Replies

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.

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.

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.