Pats/Elis game to be simulcast on CBS, NBC

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Story just came across the wires.

[J.T.]

Time Warner just got kicked in the balls. :tu

[SAtown]

What does "simulcast" mean?

[peewee's lovechild]

Good.
I won't have to endure the compainion video cast this week on nfl.com.

[J.T.]

What does "simulcast" mean?

simultaneous broadcast

It means you'll be getting the same broadcast on all three channel (NFL, NBC, CBS). So the CBS and NBC broadcasts will not have their announcers, graphics, and coverage team. We all get to enjoy Bryant Gumbel one last time.

[SAtown]

That's fuckin cool, although I wish CBS or NBC would have Madden/Michaels or Nantz/Sims and overall presentation.

[boutons_]

December 26, 2007
Patriots-Giants Game Now on NBC and CBS

By RICHARD SANDOMIR, nytIMES (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/richard_sandomir/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

The Patriots (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/profootball/nationalfootballleague/newenglandpatriots/index.html?inline=nyt-org)-Giants (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/profootball/nationalfootballleague/newyorkgiants/index.html?inline=nyt-org) game, which was to be broadcast Saturday night to less than half the country by the NFL Network, will be available to the entire nation under an agreement reached Wednesday by NBC and CBS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/cbs_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to simulcast it.

The 15-0 Patriots are attempting to become the first National Football League team since the 1972 Miami Dolphins (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/sports/profootball/nationalfootballleague/miamidolphins/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to go undefeated throughout the entire regular season. Miami went on to win the Super Bowl and finish 17-0 that season.

NBC and CBS will show the NFL Network’s production of the game, with the announcers Bryant Gumbel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/bryant_gumbel/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Cris Collinsworth, and will not pay an extra rights fee. They will each get to sell 18 30-second commercial units.

Dick Ebersol (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/dick_ebersol/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the chairman of NBC Universal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/nbc_universal/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Sports, said yesterday by telephone that in a conversation in October with Steve Bornstein, the chief executive of the NFL Network, that he would be amenable to a simulcast, and would share it with another broadcast network, if the Patriots’ momentum toward an undefeated season continued. Then, on Monday morning, Bornstein called to ask him if his idea was still viable for NBC.

“As early as last week, I didn’t think it would happen, but then Steve called and I ran it past Jeff, and he said, ‘yes,’ ” said Ebersol, referring to Jeff Zucker (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/jeff_zucker/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the president of NBC Universal. He added, “I’m intrigued by the historic nature of two over-the-air networks carrying the game. It’ll be fun and will give the NFL Network a chance to exhibit their wares.”

Joe Browne, a spokesman for the league, said: “The two networks independently expressed an interest in carrying the game. They saw the problems we were having with a few of the big cable companies, and so we went back to them earlier this week, and said, ‘What if you both simulcast the NFL Network?’ ”

The NFL Network has found itself with fewer subscribers than it wanted because major cable operators like Time Warner (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/time_warner_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Cablevision and Charter do not carry it, and Comcast (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/comcast_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), makes it available only on its digitial sports tier. Comcast is involved in two lawsuits against the league; a judge’s ruling earlier this year allowed it to shift the NFL Network from a broadly-available digital tier to the sports tier that requires an extra fee.

Until Wednesday’s deal, the Patriots-Giants game would have been available to the NFL Network’s 43 million satellite and cable subscribers. Another 10.8 million TV households in the New York-New Jersey and Boston-Manchester, N.H., markets were to get it free on local broadcast stations because they live within the teams’ designated home markets.

The simulcast marks the first time since Super Bowl I in 1967 when NBC and CBS, or any two networks, have simultaneously carried the same N.F.L. game. But in that previous game, separate NBC and CBS crews produced and announced it.

The league’s decision to simulcast the game came amid mounting Congressional pressure to make the potentially historic game more broadly available.

The Connecticut delegation wrote to Commissioner Roger Goodell that the league’s definition of home markets was “unduly narrow,” leaving fans in cities around the state where loyalties are divided between their Giants and Patriots, without the same local broadcast option afforded the New York and Boston markets.

The Rhode Island delegation also protested the league’s market designations that would have deprived Patriots’ fans in Providence and throughout the state of seeing their team go undefeated unless they subscribed to DirecTV or the Dish Network, or got the NFL Netword from their local cable operators.

The league was also warned by Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arlen_specter/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Pennsylvania, and a member of the committee, that it was “exercising its substantial market power to the detriment of consumers.” They cautioned that the strategy might lead to a re-examination by Congress of the league’s ememption from antitrust laws regarding the joint negotiation of its broadcast television rights.

[BacktoBasics]

FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU Time Warner, Comcast and the like. This is great news for the consumers. More and more people with power are starting to realize the idiocy of this dispute with the greedy cable companies.

Props to the NFL and its network for going above and beyond to makes ends meet. This partnered with the offered third party arbitration will hopefully lead to a total collapse of any power the cable companies had in this dispute.

[midgetonadonkey]

All this excitement about the perfect season possibility and watch them lose.

[slayermin]

All this excitement about the perfect season possibility and watch them lose.

I hope the Giants at least give an effort. It would suck if they just pack it in and get blown out by 30.

Jacobs and Burress are banged up. I don't think Coughlin will play them much. I hope I'm wrong.

[midgetonadonkey]

I really don't care for the Pats but it would be cool to see a team go a perfect 19-0 to win the championship. Since my team isn't anywhere near the playoffs it would be cool to see some history.

[Extra Stout]

Time Warner just got kicked in the balls.


FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU Time Warner, Comcast and the like.
Do what? :wtf

The cable companies just won an absolute victory. The NFL is showing these games on NBC/CBS because senators from the New England states, along with Arlen Specter, were threatening to revoke the NFL's antitrust exemption if the game were not made widely availble. The game is over for the NFL Network.

What, did you think Time Warner had some conspiracy to keep you from watching football?

[J.T.]

What, did you think Time Warner had some conspiracy to keep you from watching football?

Not really, since the Internet enables me to watch any game I want for free I have no interest in this issue, but the way I understood it was that the cable companies wanted customers to pay for the NFL channel, and now a big game is going to be simulcast on network television for free. . . looks to me like the NFL got what they wanted, if only for this potential history making game.

[inconvertible]

FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU Time Warner, Comcast and the like. This is great news for the consumers. More and more people with power are starting to realize the idiocy of this dispute with the greedy cable companies.

Props to the NFL and its network for going above and beyond to makes ends meet. This partnered with the offered third party arbitration will hopefully lead to a total collapse of any power the cable companies had in this dispute.


hold on cowboy, NFL network is only doing this because their anti-trust exemption is being threatened in congress because of this time-warner vs NFL network bullshit.

[Extra Stout]

Not really, since the Internet enables me to watch any game I want for free I have no interest in this issue, but the way I understood it was that the cable companies wanted customers to pay for the NFL channel, and now a big game is going to be simulcast on network television for free. . . looks to me like the NFL got what they wanted, if only for this potential history making game.
The NFL not only wants to force carriers to pay its exorbitant rights fees for the NFL Network, but then wants to force them to carry NFL Network on basic cable so they can maximize their own advertising revenue.

The cable companies want to force the NFL Network out of existence, in part so they don't have to pay more money for games they previously got to carry, and in part because they want the games currently on NFL Network to be on one of the cable-owned networks (TW owns TNT/TBS; Comcast owns Vs.)

By the NFL being forced to televise an NFL Network game over the air, they lose all leverage they had to pressure the cable companies. The business model for keeping the games on an in-house network as opposed to selling the rights fees just imploded. Jerry Jones lost big time.

[leemajors]

i am with Extra Stout here, the NFL caved realizing mass amounts of customers were NOT leaving cable to watch their network. These games will be broadcast, albeit through a third party, on TW and Comcast. I don't see how anyone can claim this as a victory for the NFL Network.

[johngateswhiteley]

The NFL not only wants to force carriers to pay its exorbitant rights fees for the NFL Network, but then wants to force them to carry NFL Network on basic cable so they can maximize their own advertising revenue.

The cable companies want to force the NFL Network out of existence, in part so they don't have to pay more money for games they previously got to carry, and in part because they want the games currently on NFL Network to be on one of the cable-owned networks (TW owns TNT/TBS; Comcast owns Vs.)

By the NFL being forced to televise an NFL Network game over the air, they lose all leverage they had to pressure the cable companies. The business model for keeping the games on an in-house network as opposed to selling the rights fees just imploded. Jerry Jones lost big time.


thats right, but i have NFL network...so, whatever.

[Mr Dio]

Do what? :wtf

The cable companies just won an absolute victory. The NFL is showing these games on NBC/CBS because senators from the New England states, along with Arlen Specter, were threatening to revoke the NFL's antitrust exemption if the game were not made widely availble. The game is over for the NFL Network.

What, did you think Time Warner had some conspiracy to keep you from watching football?

:lol :lol :lol
I guess the GREEDY ass NFL just got bent over by fan pressure & politicians!
Take that NFL, take it without lube u BITCH!!!


Time Warner got what they wanted & didn't have to bend over to the Stalin-like NFL! :fro


Kudos to all companies that resisted...
To all the SUCKAS that felt like you had to get NFL network, u been DUPED! :lol

[Mr Dio]

Sr. Dio what happened the other night?


SORRY man! :lol
Too boracho to drv anywhere...


Next we need to meet up wayyyy BEFORE the game :drunk

[samikeyp]

Great! Now the whole world gets to see ShEli get his vag pounded by the Pats. :lol


NBC and CBS will show the NFL Network’s production of the game, with the announcers Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth, and will not pay an extra rights fee. They will each get to sell 18 30-second commercial units.

:vomit:

[BacktoBasics]

Do what? :wtf

The cable companies just won an absolute victory. The NFL is showing these games on NBC/CBS because senators from the New England states, along with Arlen Specter, were threatening to revoke the NFL's antitrust exemption if the game were not made widely availble. The game is over for the NFL Network.

What, did you think Time Warner had some conspiracy to keep you from watching football?No where have I read what you stated above. The ball is high in favor of the NFL network I don't see how you can see it any other way. With the NFL offering 3rd party arbitration and TW refusing, it paints the NFL in the perfect light. They sought resolution and TW refused. The NFL network has proactively attempted to find a reasonable solution and now they completely voided themselves of all power to show how eager they are to put an end to this. Huge victory for the NFL. Offering 3rd party arbitration was the catalyst for all of this.

If it was "over" for the NFL they never would have offered 3rd party resolution. It would have crushed the entire bases of what they are trying to accomplish. They made a genius move by putting TW on the spot and TW was the one that refused to seek a fair settlement. Now they are showing their flexablity even more so.

This wasn't forced by any power. Not any power that I've seen, read or heard.

Link me up to more info if you have it but all indications show that the Network is taking the right strides to find a reasonable solution.


Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports, said yesterday by telephone that in a conversation in October with Steve Bornstein, the chief executive of the NFL Network, that he would be amenable to a simulcast, and would share it with another broadcast network, if the Patriots’ momentum toward an undefeated season continued. Then, on Monday morning, Bornstein called to ask him if his idea was still viable for NBC.

“As early as last week, I didn’t think it would happen, but then Steve called and I ran it past Jeff, and he said, ‘yes,’ ” said Ebersol, referring to Jeff Zucker, the president of NBC Universal. He added, “I’m intrigued by the historic nature of two over-the-air networks carrying the game. It’ll be fun and will give the NFL Network a chance to exhibit their wares.”

Joe Browne, a spokesman for the league, said: “The two networks independently expressed an interest in carrying the game. They saw the problems we were having with a few of the big cable companies, and so we went back to them earlier this week, and said, ‘What if you both simulcast the NFL Network?’ ”

[BacktoBasics]

The NFL not only wants to force carriers to pay its exorbitant rights fees for the NFL Network, but then wants to force them to carry NFL Network on basic cable so they can maximize their own advertising revenue.

What exorbitant fee? Their asking price is right in line with like channels. Their price is reasonable. This is about TW wanting to put it on their tier to double the cost of their sports package and increase their investment.

This is exactly why the NFL Network offered arbitration. No way would they offer to void their own power and leave the fate of their channel in the hands of third party if they felt that their demands were highly unreasonable oe if their asking price was way out of line.

If they were so wrong and to blame TW would have taken the arbitration in a second. You have it backwards. TW knows the demand is reasonable but if the 3rd party leans to the NFL side which it will, it kills any chance TW and Comcast have to raise the price of their sports teir and charge 12-15 bucks monthly to each subscriber. Keeping this channel off of regular cable equals millions upon millions of dollars for the cable companies, all the NFL has asked is to be treated just as fairly as the rest of the channels on the basic package.

Go back in the TW thread and check their asking price, its right in the middle if not twords the low end. You guys need to abandon the entire "NFLs demands are too high" because its flat ficticious.

I do however agree that putting the Network on cable drives up the advertising revenue. That is the point, the channel could grow leaps and bounds with the right exposure. I for one want that. I want better content and programming. I would watch the channel if it was better, but it can't get there without the right advertising revenue. TW could care less.

[fyatuk]

Not really, since the Internet enables me to watch any game I want for free I have no interest in this issue, but the way I understood it was that the cable companies wanted customers to pay for the NFL channel, and now a big game is going to be simulcast on network television for free. . . looks to me like the NFL got what they wanted, if only for this potential history making game.

Not really. TimeWarner wanted only those people who wanted the network to have to pay for it. If TimeWarner puts it on a basic package, all consumers will pay more no matter if they want it or not.

It really shouldn't have much of an effect on the dispute. NFL Network will get increased advertising revenue with the simulcast since a good chunk of the advertising is theirs. It might have the effect of encouraging people to switch to providers that carry the game, and it might give the cable companies clout to keep pushing for the sports tier placement. Who knows.

[BacktoBasics]

If TimeWarner puts it on a basic package, all consumers will pay more no matter if they want it or not.


That's true but cable is going to go up reguardless. The increase won't be anymore than any other channel. TW acts as if the cable prices never rise and they certainly don't rise when new channels are added :rolleyes . Its laughable.

[greywheel]

It might have the effect of encouraging people to switch to providers that carry the game, and it might give the cable companies clout to keep pushing for the sports tier placement. Who knows.

Having seen several of Dallas' games simulcast already this year, I doubt this simulcast will do anything to encourage consumers to switch. Collinsworth and Gumble don't put on a good show and consumers will be left with the impression that if the game is big enough it will be simulcast anyway.

[BacktoBasics]

I don't think the amount of customers making the switch is the primary focus right now. Audience size is where its at for this game. The larger the share the more pressure the cable companies will feel considering they refused arbitration. It will put them in a corner they can't hide from if the audience for the game is large enough. It will also justify the need for the Network to be on basic cable because the demand is there.

I predict a big audience which will work well for the networks arguement that the channel has a fan base large enough to demand regular cable vs. a very limited tier.

[fyatuk]

That's true but cable is going to go up reguardless. The increase won't be anymore than any other channel. TW acts as if the cable prices never rise and they certainly don't rise when new channels are added :rolleyes . Its laughable.

Personally I think it's an extremely cogent argument. I despise paying for several channels I have because other people want them. Half the channels I have I have never even tuned into. Honestly, I'd rather be without NFL Network as well. The game telecasts are barely watchable and there's no other content I consider decent. Bleh.

The NFL Network is way to expensive a subscriber charge for the content, and the demand for it to be on a basic package is laughable. It is specialty programming and should be on a specialty tier. The NFL Network is, in true capitalist fashion, trying to make as much money as possible (by forcing everyone to pay the subscriber charge, and charging more for ad space), while for once, TW is looking more towards controlling costs for their customers. This is the first time I've ever agreed with TW on anything.

Personally, I still think cable companies should move towards a true ala-carte system.

[QUOTE=BacktoBasics]I predict a big audience which will work well for the networks arguement that the channel has a fan base large enough to demand regular cable vs. a very limited tier.[QUOTE]

I seriously doubt it. They would have to show not only that there is demand, but demand by those who don't want the sports tier. Could happen, but not truly likely.

[Holt's Cat]

The NFL not only wants to force carriers to pay its exorbitant rights fees for the NFL Network, but then wants to force them to carry NFL Network on basic cable so they can maximize their own advertising revenue.

The cable companies want to force the NFL Network out of existence, in part so they don't have to pay more money for games they previously got to carry, and in part because they want the games currently on NFL Network to be on one of the cable-owned networks (TW owns TNT/TBS; Comcast owns Vs.)

By the NFL being forced to televise an NFL Network game over the air, they lose all leverage they had to pressure the cable companies. The business model for keeping the games on an in-house network as opposed to selling the rights fees just imploded. Jerry Jones lost big time.


I see this as a one-off. Having the entire country tuning in to see if the Pats can go undefeated is better for the league than trying to bolster their fledging network.

But if it was the 13-2 Pats taking on the Giants, nobody would give a shit outside of the Northeast.

[BacktoBasics]

Personally I think it's an extremely cogent argument. I despise paying for several channels I have because other people want them. Half the channels I have I have never even tuned into. Honestly, I'd rather be without NFL Network as well. The game telecasts are barely watchable and there's no other content I consider decent. Bleh.

The NFL Network is way to expensive a subscriber charge for the content, and the demand for it to be on a basic package is laughable. It is specialty programming and should be on a specialty tier. The NFL Network is, in true capitalist fashion, trying to make as much money as possible (by forcing everyone to pay the subscriber charge, and charging more for ad space), while for once, TW is looking more towards controlling costs for their customers. This is the first time I've ever agreed with TW on anything.

Personally, I still think cable companies should move towards a true ala-carte system.


I predict a big audience which will work well for the networks arguement that the channel has a fan base large enough to demand regular cable vs. a very limited tier.




I seriously doubt it. They would have to show not only that there is demand, but demand by those who don't want the sports tier. Could happen, but not truly likely.

So you think the Food Network should be on a tier. The New channels should have their own tier. All sports channels should have their own tier as well?

Your arguement makes no sense and the size of the audience the channel could draw with the right programming is far from laughable. Case in point will be the size of the audience they get for this essentually worthless Pats game.

With the right amount of advertising coming in on a basic cable channel The NFL Network could easily attract an audience that would rival most of the top 20 basic channels once the content is up to par, but you can't get there without the advertising revenue see NBA channel. We're talking about the largest most marketed sport in the country, people eat and breath this shit to no end. Give them solid content and you have a channel with huge demand.

[MannyIsGod]

What you're missing out here is how the NFL is allowed to operate as a monopoly and how what they are doing with the NFL network and their demands (As well as what they do with Sunday Ticket) is going to piss off the people in power enough to take away that power.

Honestly, I stopped caring about the NFL network a while back and it does piss me off to see politicians worrying about this stupid fucking game instead of far more important things.

If TW and Comcast don't want to pay the NFL Networks fees, then why should they? I can see the argument for the NFL having to make its games more readily available because of their antitrust exemption, but I honestly don't care what the charge for the channel. Does the NFL not allow TW and Comcast to provide the channel on an ala cart basis? Wouldn't anyone who wanted the channel then be free to pick it up?

[Holt's Cat]

Of course federal and state politicians would rather ride the wave of public disgust over this matter than deal with other issues. The public is blissfully ignorant of more weighty matters. But don't get between them and a 3 hour football fix.

[BacktoBasics]

Does the NFL not allow TW and Comcast to provide the channel on an ala cart basis? Wouldn't anyone who wanted the channel then be free to pick it up?No they don't want that. It would kill their advertising revenue.

Thats why they offered 3rd party arbitration. They know their demands are within reason. They know the market would easily dictate a large enough audience to justify regular cable. They know the potential of the channel if programmed correctly could equate to a very successful venture. Thats exactly why TW and Comcast refused arbitration.

[MannyIsGod]

So they NFL wants to force me to pay for their network whether I want it or not? Cause I don't.

[leemajors]

No they don't want that. It would kill their advertising revenue.

Thats why they offered 3rd party arbitration. They know their demands are within reason. They know the market would easily dictate a large enough audience to justify regular cable. They know the potential of the channel if programmed correctly could equate to a very successful venture. Thats exactly why TW and Comcast refused arbitration.
the channel has nothing to offer between February and August, regardless of how it is programmed.

[fyatuk]

So you think the Food Network should be on a tier. The New channels should have their own tier. All sports channels should have their own tier as well?

Your arguement makes no sense and the size of the audience the channel could draw with the right programming is far from laughable. Case in point will be the size of the audience they get for this essentually worthless Pats game.

With the right amount of advertising coming in on a basic cable channel The NFL Network could easily attract an audience that would rival most of the top 20 basic channels once the content is up to par, but you can't get there without the advertising revenue see NBA channel. We're talking about the largest most marketed sport in the country, people eat and breath this shit to no end. Give them solid content and you have a channel with huge demand.

I'd rather not pay for the food network, but there's hardly a way a tier that one without the ala carte setup that I said I preferred. I do indeed think most of the multitude of news channels should be on a separate tier (I get about 15 of them and I don't watch any).

The Pats game is hardly worthless. It may have no meaning in terms of standings and playoff positioning but it has immense historical significance. That's the ONLY reason this game is going to have good ratings. Otherwise it would be a worthless game no one outside the fans of those teams would want to watch, like most of the NFL Network games this year have been. Seriously, the only games worth watching they had were Dallas/Green Bay, and this one.

The point is the content on the NFL network is NOT up to par, and it won't be for years and years. It is decidedly niche content very few people are going to have interest in watching except for the games. For 24 hours a YEAR the NFL Network has a chance to put up decent numbers and command being on a basic channel. The other 8,741 hours the NFL Network is WORTHLESS.

The NFL broadcasts on the major networks average something like 10 million viewers for their high ticket games (out of 117 million TV homes). The best performance on cable was 17 million viewers out of 65 million cable homes. That's around 25% of cable homes (as opposed to the 8-9% average of their broadcasts) for an extremely scritinezed matchup like this.

Do you honestly believe that a channel 1/4 of subscribers MIGHT watch 24 hours a YEAR deserves to be on basic cable?

Do you honestly believe 75% of the cable viewing public should be charged an extra $8.40/year for something they don't watch?

Do you think we should all (whether you watch it or not) pay this $8.40/year until the NFL Network can come up with decent programming to make it worth the cost?

The answer to all those questions is no.

[fyatuk]

No they don't want that. It would kill their advertising revenue.

Thats why they offered 3rd party arbitration. They know their demands are within reason. They know the market would easily dictate a large enough audience to justify regular cable. They know the potential of the channel if programmed correctly could equate to a very successful venture. Thats exactly why TW and Comcast refused arbitration.

Comcast refused arbitration because they have current court cases they appear to be on the winning side of (or at least have a reasonable chance of winning). That's why a court injunction (or whatever its called) lets them put it on their sports tier. TW wouldn't go for arbitration until the Comcast case is resolved as well.

And your first sentence is just it. NFL Network is looking out for itself and couldn't care less about the consumers. They have no direct interaction with the consumers.

[BacktoBasics]

So they NFL wants to force me to pay for their network whether I want it or not? Cause I don't.
They're no different than any other channel you don't watch, only the ability for the channel to grow is far greater than most of the basic programming which is why the cable providers want it on their tier so they can charge an arm and a leg. I bet you watch maybe 8 or 9 channels at most.

So should every new channel that pops up go straight into a tier because someone might not want it?

You'd be a fool to say the marketing ability of football is more limited than most of the current programming.

leemajors:

Correct the channel doesn't offer shit even during most of the regular season. This is the reason for the need to have the channel on the basic programming package. With the wider audience available the channel can generate a ton more in advertising revenue to invest in higher quality programming and better more broad content.

Take the Food Network for example, in it inception it blew balls, limited uninteresting cooking. Now that the advertising has grown leaps and bounds they can afford the better higher end content that makes the channel so successful. The NFL network has the ability to be marketed just as successful as any of the bigger channels its just young.

If you think for one minute within the next year we won't see some worthless shit for nothing channel added to basic you're wrong. They'll be a price point increase and you'll never know it because its not as widely debated as football. Other channels will come. I for one would like to see this channel available to a bigger audience and see it grow.

[BacktoBasics]

Comcast refused arbitration because they have current court cases they appear to be on the winning side of (or at least have a reasonable chance of winning). That's why a court injunction (or whatever its called) lets them put it on their sports tier. TW wouldn't go for arbitration until the Comcast case is resolved as well.If you're going to make statements like that you need to at least back them up with a link or something. Because I have seen nothing in print thats led me to believe any of that. If you're simply assuming then make a stronger arguement but in the big picture it doesn't add up. The asking price for the network is less than even Fox Sports and right in line with lower end news channels. With the potential that it has I see it being well within reason.

[fyatuk]

If you're going to make statements like that you need to at least back them up with a link or something. Because I have seen nothing in print thats led me to believe any of that. If you're simply assuming then make a stronger arguement but in the big picture it doesn't add up. The asking price for the network is less than even Fox Sports and right in line with lower end news channels. With the potential that it has I see it being well within reason.

If you don't know about the Comcast situation, you obviously don't care to pay attention. A quick google search will bring up multitudes of information regarding the suits. No one in their right mind would accept arbitration AFTER the courts have ruled in their favor.

You're comparing apples and oranges with the prices. You cannot compare a relative startup like the NFL network (launched in 2003) with Fox Sports (launched in 1994). Fox Sports also offers a wider variety of TYPE of content than NFL Network. If you compare the NFL Network to those same channels a few years after they were launched, and the NFL Network asking price is absurd. The NFL wants .70/mo, which is ridiculous for such a young network. The average is 50-60 cents and ESPN charges $2.90 for ALL of its channels. 0.35-40 would be an appropriate charge for the NFL Network if it wants to be on basic cable.

Even with the publicity about this, TW and other cable providers that do not provide NFL Network continue to grow at healthy rates. There is no incentive for the cable providers to give in to the absurdly high rate, since obviously it doesn't make THAT big of a difference to their subscribers.

[Extra Stout]

Outside of the actual NFL game broadcasts, all the programming on NFL Network is niche stuff. Very few viewers are clamoring to watch NFL Total Access and Playbook AFC, or all-day coverage of the scouting combine. The programming spread is 28 hours of live football and 8,732 hours of filler.

Cable companies cannot be forced to offer NFL Network on the terms the NFL wants, unless they are getting pressure from their customers to do so. If fans want to see those games bad enough, they can dump their cable provider and get satellite. That was the whole purpose of putting the games on NFL Network in the first place. The NFL actively was exhorting fans to dump cable in order to place pressure on TW/Comcast to submit to its terms.

Apparently that wasn't hurting bad enough for the cable companies to cave, so instead the NFL had to try to lobby the government and try to secure arbitration. All that is political bullshit. The cable companies had the NFL by the balls.

All these notions about the NFL getting great PR because this game is going to be on broadcast TV likewise is bullshit. The NFL is doing this because several senators threatened to revoke its antitrust exemption. They tried to go the route of political leverage and it blew up in their face. They lost. Now, anytime the NFL wants to put, say, an important Cowboys game on NFL Network, John Cornyn knows he can make hay by threatening the NFL, and they will have to cave.

There is no heat whatsoever on the cable companies. I'm not saying they were in the right here. Even if the NFL is offering reasonable terms for its network, TW and Comcast will not relent, because they simply do not want the network to exist. They want to bid on the eight-game package for their own networks and pocket the advertising money themselves. It was all a game of chicken between billionaires to see whether the producers or distributors would win, and the distributors indeed won.

I already had the NFL Network on DirecTV, and don't really have a dog in the fight; I'm simply reporting the fact that the NFL just got its ass kicked, and the game is over. Expect NFL Thursday Night Football on either TNT or Vs. next season.

[BacktoBasics]

Well appartenly the only reason you think Comcast has the upper hand there is because of a prior agreement. Looks like there wasn't enough fine print and Comcast exploited the situation. This suit is over and done with anyhow so what exactly is TW waiting for?


Thursday's lawsuit traces its roots to a prior round of litigation between Comcast and the NFL Network that began last year.

At that time, the NFL Network sued Comcast, claiming the cable operator must offer the channel on an expanded basic tier available to all subscribers rather than on a sports tier available for an additional monthly fee.

The New York Supreme Court in May ruled that Comcast was well within its rights and said the company "is entitled to distribute the NFL Network on a sports tier under the agreements between the parties."

[Extra Stout]

Well appartenly the only reason you think Comcast has the upper hand there is because of a prior agreement.
Yeah, contracts can be real bitches like that.

[BacktoBasics]

Yeah, contracts can be real bitches like that.The more I look into is sure does seem like the NFL Network got caught with their pants down. Comcast fucked them good.....nice business move.

[fyatuk]

Well appartenly the only reason you think Comcast has the upper hand there is because of a prior agreement. Looks like there wasn't enough fine print and Comcast exploited the situation. This suit is over and done with anyhow so what exactly is TW waiting for?

Well, the NFL has again sued Comcast and Comcast has sued the NFL Network for Breach of Contract. You found the first one, but apparenty not the others. I clearly said there were two current suits and then mentioned the closed one later.

[Extra Stout]

The more I look into is sure does seem like the NFL Network got caught with their pants down. Comcast fucked them good.....nice business move.
Jerry Jones would have a huge scowl on his face right about now were it not for all the Botox.

[samikeyp]

Expect NFL Thursday Night Football on either TNT or Vs. next season.

Cool...put Barkley in the booth. :lol

[BacktoBasics]

Well, the NFL has again sued Comcast and Comcast has sued the NFL Network for Breach of Contract. You found the first one, but apparenty not the others. I clearly said there were two current suits and then mentioned the closed one later.The only other suit is yes the Breach of Contract but that pertains to the Networks specifically marketing against them for the "switch". That doesn't pertain to the fact that the channel is or isn't on a tier.

In its most basic terms its seems that...

The NFL Network sold their rights to Comcast without specifying exactly how Comcast would distribute the channel. They dropped it on a pay per tier to up the value of the sports package and charge more. Since the NFL Network didn't specify how the channel was to be dealt with they were shit out of luck. Once they lost the lawsuit they countered with a public temper tantrum asking people to move to another form of broadcast to view the channel the way it was intended.

Still has no bearing on whether or not the request from TW is reasonable. NFL simply got bent over.....seems as if they'd like to avoid that the second time around. Arbitration would have nothing to do with the Comcast lawsuit because that pertained to fine print in a contract and not what is fair and reasonable. Even if the courts thought Comcast was unfair it didn't matter because of the state of the contract. Comcast won on a technicality and nothing more.

[BacktoBasics]

Jerry Jones would have a huge scowl on his face right about now were it not for all the Botox. :lol

[mikejones99]

Celtics at mormons should be a better game and cause at least one boston team to lose. People in NE need 2 tvs.