NFL network dropped by Time Warner

[x13thfloorrand]

Time Warner and NFL network's negociations regarding NFL Network on Time-Warner cable systems have stalled.
Effective tomorrow (Sept 15th), the network will no longer be carried by Time-Warner.

Which stinks, as now i have to have family conversations on Thanksgiving night (NFL network was to cover Thanksgiving night football)
sigh
(not like i dont mind, my family is pretty good, actually)

Where is this going to end up?

 

[Baldecki]

sad to hear, but doesnt surprise me. The area where i live (Livingston County) has i think one of the worst cable lineups. Almost no sports channels, and the price is outragous. Time Warner makes people pay all these high prices, but they don't have the good television channels to back it up.

 

[oldschooler1]

Time Warner doesn't MAKE you do anything. For economic reasons -- we dropped everything from ch. 19 on up. We get the wx ch. on 23. Costs us $7 a month. Best thing we ever did. There are some nights, the TV isn't even on after 8PM. Even before that. Bah. We read, talk...

 

[dampier]

Time Warner and NFL network's negociations regarding NFL Network on Time-Warner cable systems have stalled.
Effective tomorrow (Sept 15th), the network will no longer be carried by Time-Warner.

It's not exactly like football won't be on the TV any longer. This is another example of programmers trying to extract massive rate increases for their programming, and sports is considered so "essential" the prices are already outrageous. YES alone costs $3 a month for every subscriber whether they watch it or not.

I don't actually have tremendous sympathy for the cable industry which also tends to own the programmers (or have financial ties to them), making these rate hikes as legitimate as Verizon trying to up their DSL rates because their service provider wanted more money (and that service provider turned out to be them!)

But cable is finally starting to feel some competitive pressure from the satellite companies, and especially Verizon's FIOS in a lot of areas. Cable can't just increase rates by $3-5 a month every year without seeing their churn number increase. That means drawing some lines in the sand when programmers demand rate increases. The problem is, subscribers have only themselves to blame for the rate hikes because they complain when cable yanks something like NFL from the schedule because they want a $2 a month INCREASE over their old rates. So when people call up and complain and the company puts it back on at the new higher price, we all have to end up paying for it come January when the next rate hike is scheduled.

If the network stayed off the system, it's amazing when suddenly they are willing to deal down their rate hike just to get back on.

 

[Stone Johnson]

I normaly stay clear of these discussions, but let's not loose sight of timelines and facts. The NFL network was put on to replace Empire Sports (on Adelphia owned systems). Empire was being paid $1.93/sub inner market and NFL was $.25 per sub. We didn't have our rates lowered by the differance, and now loose NFL network also. So basicly the info slate telling you why you don't have NFL is costing you $1.93 per month for the same channel slot. Some will try to debate this, but it is fact.

 

[BobRoss]

It's not exactly like football won't be on the TV any longer. This is another example of programmers trying to extract massive rate increases for their programming, and sports is considered so "essential" the prices are already outrageous. YES alone costs $3 a month for every subscriber whether they watch it or not.

I'm also upset with these deals. I hate having to pay for loads of channels that I never watch... but in order to get the channels I *do* want, I have to get the crappy ones. I wish the FCC would have continued to press ahead with the a la carte idea... but that's a separate story.

The problem here is exactly as you said... people make such a huge deal about sports. It gets to the point where the cable companies feel like they have to do it because the public and in some cases, the media make such a big deal about it. As if Yankees fans would be rioting in the streets if Time Warner didn't add the YES in time for opening day the year the network debuted. And now we'll have football fans threatening to throw beer cans and squirt Cheez Whiz at the Time Warner offices if their beloved NFL Network isn't on the system ASAP. Just once, I'd like to see TW say they're NOT adding a channel because they got more letters and phone calls opposed rather than in favor.

Give me a break. Let's remember "back in the day" when there were only a few games on TV, period. Everyone was just fine with that. If your favorite team was on, great. If they weren't, oh well, but football is football. If you're a real fan, you're going to watch anyway.

The worst part of all this, is that the NFL Network, similar to YES, will only accept a deal that provides the channel to ALL subscribers, instead of just the ones who want it. I could care less about sports, but I get saddled paying for the channel anyway. It's almost as if HBO said "we're no longer an optional pay channel. Everyone will now get HBO, and they will pay us $10 a month whether they want to or not."

Also consider this other scam. Most of these channels (not just the sports ones) still show commercials. Yep, they're double-dipping... making money off of the subscriber fees and also from the commercials. Some channels also allow cable companies to insert a certain number of their own local commercials, so the cable company gets a piece of the action too. Yep, all while we're paying for the privilege of seeing it in the first place. And the satellite companies do it too (though it might not be as obvious since they'll fill the time with more national commercials, rather than cheesy low-budget local spots).

I think cable channels should live and die based on how well they can sell commercials... just like the local channels. That would get rid of a lot of useless channels nobody watches, and it would also greatly reduce cable rates because we wouldn't be paying ridiculous subscriber fees. Just think, if the unpopular channels went away, that would funnel more viewers toward the popular ones, thereby making it easier for them to charge higher rates for commercials. In the long run, cheaper cable for you and me.

 

[dampier]

I normaly stay clear of these discussions, but let's not loose sight of timelines and facts. The NFL network was put on to replace Empire Sports (on Adelphia owned systems). Empire was being paid $1.93/sub inner market and NFL was $.25 per sub. We didn't have our rates lowered by the differance, and now loose NFL network also. So basicly the info slate telling you why you don't have NFL is costing you $1.93 per month for the same channel slot. Some will try to debate this, but it is fact.

You can't look at the rate picture with just two networks. Also during the past year ESPN got another huge rate increase, Fox "News" increased its rate from 25c per subscriber to around $1, et al. Adelphia and Time Warner are two distinct entities (for purposes of this discussion ((Adelphia is being dissolved)). TW usually negotiates lower rates for programming because it is a far larger system and agrees to roll out networks on many more systems (this is the main reason we get these new channels on our system nobody asked for).

The problem here is that cable companies are not only facing main-line network rate increases (USA, TNT, etc.), they are also adding additional networks along the way. The only thing that will stop this trend (because although people love to complain about cable, the vast majority still have it) is for cable to face strong competition or people simply decide it's too expensive and cancel it.

A-la-carte is not the promised land some suggest it is. Cable companies are going to massively mark up the wholesale rate they pay to create a new retail rate that will end up saving most people very little. You can expect to pay for broadcast basic cable, plus 50c-$1.00 a month minimum per enhanced basic channel (sports channels will be much higher), plus their converter box. Once you choose 20 channels, you are looking at $35 a month minimum when you factor in all the equipment costs and fees. For another 10-20 dollars you get hundreds of channels. What is the better deal? Just look at TW's "family tier" which is a value joke.

Of course, the main reason cable is resistant to a-la-carte is that it will inevitably kill the majority of niche cable networks who rely not on the advertising (ever notice a lot of it is for 1-800 offers and other deals which only nets money to the network if someone orders something) but on their subscription fees. It also means cable has to scramble every channel, install and service converters in every home, and deal with a more complex billing system.

Competition is the better solution here, as is modified a-la carte, which would strip expensive programming like sports out of the enhanced basic package and make it a subscription feature. Another option is a-la-carte bouquets of networks based on theme packs (classic TV=Nick At Nite, TV Land, etc.), (home and gardening=HGTV, Food, etc.) which would be priced at a mini-package price.

Government should intervene and prohibit exclusive contracts, carriage contracts which mandate the service tier the network has to be placed on, and any contract provisions which mandate the carriage of other networks in order to gain rights to carry a primary network (ie. if you want the ABC affiliate, you also have to carry Soap, etc.)

 

[BobRoss]

Once you choose 20 channels, you are looking at $35 a month minimum when you factor in all the equipment costs and fees. For another 10-20 dollars you get hundreds of channels. What is the better deal?

If they're the same hundreds of channels I never watch anyway, that $10-20 can be better put towards a fraction of a tank of gas each month. That's the whole point. If I don't watch them, I don't want to pay for them. I don't care if the price per channel is higher with a la carte, as long as my bill winds up being lower than the package price.

Of course, the main reason cable is resistant to a-la-carte is that it will inevitably kill the majority of niche cable networks who rely not on the advertising (ever notice a lot of it is for 1-800 offers and other deals which only nets money to the network if someone orders something) but on their subscription fees.

That's the point I tried to make before! If nobody actually watches these channels, they should go away. This isn't Communism where everyone helps each other stay afloat. It's capitalism. If you have a product people like (ie. CNN, Comedy Central, etc.), you make money. If your product is crap (ie. Speed, Ovation, etc.) then it fails. You don't see Wal-Mart charging people extra so they can help their less-popular competitors stay open, do you? If people stop shopping at one store, it goes out of business. Likewise, if nobody watches a particular cable network, it should sign off.

Government should intervene and prohibit exclusive contracts, carriage contracts which mandate the service tier the network has to be placed on, and any contract provisions which mandate the carriage of other networks in order to gain rights to carry a primary network (ie. if you want the ABC affiliate, you also have to carry Soap, etc.)

I agree with you 100% here. The YES Network shouldn't be allowed to say "we're on basic cable for everyone, or you don't get us at all." If the network is geared toward diehard Yankees fans, then only those fans who WANT it should pay for it. Same goes for NFL Network. It should be an optional channel, or part of an optional tier.

Now here's another thing. TV stations cannot own cable companies in the same market. That's why Harron Cable had to sell Utica's WKTV back in 1992. If the same owner can't run a broadcast station and a cable station, then the same owner shouldn't be allowed to run cable systems AND cable channels. As we saw, ownership problems like that are what kept Empire Sports off Time Warner... and I'm sure TW had a few channels they either refused to Adelphia, or robbed them blind in fees. Deals like that wouldn't be an issue if cable channels were kept separate from cable companies.

 

[dampier]

If they're the same hundreds of channels I never watch anyway, that $10-20 can be better put towards a fraction of a tank of gas each month. That's the whole point. If I don't watch them, I don't want to pay for them. I don't care if the price per channel is higher with a la carte, as long as my bill winds up being lower than the package price.

With the cable industry, they will find a way to ensure that less costs more eventually. Their entire business model has been built on one price for all basic, and they are going to have to be dragged away from it. I'm sympathetic to your position, but I don't want to you be suckered by the hype about how much cheaper a-la-carte would cost, because it's not going to be the value bonanza some promise.

Now here's another thing. TV stations cannot own cable companies in the same market. That's why Harron Cable had to sell Utica's WKTV back in 1992. If the same owner can't run a broadcast station and a cable station, then the same owner shouldn't be allowed to run cable systems AND cable channels. As we saw, ownership problems like that are what kept Empire Sports off Time Warner... and I'm sure TW had a few channels they either refused to Adelphia, or robbed them blind in fees. Deals like that wouldn't be an issue if cable channels were kept separate from cable companies.

Empire Sports was on TW. The reason it took a long time is that it wasn't considered a big priority and they wanted some big money for it, so it took a fight.

 

[anoldguy]

I noticed a while back Time warner in Rochester moved some channels around on the anolog tier.
They moved some religious stations to higher channels and seemed to move some sport channels together in the high 40's and low 50's. Now there is nothing on ch. 49. I took to mean that they were reserving it for the NFL Channel.
And as I have said before, bring on the a-la-cart channels. I can tell you that outside of the main local channels I would take only about 6 or 7 channels. That would have to save me a lot of money. Outside of the Yankees, every sport I want to watch is on regular TV. So the cost of the sports channels wouldn't be an issue for me.

 

[dampier]

I noticed a while back Time warner in Rochester moved some channels around on the anolog tier.
They moved some religious stations to higher channels and seemed to move some sport channels together in the high 40's and low 50's. Now there is nothing on ch. 49. I took to mean that they were reserving it for the NFL Channel.
And as I have said before, bring on the a-la-cart channels. I can tell you that outside of the main local channels I would take only about 6 or 7 channels. That would have to save me a lot of money. Outside of the Yankees, every sport I want to watch is on regular TV. So the cost of the sports channels wouldn't be an issue for me.

The usual reason for that is that TW has contracts that guarantee channel placement below a certain channel number for enhanced basic networks who don't want to be in Channel Siberia. So those nets with contractual provisions placing them below channel 50 (or whatever number they agreed to) bump the channels already there. Occasionally cable companies also do this to sync up their channel lineups with other areas they serve (ie. Finger Lakes, Rochester, Genesee county, etc.,) but this didn't seem to be the case this time. When C-SPAN gets screwed and dumped on a high channel, it's a safe bet that contract provisions are responsible, and C-SPAN rarely gets respect on cable systems.