Out-of-towners. [Jets game]

[CarMike]

Game will be televised live on NFL Network.

Saturday at 7 pm.

:awesomewo

[CNYSkinFan]

booooooooooooo that took it off local tv here in NY and time warner does not have NFL Network

[AliBabba]

booooooooooooo that took it off local tv here in NY and time warner does not have NFL Network
Ouch thats a raw deal .... are there plans for them to add NFLnet soon? Hasn't it been around for 3-4 years now?

[Keino]

booooooooooooo that took it off local tv here in NY and time warner does not have NFL Network

I don't think that's correct Dustin, but obviously you would know better than I. NFL Network broadcasts are subject to local Blackout rules. So, if the game is aired locally, then NFL-N users will be looking at a Black screen.

[redskin_rich]

I don't think that's correct Dustin, but obviously you would know better than I. NFL Network broadcasts are subject to local Blackout rules. So, if the game is aired locally, then NFL-N users will be looking at a Black screen.

No, Dustin will probably be getting the Cowgirls game. I don't think where he is, is considered the Jets local area.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

booooooooooooo that took it off local tv here in NY and time warner does not have NFL Network

I had terrible misfortune with last week's game. I was in your neck of the woods in the Cuse (as I have come to learn it is called). So I was looking forward to taking advantage of local Buffalo television (most hotels don't have NFL Network). I did catch most of the first half before returning to my hotel, but wouldn't you know my hotel had no signal for CBS. The only channel with snow. Talk about bad luck.

I'm not taking any chances this week.

[redskinz#1fan]

I don't think that's correct Dustin, but obviously you would know better than I. NFL Network broadcasts are subject to local Blackout rules. So, if the game is aired locally, then NFL-N users will be looking at a Black screen.

That's 100% correct...I had set my DVR to record the Skins/ Bills game so I could watch it when I got home from the game, and I had nothing but a black screen. I set it to record on NFL network as opposed to the local station, and that's what I got.

Lesson learned!

[Keino]

Ouch thats a raw deal .... are there plans for them to add NFLnet soon? Hasn't it been around for 3-4 years now?

Time Warner and the NFL are in the midst of a Law suit, so it won't happen anytime soon. The issue at hand is that Time Warner wants to make NFL-N a "Premium" type channel because of the fees the NFL is charging cable providers to carry the network. The NFL wants it's Television product to be a part of basic programming and Time Warner says they have no desire to absorb the NFL's fee for carrying the network. Comcast has no problems with this arrangement apparently. The problem is, that the fee would amount to about $.20 Cents per subscriber if passed directly on to the consumer while making it a premium channel would cost subscribers about $10.00 per Subscriber and the NFL views this as gouging. Time Warner counters by saying "Our polling of customers says that there isn't broad demand for NFL-N, so we are not going to charge ALL of our customer and extra 20 Cents, but rather charge those who want the channel".

I can really see both sides of the issue.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

Time Warner and the NFL are in the midst of a Law suit, so it won't happen anytime soon. The issue at hand is that Time Warner wants to make NFL-N a "Premium" type channel because of the fees the NFL is charging cable providers to carry the network. The NFL wants it's Television product to be a part of basic programming and Time Warner says they have no desire to absorb the NFL's fee for carrying the network. Comcast has no problems with this arrangement apparently. The problem is, that the fee would amount to about $.20 Cents per subscriber if passed directly on to the consumer while making it a premium channel would cost subscribers about $10.00 per Subscriber and the NFL views this as gouging. Time Warner counters by saying "Our polling of customers says that there isn't broad demand for NFL-N, so we are not going to charge ALL of our customer and extra 20 Cents, but rather charge those who want the channel".

I can really see both sides of the issue.

It is premium on Comcast. I believe it is a $5 monthly charge.

[redskinz#1fan]

It is premium on Comcast. I believe it is a $5 monthly charge.

It's also premium on Cox Cable...Not sure what the cost is, because I have DTV...

[Hr fan]

Back to basics - thanks for the heads up.

[Keino]

I have D-TV as well. Brighthouse, which is a Time-warner affiliate is the main cable provider here, though Fios and Comcast have begun to crack this Market.

Maybe the dispute is over the amount that Time Warner wants to charge consumers. Having said that, I thought NFL-N was a part of the Comcast digital cable package. No idea about Cox.......

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I have D-TV as well. Brighthouse, which is a Time-warner affiliate is the main cable provider here, though Fios and Comcast have begun to crack this Market.

Maybe the dispute is over the amount that Time Warner wants to charge consumers. Having said that, I thought NFL-N was a part of the Comcast digital cable package. No idea about Cox.......

Not for Comcast. It was when the network first started. Comcast had the same issue that you addressed above as Time Warner with the increased cost of the channel when the NFL Network landed live games. Comcast decided to make it a premium channel at that point and pass the cost on to the customers.

[Redskin4Life]

Time Warner and the NFL are in the midst of a Law suit, so it won't happen anytime soon. The issue at hand is that Time Warner wants to make NFL-N a "Premium" type channel because of the fees the NFL is charging cable providers to carry the network. The NFL wants it's Television product to be a part of basic programming and Time Warner says they have no desire to absorb the NFL's fee for carrying the network. Comcast has no problems with this arrangement apparently. The problem is, that the fee would amount to about $.20 Cents per subscriber if passed directly on to the consumer while making it a premium channel would cost subscribers about $10.00 per Subscriber and the NFL views this as gouging. Time Warner counters by saying "Our polling of customers says that there isn't broad demand for NFL-N, so we are not going to charge ALL of our customer and extra 20 Cents, but rather charge those who want the channel".

I can really see both sides of the issue.
I don't see both sides of the issue at all... the problem IMO is Time Warner's argument. Okay so they can argue that some of their customers don't want NFLN... I can't argue with that. But the bolded statement, I have a problem with. I have to pay extra for channels like Noggin or the 15 women's related channels or the National Geographic channel or SoapNet or the Golf Channel. Time Warner doesn't seem to think that the extra money consumers spend towards those channels on regular cable are an issue despite the fact that most people don't watch these channels. In fact, Time Warner doesn't care about my wants and needs... they only care getting the most money possible. They know that their "sports package" would be 100 times more attractive if they add the NFLN to it. And that's my problem with all of this... I really think the NFLN is in the right.

Now, I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for reading.

[Keino]

I don't see both sides of the issue at all... the problem IMO is Time Warner's argument. Okay so they can argue that some of their customers don't want NFLN... I can't argue with that. But the bolded statement, I have a problem with. I have to pay extra for channels like Noggin or the 15 women's related channels or the National Geographic channel or SoapNet or the Golf Channel. Time Warner doesn't seem to think that the extra money consumers spend towards those channels on regular cable are an issue despite the fact that most people don't watch these channels. In fact, Time Warner doesn't care about my wants and needs... they only care getting the most money possible. They know that their "sports package" would be 100 times more attractive if they add the NFLN to it. And that's my problem with all of this... I really think the NFLN is in the right.

Now, I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for reading.

It's a supply and demand argument. Time Warner claims to have studied the issue amongst their subscribers and they say the mandate is simply not there to carry NFL-N in the way that ESPN is carried and they point out that ESPN doesn't charge them this fee. So I can see from that perspective, their point. Those who want it can have it, but they have to pay for it, just like HBO and other premium channels. Until their is a mandate from the customer base.....at the end of the day, both sides are being a bit greedy.

I side with the NFL, but that's because I am an NFL fan. If I didn't care about the NFL, I am sure that I would object to increasing my Cable bill for a service I don't use....

Edit - BTW - I apologize for steering this thread off-course, but I do think it to be an interesting discussion.

[Redskin4Life]

It's a supply and demand argument. Time Warner claims to have studied the issue amongst their subscribers and they say the mandate is simply not there to carry NFL-N in the way that ESPN is carried and they point out that ESPN doesn't charge them this fee. So I can see from that perspective, their point. Those who want it can have it, but they have to pay for it, just like HBO and other premium channels. Until their is a mandate from the customer base.....at the end of the day, both sides are being a bit greedy.

I side with the NFL, but that's because I am an NFL fan. If I didn't care about the NFL, I am sure that I would object to increasing my Cable bill for a service I don't use....

Edit - BTW - I apologize for steering this thread off-course, but I do think it to be an interesting discussion.
While you can argue that ESPN isn't charging for their services, they are part of the ABC family. ABC has not only their main network but they have ABC family, ESPN, ESPN2, Classic and ESPN News along with ESPN U all on basic or the next tier (classic, the U and ESPN News are there for us). That's free advertising for them (ESPN on ABC for example) as well as more channels for which to be able to lower the "cost" to TW.

Now the NFLN doesn't have another network to help them out (well at least not yet... I read a couple of months ago that they're in discussions with ESPN about a partnership) so they have to charge the extra money just to stay afloat.... running a network does cost money, especially one like the NFLN.

Honestly a 20 cent increase on your $30 bill isn't a big issue... the issue is that someone has to pay $30 just for regular cable in the first place (and in my case I have to pay $70 for digital cable and DVR).

And thinking that adding 20 cents more to my bill a month is going to make me switch from cable or that I'm being gouged by the big nasty corporation of the NFL is truly absurd.... TW's already got me for $70 a month. What's $70.20 to me??? I'm sure most other people would say the same thing.

[Keino]

So what if your Cable provider sent you a notice that they were increasing your bill to add Lifetime 2 - Lifetime 12 and the cost was only 20 cents. Are you seriously contesting you wouldn't be pissed? Why should you have to pay extra for something that you yourself would never use? Wouldn't you rather those who want the additional Lifetime channels pay for them?

It's not solely about the cost, which may or may not be nominal....There is a larger principal at work here.

[Keino]

This is a great article that lays out the issues exactly and corrects some of the facts that I have wrong:

Read it Here. (http://www.nysun.com/sports/nfl-network-time-warner-cant-seem-to-get-along/37421/)

[Red Bear]

So what if your Cable provider sent you a notice that they were increasing your bill to add Lifetime 2 - Lifetime 12 and the cost was only 20 cents. Are you seriously contesting you wouldn't be pissed? Why should you have to pay extra for something that you yourself would never use? Wouldn't you rather those who want the additional Lifetime channels pay for them?

It's not solely about the cost, which may or may not be nominal....There is a larger principal at work here.

eventually theyll find a reason to raise everyones bill 20 cents anyways whether they add more channels or not

[Keino]

eventually theyll find a reason to raise everyones bill 20 cents anyways whether they add more channels or not

And this comment is relevant, how?

[Redskin4Life]

And this comment is relevant, how?
I believe RedBear got my point... Time Warner is charging me an arm and a leg for channels I don't care for now. What's 20 more cents for a channel that I want??? I mean I have to pay $25 extra just for the digital service (the next tier up from standard) just for DVR capabilities... why can't NFLN be lumped in there?

And if TW was really concerned about what I want, why not offer all the women's channels in a package? Why not charge extra for those channels? Cause they know there's money to be made by having the NFLN on TW as a "premium" channel.

The 20 cents isn't the issue for consumers, it's the fact that we're going to have to pay more for a channel not everyone wants. But if they charge us 20 cents more on our bills, most of us wouldn't know or wouldn't care. They're making a mountain out of molehill just so they can get more money from us, the consumers.

[Keino]

I believe RedBear got my point... Time Warner is charging me an arm and a leg for channels I don't care for now. What's 20 more cents for a channel that I want??? I mean I have to pay $25 extra just for the digital service (the next tier up from standard) just for DVR capabilities... why can't NFLN be lumped in there?

And if TW was really concerned about what I want, why not offer all the women's channels in a package? Why not charge extra for those channels? Cause they know there's money to be made by having the NFLN on TW as a "premium" channel.

The 20 cents isn't the issue for consumers, it's the fact that we're going to have to pay more for a channel not everyone wants. But if they charge us 20 cents more on our bills, most of us wouldn't know or wouldn't care. They're making a mountain out of molehill just so they can get more money from us, the consumers.


Read the article I posted. It's more than 20 Cents and the issue again is about Demand for it. The cable companies contend there isn't a high demand. BTW - I side with the NFL on it, but you aren't considering people who aren't football fans. There are tons of those......

[Swirvi]

Read the article I posted. It's more than 20 Cents and the issue again is about Demand for it. The cable companies contend there isn't a high demand. BTW - I side with the NFL on it, but you aren't considering people who aren't football fans. There are tons of those......

I actually AM considering people who aren't football fans. But the argument has been made, and I completely agree, that if TW and Comcast ARE considering those people who aren't football fans, then why don't they consider those people who aren't fans of the Woman's Entertainment and Oxygen and G4, etc.? They aren't charging consumers extra for these channels. The are absorbing the cost to carry these channels in their regular cable packages. But the cable companies know that they can make a killing off selling the NFLN as a premium channel because the football fans will HAVE TO PAY the cost. And that is just not fair.

I actually just switched from TW to DirectTV and explained to them why. The guy said that that is a very common reason and they lose a lot of customers in August and September. Coincidence? I think not.

[Redskin4Life]

Read the article I posted. It's more than 20 Cents and the issue again is about Demand for it. The cable companies contend there isn't a high demand. BTW - I side with the NFL on it, but you aren't considering people who aren't football fans. There are tons of those......
I understand those arguments but do they care that most people don't watch National Geographic channel? Or the food network? Or the Hallmark channel? Or the Golf Channel (I HIGHLY doubt that TW can argue there is more interest in golf than the NFL)? Those channels are on my regular cable listing as of right now and I'm sure there was no research to make sure that the general viewing public would want these channels before adding them. And I seriously doubt that all of these channels are on there for free. I'm sure my cable bill went up for these channels. But they did it quietly.

I'm sure it didn't help that the NFLN has made a big stink about how cable companies are not providing the NFLN to you and asking people to switch to satellite. But honestly, this is about nothing more than who's going to look good in the end... charging us (the consumer) another 20 cents more a month really isn't the issue (whether they want to argue that point or not). It's more about TW wanting to make more money off of this channel than the NFLN wants to. TW isn't the "champion of consumer rights" like they want to protray themselves as being in the media... they just want a bigger piece of the pie (by taking it directly from our pockets).

Here, think about it like this: TW's argument is that adding the NFLN will cost us all 20 cents extra to our bill. Let's assume that only 20% of TW's viewership is interested in the NFLN (no matter what -- they pay the extra cost for it). By simple algebra, the 20% viewership that wants the NFLN would have to pay $1 to make up the total cost of the fee that the NFLN is charging. But here's the catch, TW wants to charge us $5 or more for the channel. So that's $4 a viewer EXTRA in their pocket. Sure they could add more sports channels to justify the extra $4 but really would you pay for the other channels if the NFLN wasn't included. I'd say no and that's why I think TW is wrong.

[SkinsfaninNJ]

I actually AM considering people who aren't football fans. But the argument has been made, and I completely agree, that if TW and Comcast ARE considering those people who aren't football fans, then why don't they consider those people who aren't fans of the Woman's Entertainment and Oxygen and G4, etc.? They aren't charging consumers extra for these channels. The are absorbing the cost to carry these channels in their regular cable packages. But the cable companies know that they can make a killing off selling the NFLN as a premium channel because the football fans will HAVE TO PAY the cost. And that is just not fair.

I actually just switched from TW to DirectTV and explained to them why. The guy said that that is a very common reason and they lose a lot of customers in August and September. Coincidence? I think not.

If I recall correctly, the issue with NFL N versus other channels is the cost of the channel to the cable companies once NFL N started airing live games. The cost jumped to ESPN type of cost. Without the live games, this probably would not have been an issue. The cable companies can bear the burden of the cost for ESPN, because of its popularity, but not for NFL N. Since, NFL N costs significantly more for the cable companies to carry as opposed to Oxygen, Lifetime, etc., the cable companies determined it was fair to pass or share the burden with its customers (Comcast) or not even offer the channel (Time Warner).

[Keino]

I understand those arguments but do they care that most people don't watch National Geographic channel? Or the food network? Or the Hallmark channel? Or the Golf Channel (I HIGHLY doubt that TW can argue there is more interest in golf than the NFL)? Those channels are on my regular cable listing as of right now and I'm sure there was no research to make sure that the general viewing public would want these channels before adding them. And I seriously doubt that all of these channels are on there for free. I'm sure my cable bill went up for these channels. But they did it quietly.

I'm sure it didn't help that the NFLN has made a big stink about how cable companies are not providing the NFLN to you and asking people to switch to satellite. But honestly, this is about nothing more than who's going to look good in the end... charging us (the consumer) another 20 cents more a month really isn't the issue (whether they want to argue that point or not). It's more about TW wanting to make more money off of this channel than the NFLN wants to. TW isn't the "champion of consumer rights" like they want to protray themselves as being in the media... they just want a bigger piece of the pie (by taking it directly from our pockets).

Here, think about it like this: TW's argument is that adding the NFLN will cost us all 20 cents extra to our bill. Let's assume that only 20% of TW's viewership is interested in the NFLN (no matter what -- they pay the extra cost for it). By simple algebra, the 20% viewership that wants the NFLN would have to pay $1 to make up the total cost of the fee that the NFLN is charging. But here's the catch, TW wants to charge us $5 or more for the channel. So that's $4 a viewer EXTRA in their pocket. Sure they could add more sports channels to justify the extra $4 but really would you pay for the other channels if the NFLN wasn't included. I'd say no and that's why I think TW is wrong.


R4L , I have said repeatedly that I agree with the NFL on it. I think there is greed being displayed on both sides of it, however, even though I personally side with the NFL on it. However, TW is a business and so from the perspective of business and nothing else, I can certainly understand their POV even though I personally do not agree with it.

Additionally, the numbers I was using were incorrect, which is why I posted the article to clarify my own incorrect understanding of the issue. SkinfaninNJ has it correct. The issue came about when the NFL began to air games and upped their charge from .30 to .90 per subscriber. Also according to the article, ESPN cahrges $3.00 per subscriber, but they also offer multiple channels etc..

Again, I am with the NFL on the issue, but I can certainly understand the TW perspective.

[Red Bear]

And this comment is relevant, how?

this is relevant because either way TW is gonna make money hand over fist whether they offer it for free or not. I dont believe its greed on both parts either. the NFL and NFLN have reached agreements with other providers, but not with TW because TW wants to rape peoples pockets just to watch NFLN. You ask why should everyone incur a (for example) 20 cents increase for a channel they might not want, yet fail to recognize why people would want to pay $5, $10, $15 more a month for whatever TWs premium sports package costs just for NFLN when they otherwise would have no use for a premium sports package. yep a raping of the pockets. also its obvious to me that TW actually loses money by not carrying nfln as part of their regular cable package due to losing subscribers to someone who does carry NFLN.

[Jim_Zorn]

For those who can't get the game on TV, you should be able to watch it live at this site, albeit on a small screen.


http://www.channelsurfing.net/

[SkinsKY]

For those who can't get the game on TV, you should be able to watch it live at this site, albeit on a small screen.


http://www.channelsurfing.net/

They do usually carry a lot of stuff to watch and have watch my fair share of football and soccer games there. I just upped my cable package so I've got the NFL network now, so I'll be happy to watch it, in HD to boot. :)

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Is this game being streamed anywhere?