Cable vs. NFL Network dispute reaches Texas Capitol

Houston Chronicle/AP ^ | 11-6-07

[Snickering Hound]

AUSTIN — Cable companies and the NFL Network are competing for Texas lawmakers' support in their national fight over whether cable customers should be charged extra for the football channel.

While some cable companies have agreed to carry the network's eight regular-season games, Time Warner Cable, the largest in Texas, has not come to terms with the network.

Pressure has been mounting on all parties as the Dallas Cowboys' Nov. 29 matchup with the Green Bay Packers approaches. The game will only be shown on the NFL Network.

"I've had a lot more people contact me about NFL football the last two months instead of child protective services, windstorm insurance or worker's compensation, which are frankly more important issues," said Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Tomball. "I don't control what constituents call me about."

The NFL Network wants to be placed on digital basic cable with all customers paying about 60 to 70 cents a month for it. Time Warner wants to offer the network on a surcharged sports tier available to subscribers who pay extra for it.

The network has rejected Time Warner's offer to let the network charge a fee for the games that would be passed on to customers.

Van Arsdale and Sen. Kim Brimer, R-Fort Worth, said last week that they would consider introducing consumer-oriented legislation in the 2009 session if the two sides don't reach an agreement.

"Cable companies need to focus on giving their customers what they want, which is football," Brimer said.

Both sides have deployed lobbyists to make their case to legislators.

The network distributed an informational packet to lawmakers last month. Cable companies responded by blitzing legislators with their side.

Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick, all Republicans, have expressed hopes that the businesses can settle the dispute without government involvement.

Five Democratic members of the Texas House from Bexar County have sent letters to the Federal Communication Commission asking it to intercede in the argument.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, carried telecommunications deregulation into law in 2005. He said he would consider proposals to address the issue if it hasn't been resolved by the time the Legislature meets again in 2009.

"This could be a very, very big issue, not so much because it's the NFL Network (but) because it deals with what role the government plays in the content of telecommunications," King said.

[brownsfan]

Why is any legislature involved in this?

I am a football fan, but if I want the product, I have to pay for it. If it’s extra for NFL network, that’s fine, the choice is mine. The Big Ten network carries games I want to see, but don’t want to pay extra for watching. So, I find something else to do. Same with NFL network. Eventually, they’ll find that their fan base erodes as people discover a walk in the woods is more fun than watching a football game. But I digress.

No one has a “right” to watch games. It’s free market, let it sort itself out.

[Resolute Conservative]

The plan is to move all games to the NFL network and dump the networks, watch and see.

[George from New England]

On the other hand, does a cable franchise that essentially has a TV monopoly in their purchased area, have the right to include it in basic service AND make everyone who wants any cable pay the extra 70 cents a month for it?

Isn’t that the issue? I do not believe that any franchise areas can overlap and this gives the company a cable monopoly. We all know that our beloved govt takes a payback fee for the franchise arrangement.

[FourtySeven]

... if I want the product, I have to pay for it. If it’s extra for NFL network, that’s fine, the choice is mine.

The issue, I'm assuming, is that the NFL Network only gets that "base" amount of 60-70 cents (maybe even less depending how much the cable company takes of that), while it's the cable company that gets the "premium fees" (which in my area is like $5-10). So, in effect, the NFL Network is getting "robbed" of money that really they are responsible for generating.

Now, again, I'm assuming this is the issue (maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment), because if what I described above is not the case, then I can't understand what the fight would be about.

Tangentially, if the NFL Network was too stupid to not spell this out in writing before agreeing to be on cable, then I don't have much mercy for them. IOW, if they knew full well that the cable company *might* charge extra for their channel, but didn't specify in writing that this would not be allowed (unless they got a cut), and counted on people getting angry about the increase, then they underestimated the apathy of the typical consumer.

[stefanbatory]

being a Packer fan in Florida, it looks like I will be watching this one in the bar...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Brett Favre with those last-second bombs are killing opponents . The Old Man still has it!

[Rightly Biased]

Comcast gets to put the NFL network on its Digital sports Tier

Time Warner wants the same deal and the NFL will not give them that deal, NFL want sTime Warner to put the channel on its Expanded Basic Tier.

Seems to me someone at TWC ticked off someone at the NFL so Time Warner doesn’t get the same deal that Comcast and SeeBridge are getting in Texas.

[discostu]

No, that’s not even close to the plan. The NFL makes nearly 4 billion a year on the TV contracts there’s no possible way they could make up that loss with anything that moved the games to their own network. The plan was to make another TV contract but nobody was willing to pay what the league wanted, so they put the games on their own network to help them gain leverage with the cable companies in their efforts to get NFLN out of the digital cable wasteland and into at least extended basic and maybe even regular basic.

[Pilsner]

The issue, I'm assuming, is that the NFL Network only gets that "base" amount of 60-70 cents

The issue is that the NFL Network carries 8 live games year. The other 357 or 358 days are filled with endless reruns of dreck, slop, cheerleader auditions, and the 1964 AFL Follies blooper reel (which I actually watched). The cable companies don't want to charge every customer 60-70 cents a month all year along so that fotball fans can watch 8 games a year.

The cable companies have to either cut their profit, or raise their rates, which is always oh so popular. If the NFL would give away the network, and make money off its ad revenue, I'm sure something could be worked out. In San Antonio, Time Warner has said that they will bump some other channel and broadcast the 8 live games, but the NFL, while crying that it wants fans to see the games, insists that cable companies carry the NFL network 24/7 all year long.

There is no hero in this standoff, but the NFL is the party that is trying to use political pressure to intimidate cable companies into carrying a channel that the cable companies believe they will lose money on.

[Sybeck1]

The NFL channel has the Pats/Giants game the last week of the season. Just imagine the outcry if this is the game that would give the Pats their perfect season.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

As a monopoly the NFL should be required to air all games via standard airwaves.

[Tall_Texan]

I’m a Time Warner Cable employee and what you’ve said is essentially correct. Of course, whether government should involve itself in this is a whole different subject. I don’t think it has any role at all in this.

IMO, NFL Network (NFLN) set a precedent with their cable agreements with other systems. If the digital tier is good enough for the NFLN to be carried on Comcast, why is it not good enough for Time Warner? It’s because the NFLN wants to force their way onto basic tier with Time Warner and *then* come back to Comcast and demand basic coverage there too.

NFLN wants advertisers - which is going to be diminished if the channel is on a digital tier. They’re using a handful of NFL games to try to pressure carriage for something they wouldn’t otherwise get. Other than the eight games and a pair of bowl games, NFLN is analysis, films of old games and replays of the past week’s games. Yes, there’s a market for that but I don’t think it rises to the level of basic tier carriage.

[Pining_4_TX]

Except it isn’t a free market. Cable companies have a monopoly, and it stinks. The cozy relationship between cable companies and local governments must end, so we have real choice in cable TV.

Cox Cable has all these ads saying how wonderful they are for giving money to local schools (which like all business “charity” is really paid for by customers), while they enjoy their government protection from competition. Sounds like a sneaky way to tax people extra for public schools to me.

I hate the dang cable companies! If it weren’t for the problems with satellite (losing the picture when it rains heavily, etc.), we would switch.

[subterfuge]

All of the professional sports are leveraged to the hilt. Every team needs to be a "winner" so that they get maximum attendance and viewership, then they can pay their free-agents the maximum allowable under the leagues' "salary cap" (wink,wink). After a couple of "winning" years the team owner can demand a new arena be financed by the local taxpayers, or they threaten to move the team.

If a given team is not a winner, well that's the fault of the local area being a "small market" location. I'd guess that 50% of all pro sports articles are coverage of contracts, arena deals and crime blotter/drug abuse.

And "Free Agency"? What a joke. Teams aren't loyal to the player and players aren't loyal to teams. When the Orlando Magic and the NBA allowed Shaq to leave the team and they got nothing for it, not a draft pick, not cash, not another player, that was it for me and pro sports. If that is how they want to run their business, fine. But I don't have to watch it anymore and I don't. I was a season ticket holder for nine years, with 4 seats. At least in the NFL it's mandated that teams are compensated.

Don't get me started on that loser Grant Hill.

[Niteranger68]

The issue is that the NFL Network carries 8 live games year. The other 357 or 358 days are filled with endless reruns of dreck, slop, cheerleader auditions, and the 1964 AFL Follies blooper reel (which I actually watched). The cable companies don't want to charge every customer 60-70 cents a month all year along so that fotball fans can watch 8 games a year.

The cable companies have to either cut their profit, or raise their rates, which is always oh so popular. If the NFL would give away the network, and make money off its ad revenue, I'm sure something could be worked out. In San Antonio, Time Warner has said that they will bump some other channel and broadcast the 8 live games, but the NFL, while crying that it wants fans to see the games, insists that cable companies carry the NFL network 24/7 all year long.

There is no hero in this standoff, but the NFL is the party that is trying to use political pressure to intimidate cable companies into carrying a channel that the cable companies believe they will lose money on.

[HIDEK6]

No one has a “right” to watch games.

You obviously haven't read the new US Constitution that a bunch of nine-year-olds recently wrote.

[brownsfan]

“The plan is to move all games to the NFL network and dump the networks, watch and see.”

Works for me. If I want it enough, I’ll buy it. If not, I won’t.

[brownsfan]

“I hate the dang cable companies! If it weren’t for the problems with satellite (losing the picture when it rains heavily, etc.), we would switch.”

Cable companies are exploiting how America works. Grease the right politicians, and anti competitive behavior is ignored. I know of a few localities that have started their own cable company. It’s expensive for a city to do that, and we all know, government is not efficient.

There will only be competition in the cable market when voters demand it, not a day before then.

[Diplomat]

The NBA, what is that? We’re talking the NFL here.

Hey, I understand completely how you feel. When Jerry Buss decided to keep Kobe “the rapist” over Shaq, that was it for me and the Lakers. Haven’t watched a single game since. And I am fairly certain that the Lakers haven’t won anything since, but Shaq has.

Buss must have been living in a closet (which he and Al Davis need to get out of) when he made that decision. Lets see, keep the guy whose won titles everywhere he’s gone or keep the young superstar whom NO ONE on your current team can stand. Not a single Laker defended Kobe on the rape charge. It was like they all knew he did it or was capable of doing it. It was surreal.