, the NFL has very little regard for the audience, truth is the cable systems don't have half that regard. TW would much rather package the NFL Network with other rarely watched sports channels so they can charge customers for a package of garbage, in order for them to simply get the one channel they want. And, if they actually can push the NFL Net to that tier, they may actually sell that garbage at a good price.

 

The dirty little secret of cable carriage of these marginal channels is, they own (in full or in part) many of these comparatively useless channels. (By "useless" I mean very low rated, so they have utility to very few customers.) They pay themselves (and charge the subscribers) a healthy fee for each of these junk channels. They take a percentage of all the shopping channels' sales, so that stuff has to stay, too.

 

When looked at from that perspective, it's hard to side with the cable system, when they cry about lack of channel space, and threaten to raise rates if they have to carry the NFL Network.

 

But, there is probably a compromise position, that, if cable systems had ANY regard for the customer, they could negotiate for, and still keep collecting their pimp-shares from these mostly unwanted networks. Here is my, haven't thought all that much about it, seat of the pants, proposal:

 

First thing we need to realize is that, for many reasons (some of which I outlined above) a total a-la-carte menu is in nobodies best interest. It would be far too expensive for most households, and wouldn't allow the cable systems to continue their outrageous money grab (which, in a way, at least keeps the cost of a subscription somewhat stable).

 

But, just because a total a-la-carte system is unlikely, how about a small "roll your own" package included with basic digital?

 

[...A quick aside. In a few months, "basic" cable (no box) will still be available, but what will actually be on it? My understanding is that cable systems will be required to supply the local channels on an analog feed, but what other stations will be required? My Comcast system is now pulling stations from the basic level while running commercials that tell people that the coming change to digital will not effect them. I've already lost MSNBC, National Geo, and a few others. Maybe GG or Cablebabe can tell us what cable systems are going to carry on the basic/analog feed, after February 2009. My inquires to Comcast have all gone unanswered. I'm guessing it all depends on the contracts with networks and some huge customers demand...]

 

Assuming that we can dismiss the issue of analog basic, and discuss basic digital, for a second, how about the cable systems offer instead of, or in addition to, their cockamamie tiers, a roll-your-own package of channels that is included at the basic digital price? This would allow customers who really want the NFL Network to get it, but instead of paying more, they simply don't get another or (if it is weighted by the amount paid for the programming) two other channels.

 

So for example, basic digital would come with channels 1-120 (or whatever) and your choice of 5 of the following channels: a large assortment of targeted, non premium, channels. I would think that this would make the carriage negotiations much easier. Many providers would likely be happy to know that those who want the channel, can actually get it without having to also pay for channels they have no interest in.

 

Of course, some networks (NFL Net may be one) want to be greedy and get paid for households that have no interest in their programming. But, I'm guessing that they could be sold with a plan like this, as opposing it would be an obvious revelation of their greed.

 

OK, that's as much as I have in me at the moment. I'm sure there are many holes that need to be addressed, but I think the idea has some value. This approach (as a boss of mine used to say) has "big breasts". I think it could appeal to the cable systems, the networks and the subscribers if properly executed.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, Dean.

 

This channel "shifting" has been also happening here in the SW Ohio area...T-W.

 

The F.C.C. sent letters (fwiw) to cable companies and to Verizon about this:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27538936/

 

I think your "roll-your-own" idea has good merit. I can't see it being a technical hardship for the companies; in T-W's so-called digital variety tier here, you can already purchase individual channels.