NFL Network (1 Viewer)

Rutgerskid

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 25, 2006
50
0
Associated Press Article...Great news for Rutgers Fans :)

NEW YORK -- The NFL has offered one free week of its network programming to two cable TV operators who don't carry the channel, and one will show the Texas Bowl between Rutgers and Kansas State.

Cablevision will broadcast the NFL Network only for the Dec. 28 bowl game, showing all pre- and post-game coverage.Commissioner Roger Goodell told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the week of Dec. 24-30 would be offered as a "free view" for customers of Cablevision and Time Warner Cable, two of the nation's largest cable carriers. The NFL Network would be offered on the expanded basic levels of the two carriers.

Time Warner had yet to decide its plans.

Neither Cablevision nor Time Warner carry NFL Network. Three regular-season Thursday night games already have not been available to those customers -- except in the markets of the participating teams, where the games aired on broadcast stations.

It isn't unusual for cable channels such as HBO and Showtime to offer such free weeks to increase their subscribers.

Although the free view will not include the Saturday night game between the New York Giants and Washington Redskins, it will include the Texas Bowl and the Insight Bowl with Minnesota vs. Texas Tech on Dec. 29.

"This morning we are communicating to Time Warner and Cablevision that we are going to give them an opportunity for what we call a free view," Goodell said. "Cable operators do it all the time. It's so that the consumer can experience our network for a week and get the two college bowl games."

The Texas Bowl not being available to many viewers in New York has become a contentious issue because Rutgers is coming off its best Big East season and has become a popular team in the area. The NFL Network owns the rights to the Rutgers-Kansas State bowl game at Reliant Stadium in Houston.

"We are trying to accommodate consumers, our fans and the fans of Rutgers, to let them know we are trying to resolve this issue," said Goodell, who said he also has spoken with Gov. Jon Corzine and Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

"The bottom line is that people in New Jersey need to be able to watch Rutgers play, and now we have a way to do that," said Lautenberg.

"We think this is a very good opportunity for people to see not only those two games, but the NFL Network," Goodell added. "We certainly believe cable operators will see it the same way."

Maureen Huff, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable, said Tuesday: "We just got this proposal and we are looking into it."

The cable companies are concerned the NFL Network is charging too much money for its programming.

If the cable companies were to accept the NFL's terms, "the NFL Network would immediately vault to being the third or fourth most expensive channel on the dial. It could lead to a price increase of $1 or more per month for every cable consumer in America," said Craig Moffett, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Sanford C. Bernstein.

"From the NFL's perspective, they want to generate consumer support," added John Mansell, senior analyst at Kagan Research, a media analysis company. "It's not unusual for any new network to offer their service free, but typically for an extended period of time. Even then, most cable operators are reluctant to bite because of the problems they might face in taking it off the air. ... It's very difficult for the cable company to take anything away from the subscriber."

The NFL Network is available in about 40 million of the 111 million homes with TVs. In comparison, ESPN, which airs Monday night games, is available in 92 million.

Thus far, Thursday night games have featured the Broncos at the Chiefs on Thanksgiving night; the Ravens at the Bengals on Nov. 30; and the Browns at the Steelers on Dec. 7. This week, there are two NFL Network games: San Francisco at Seattle on Thursday, and Dallas at Atlanta on Saturday.

Time Warner has said it is balking at a demand from the NFL that the network be carried on the most widely available basic service lineup rather than on a special tier.

NBC bought the rights to Sunday night games this year under a six-year, $600 million per year deal with the league. ESPN is paying $1.1 billion per year for Monday night football over eight years. Last year, the NFL reached six-year, $8 billion extensions with Fox and CBS for Sunday afternoon games.
 

Rutgerskid

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 25, 2006
50
0
NFLN in HD

I read somewhere that the NFLN was waiting to sign an HD satellite truck. They must have finalized plans, because according to their website all games will be in HD.

"College football programming on NFL Network: All games will be broadcast live on NFL Network and will be available in High Definition (HD). "

Let's hope they let CV use their HD Feed and let's hope CV uses it :)
 

stevenl

SatelliteGuys Master
Jan 2, 2006
10,839
2
Disney World
I am so mad at Cablevision for not carrying the NFL Network. I will go to Verizon FIOS the day its available.

I've said this all over the cable forums.. Tell NFL NET to stop being greedy Allow the cable companies to offer the station to only those who want it, and let them pay the differne, Instead of making EVERY cable customer pay the extra 75cent to 1$ a month for a channel the MAJORITY of them dont even want..
 

Rutgerskid

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 25, 2006
50
0
Nfln

Well it looks like we are going to be able to see it...Let's just hope we can get people the High Def feed.

It's still hasn't set in that I am hoping we are broadcast in HD. When I was a freshman here, we were 1-11 with 3 games on Tape Delay. This year we had 13 national/regional games; almost all in HD :)
 

dm145

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 2, 2006
197
0
Well it looks like we are going to be able to see it...Let's just hope we can get people the High Def feed.

It's still hasn't set in that I am hoping we are broadcast in HD. When I was a freshman here, we were 1-11 with 3 games on Tape Delay. This year we had 13 national/regional games; almost all in HD :)


Has the horrible loss against Cincinnatti set in yet?:)
 

Rutgerskid

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 25, 2006
50
0
The worst thing about it is that we had an actual shot of not only being considered for the National Championship game, but actually PLAYING IN IT. Everything happened that needed to happen for RU to play in AZ. But thats life. I'm glad I get to spend 4 days in Houston with my friends who I won't see again probably after May.
 

liquidnw

SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 6, 2005
98
0
NY
I've said this all over the cable forums.. Tell NFL NET to stop being greedy Allow the cable companies to offer the station to only those who want it, and let them pay the differne, Instead of making EVERY cable customer pay the extra 75cent to 1$ a month for a channel the MAJORITY of them dont even want..


The problem with that is cv doesn't have a problem charging people and extra 4 bucks a month for MSG/FSNY another channel that the MAJORITY of people don't want. I guess its only ok when you own the channel. Always find in funny when cable companies claim bloody murder on channel prices yet they all do the same when they own the content.
 

RemyM

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 4, 2006
413
0
Stamford, CT
I guess you forgot, or wasn't aware, that when Cablevision first added YES they created a sports tier for the then 3 RSN's so only people who wanted them had to pay for them. You could get them for 1.95 each or all three for 4.95. If you had a package above Family Cable they were included. YES wasn't happy about it because TWC carried YES in expanded basic and CV agreed to go to arbitration to settle it. Well YES won, the arbitrator ruled that YES had to be in expanded basic and the sports tier was discontinued and everyone with Family Cable immediately saw their bill go up $2 per month. YES and $teinbrenner are the one's who deserves the blame for all of this.
 

cforrest

Pub Member / Supporter
Sep 29, 2005
900
1
Long Island
Yeah, but at least one did not need a cable box to see sports on those channels. Add those box rental fees up per tv and CV lost a lot of money by having to move everything to family cable. If anything, as a sports fan, I thank YES and Steinbrenner.
 

stevenl

SatelliteGuys Master
Jan 2, 2006
10,839
2
Disney World
The problem with that is cv doesn't have a problem charging people and extra 4 bucks a month for MSG/FSNY another channel that the MAJORITY of people don't want. I guess its only ok when you own the channel. Always find in funny when cable companies claim bloody murder on channel prices yet they all do the same when they own the content.

Umm CV wouldnt have a problem doing it with the NFLNET either.. the problem is NFLNET want let them.... Theres a big differnce... and you dont have to get FSNY if you dont want it... those channels dont rely on Advertiseing for thier main income they are sorta HBO type channels they relay on subscribers... because they know they dont have high enough ratings to generate enough ad rev to make a profit... Same with the NFL net they know they cant make enough for ad money. so they are trying to force the cable companies to get EVERYONE subscribe so the what 80million+ nationwide cable subs, would all pay .75cents for the station.. You see how much money NFLNET wants to make per month? and on TOP of that ake money on Advertisements cause now they can say "well 80million people can watch our station" to get more money...

You have to look at it from both sides of the field and from my view, the Cable companies are trying to protect their profit+customers... They dont want their customers to be forced, to pay an extra monthly fee everytime cable fees go up satellite people have a field day with ads.... plus they dont want to EAT the costs do the math 80,000,000 x .75 and see how much money that will cost the cable companies EACH MONTH!!!! and imagine if it was 1.00 as nflnet has also proposed 80million per month.. Ya any company can eat that and not suffer...
 

stevenl

SatelliteGuys Master
Jan 2, 2006
10,839
2
Disney World
Yeah, but at least one did not need a cable box to see sports on those channels. Add those box rental fees up per tv and CV lost a lot of money by having to move everything to family cable. If anything, as a sports fan, I thank YES and Steinbrenner.

Ya and the millions of non-sports fan who have to pay that extra fees, are not happy.. Beleive it or not but sports fans are a minority in the TV land.... as far as massive ratings go.. But yet they are the MOST expensive to have... So you do the math... These sports nets are just Greedy greedy people, they know that people want pay extra for them, so they HIDE their cost in the cable companies bill and pretend they have nothing to do with why its so high.. Hell ESPN is the most expensive network and everyone gets that includeing in the basic type cable packages... Imagine no ESPN = 2$/month savings no sports channels probely 5-10$ savings... Imagine if your cable bill dropped 10-15$ per month... Wouldnt that be nice? and if you wanted the sports tier you could pay that extra 15$ for it.. OHH not the sports net channels wouldnt have that because they know VERY small % of the people would accutally buy them if it meant spending extra money for them... and then their income would be cut DRAMTICLY and their ad revenue DRAMTICLY... The problem with the cable companies is they have to cater to these sports net because thats what D* and them guys push the most.. I think cable should let the dish people have the sports and let cable do what it does best ALL Around general entertainment.

ever wonder why these channels are some of the biggest anti-alacarte people?
 

liquidnw

SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 6, 2005
98
0
NY
Umm CV wouldnt have a problem doing it with the NFLNET either.. the problem is NFLNET want let them.... Theres a big differnce... and you dont have to get FSNY if you dont want it... those channels dont rely on Advertiseing for thier main income they are sorta HBO type channels they relay on subscribers... because they know they dont have high enough ratings to generate enough ad rev to make a profit... Same with the NFL net they know they cant make enough for ad money. so they are trying to force the cable companies to get EVERYONE subscribe so the what 80million+ nationwide cable subs, would all pay .75cents for the station.. You see how much money NFLNET wants to make per month? and on TOP of that ake money on Advertisements cause now they can say "well 80million people can watch our station" to get more money...

You have to look at it from both sides of the field and from my view, the Cable companies are trying to protect their profit+customers... They dont want their customers to be forced, to pay an extra monthly fee everytime cable fees go up satellite people have a field day with ads.... plus they dont want to EAT the costs do the math 80,000,000 x .75 and see how much money that will cost the cable companies EACH MONTH!!!! and imagine if it was 1.00 as nflnet has also proposed 80million per month.. Ya any company can eat that and not suffer...


Lets not play the sad song for cable companies. Cablevision which we were talking about only has 4 mill subs so even at $1 a sub thats 4mill a monthor 48 mill a year. Some how I don't think thats going to brake the bank for cv. Yes the NFL is being somewhat unreasonable but the truth is cable companies are trying to protect the there botom lines and not customers just as the NFL is trying to protect there botom lines.

MSG and FSNY are linked,you can't get one without the other. As only a knicks fan I could care less about hockey so could you please explain to me how exacly you can order MSG without FSNY? So basically I'm getting charged 2 bucks a month for a channel I will never watch how about they protect me as a customer and allow me to drop FSNY or put it on the same sports tier which they want the NFL network that will likely get much better ratings than hockey and c level college sports.
 

stevenl

SatelliteGuys Master
Jan 2, 2006
10,839
2
Disney World
Lets not play the sad song for cable companies. Cablevision which we were talking about only has 4 mill subs so even at $1 a sub thats 4mill a monthor 48 mill a year. Some how I don't think thats going to brake the bank for cv. Yes the NFL is being somewhat unreasonable but the truth is cable companies are trying to protect the there botom lines and not customers just as the NFL is trying to protect there botom lines.

MSG and FSNY are linked,you can't get one without the other. As only a knicks fan I could care less about hockey so could you please explain to me how exacly you can order MSG without FSNY? So basically I'm getting charged 2 bucks a month for a channel I will never watch how about they protect me as a customer and allow me to drop FSNY or put it on the same sports tier which they want the NFL network that will likely get much better ratings than hockey and c level college sports.

ok first off I dont know where you work but 4million a month is a large amount of money 48million a year is probley a nice % of CV's profits.. But im not only defending the cable company im defending the cable customer. Who doesnt want his bill to go up another buck just for NFLNET if he has no interest in it.. If NFL NET wants to be on it should allow the cable companies to charge the customers who want it ONLY, and not force them to charge EVERYONE. Thats the whole argument. They dont care if NFLNET wants to charge 100$ per sub, as long as EACH sub who wants it has to pay and not EVERY sub CV has...

and if their was a sports tier youd like get MSG and FSNY and NFLNET so whats the differnce? ? Alot of channels require you to take their partner channel i na package deal.. Reember the whole Lifetime network problems with dish? Same situation for the most part.
 

stevenl

SatelliteGuys Master
Jan 2, 2006
10,839
2
Disney World
Stevenl, I do hope you know Cablevision owns MSG and FSNY! So they are double dipping the customer.

How? You dont have to buy them if you dont want to, and as ive said earlier those channels do not make money from ads.. LEast not enough to operate and turn a profit.. So they have to rely on the revenue per sub pays for the programming and operating costs, and also the profit.

and the first point I made "you dont have to buy it if you dont want to" Is my hole point in this NFLNET thing. LET THE sub have a choice. Put it with the rest of the sports channels, hell Id prefer if they did that to ESPN as well, I bet millions of people would love to lose the sports chans and save about 10-15$ a month on their cable bills....

Everyone is soo quick to jump on the cable company.. The EVIL Cable companies. Who have increased their internet bw nearl 150% in the last 2 years and raised the internet rates a mere 3-5% depending on your system your in. The EVIL cable monoplies are destroying everything!

run a side by side comparison between the evil cable companies and the other options and Dallor for dallor the cable companies will destroy all the offerings of the other companies... (generally speaking, your mom-pop cable outlets cant compete but the big boys can..)
 

liquidnw

SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 6, 2005
98
0
NY
ok first off I dont know where you work but 4million a month is a large amount of money 48million a year is probley a nice % of CV's profits.. But im not only defending the cable company im defending the cable customer. Who doesnt want his bill to go up another buck just for NFLNET if he has no interest in it.. If NFL NET wants to be on it should allow the cable companies to charge the customers who want it ONLY, and not force them to charge EVERYONE. Thats the whole argument. They dont care if NFLNET wants to charge 100$ per sub, as long as EACH sub who wants it has to pay and not EVERY sub CV has...

and if their was a sports tier youd like get MSG and FSNY and NFLNET so whats the differnce? ? Alot of channels require you to take their partner channel i na package deal.. Reember the whole Lifetime network problems with dish? Same situation for the most part.

I'm not pilling on the "evil" cable company as you put it. THe point is the Hypocrisy. Cablevision which owns MSG/FSNY has no problem forcing it on the lowestest tier but they want me to belive they are looking out for my best intrest now. YOu keep saying I don't have to buy MSG/FSNY. Last time I checked MSG/FSNY are in Family cable and not a sports tier. The farce of a sport tier during the yes fisaco was simply an attempt to crush YES. YES could not of survied as a start up on a sport tier. The thing your missing is I agree with you all sports should be on a sports tier. I just have a problem with a company telling me the NFL should be on a sports tier mean while I'm paying double that amount for a channel that's showing ratings challenged hockey.

By the way this is cv,the They own teams like the who knicks have a 100 mill pay roll, rangers who for a long time had the highest payroll. 4 mill a month isn't alot for a company cv size. Hell they just lost over a billion from voom. Let not act like cv is this small mom and pop company.
 

RemyM

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 4, 2006
413
0
Stamford, CT
NFL Net will allow preview on Cablevision

By Paul J. Gough

Dec 22, 2006

NEW YORK -- The NFL Network told Cablevision on Thursday that it would let the cable operator offer the network as a free weeklong preview under the same terms Time Warner Cable agreed to last week.

TWC's deal calls for the NFL Network to be placed, temporarily, on a digital tier that reaches 75% of its customers. The offer, made in a letter to Cablevision from NFL Network CEO Steve Bornstein, gave a deadline of today for a response by the Long Island-based cable operator so that the network can approve the necessary paperwork.

Cablevision could not immediately be reached for comment.

Thursday's offer follows a heated exchange between the two companies that played out Wednesday. The NFL Network declared that Cablevision had declined its free offer; Cablevision denied that it had declined it but instead accepted the carriage of the Texas Bowl game between Rutgers and Kansas State.

A little less than two weeks ago, NFL Network offered a free preview of the channel from Dec. 24-30 (including the Rutgers game) to TWC and Cablevision. Both cablers have declined to carry the NFL Network on their systems, even after this year's start of regular-season NFL games. TWC and the NFL Network agreed to terms this week but Cablevision had not.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr...sion/news/e3ifc91056537ab39208b9e973a5fdf8759
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top