f13.net

Yeah, I think they realize all their fans hate them for trying to pull this crap, and having 7-8 games a year isn't worth a damn Network channel. Also, Congress is in town, and they are giving the NFL the middle finger.

Patriots-Giants game will be shown on CBS/NBC (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-patriots-giants-tv&prov=ap&type=lgns)

Remember this as the day the NFL network died. Thank God.

I don't mind the NFL having it's own network... They just need to work something out. What's the whole story behind it anyways? Why doesn't Comcast and Roadrunner include them?

I think the NFL network is a pay-to-watch, AND like the Big 10 network wanted some incredibly large cut from the cable companies to be part of their package.

NFL made up a network so they could make more money in the off-season. The network will have ZERO relevance at such a point, but they will get $0.40 per subscriber per month if they include it in a regular package. Then, the cable company ups your rate.

The NFL tried to strangle the cable companies by putting games on the Network that couldn't be seen anywhere else. Usually they were the really good games you'd actually care about. However, the cable companies got the anti-trust people involved, and now it's in a shitstorm.

That's good to hear. 

To me it was just one more step into making allNFL games require more than standard cable to watch. 

Yeah I almost missed GB vs DAL because of it. Just wasn't sure what the cable companies' side of the story was.

Good news, even if the Gints are going to get slaughtered. Them having some decent games didn't make me want to call my cable company, it just earned some ill-will.

Does this mean my cable bill will go down, since NFL Network no longer has exclusive games?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I don't think Comcast out here was even carrying it and my bill just got raised for 2008.  =P

The whole kerfluffle was about money, of course. The network wanted cable companies to include it in all their basic packages, like ESPN. Only, there really isn't a reason to do that for the cable companies, since it makes a nice add-on for the more expensive packages. Everybody wanted money, and the football fans got double-stuffed by two giant dick-waving wankers. If this game wasn't about 16-0, this wouldn't have happened. I'm sure next season, the same dick-waving bullshit will go on.

I love the NFL channel. If it wasn't for the NHL channel (hallelujah!), it would be the most watched channel on my DirecTV band.

Sports sports sports sports sports sports sports…

$2.50 of your monthly cable is just for ESPN. Five years ago it was closer to $1. The NFL wants to be like that.

See, and I'm happy to pay that for ESPN. That channel probably gets 100 hours a month of use at least. NFL network wouldn't get remotely close.

Glad you are happy but the vast majority of cable customers that have ESPN as part of the their basic service probably watch less than an  hour of ESPN a month. ESPN does not have the ratings to justify that expense - except on Monday nights now.  Disney really jammed the cable companies. Amazing.

ESPN is one of the few channels I actually watch anymore, along with History, Discovery Channel, the Golf Channel, and TLC.

If I could choose, every sports network would be removed from my channel list if it would save me money.
When it comes down to it, I don't care enough about sports nor have enough time to watch the few I have interest in.
3-4 hours of a football broadcast for what amounts to 1 hour of actual action isn't my idea of fun.

But that's just me.  There are so many sports fans that ESPN and the sports networks or PPV season ticket things can pretty much get any amount of cash they want.

Yeah, if you hate sports but love watching TV, I honestly have no clue what you people are looking at. Very few shows grab my interest anymore barring about 5 exceptions.

Then again, I don't have HBO or TIVO, so sports just fits into my schedule at night.

Was ultimately a good move for them since they pumped the shit out of their "call your cable company to get the NFL network" spot and the constant pimping by the play/color slobs about the network. Basically free advertising on a Big 3 feed.

You can choose. There was a whole big deal about making cable companies let you purchase only channels that you want. If you call them up I'm sure you can give them a list of channels you want. Now what i don't know is how the cost compares. Whether they were allowed to stuff you by making it a lot more expensive for not using their specific packages. You'd have to find out, but I know it's possible (if you're in the US).

The DVR (Time Warner's "tivo") is a godsend. We mostly watch recorded stuff. Music, nature shows, travel, science (well, more science for me, more travel for her). My only gripe with Time Warner's setup is that you can only set up recording 6 days ahead.

We had some odd thing where every time it went to the main camera shot, the entire screen would be out of focus for a couple seconds, then it came into focus. Pretty annoying, and it was the entire feed, scoreboard chrome and all. Never happened on an NFL game before, so I blame NFL network.

Buh?  As far as I'm aware nothing has been passed that requires the cable companies to do this.  It's still one of the FCC chair's big ticket items on his agenda, but since it also would be one tick closer to his whole "The FCC should control the internet/ Cable/ AND all broadcast" agenda I'm still disinclined to support the idea.

Correct. That is called "a la carte" pricing - each channel has its own monthly charge and the customer picks and chooses which channels to buy. I am not against it theoretically, but I am with Merusk in that the less meddling the FCC (and the government as a whole) does the better.

Cause cable companies would never abuse their government-granted monopolies.

If the cable companies didn't have monopolies to fight back against the phone companies, you would be stuck with Verizon 128k DSL. Forever.

Not to get all financial, but the return on investment that the cable companies get is about 20%. Last year, Comcast has about a 10% net income margin. That's good, but it isn't pure monopoly levels. Not even close. They spend a lot of money every year incrementally upgrading networks and systems.

I would kill someone for a la carte pricing on my DirecTV. There'd be a shitload of channels I'd never put on my list.

NFL Network is decent coverage, but it is just way too niche for being included in the basic package. At least ESPN has the excuse that it appeals to LOTS of different sports fans. It's still a niche channel, but less niche than NFL.

The only problem with alacarte is what happens when that 1 show out of a 100 shows up on the channels you don't watch but want to?
It also kills channel surfing.

I bet a lot of cable channels would cease to exist if this happened.

Of course, if records were kept about how many subbers had each station it could be a serious hit to the Neilsen ratings...

Channel surfing is no issue for me. I spend about 99.9% of my TV time watching on the Tivo. Live TV makes me antsy.

Of course, I'm envisioning a future with a la carte where you don't necessarily worry about channels, you just pay for the shows you watch. Now THAT would be  :awesome_for_real:

If its anything like DVD costs per episode (and it would be!), Dr Who would be 10 bucks an episode, while some stuff would be 1 dollar an episode.

I really don't think it would work.  Given corporations, it would be getting less at a higher price. :(

Forget cable and satellite. Would like to just able to stream it all (purchased shows, live broadcasts, etc.…)… …and be able to beam it anywhere in the house… …and let me punch it up on a touchscreen remote…

GDC you say? Would there be  :pedobear: involved?

That is the argument the cable companies make. By bundling channels, more channels can exist so customers get more choice. That argument sounds nice but if tested, it would only prove that there are channels people don't care that much about even though they watch them now.

Let's assume that the following channels are basic:

CBS
ABC
NBC
FOX
and one or more cable news channels

Now let's assume the following all cost $1 a month:

TBS
TNT
Discovery
History
ESPN
FX
Lifetime
Food
HSN
QVC

If in an a la carte model, I subscribed to all of those channel I am still so far below the $75/month I pay now (no HBO/Cinemax/Showtime but I do have STARZ) it is not even funny.

Except on your list, those channels are likely to cost more than $1.  The only ones likely to cost that little are ESPN, TNT and TBS.  Discovery,  Food and History I can see being $5 or more per month, with Lifetime there but possibly cheaper.   No idea what the shopping network channels would do in such a pricing structure.

I was trying to find a Nielson ratings chart for channels, but I failed.  I did find out that Turner was claiming USA was the most-watched channel last year, but that's because they ignored the non-ad channels like Disney (who, it turns out, is the true #1 channel.)

The less-watched a channel is, the more it's going to cost and the more ads it's going to need to run to make-up for the lost revenue.  It's one thing to drop an ad on a channel that's low-rated, hoping someone channel surfing would see it.  It's an entirely different matter to know that you've only got a potential base of 1million viewers, and most of those aren't watching at that moment.

Fuck, under an a la carte system I see a lot of channels disappearing alltogether.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that ESPN is $2.50 per month. I failed to mention that it is far and away the most expensive non-premium channel (HBO, etc) you have. Discovery gets $0.30, for example, and that is certainly in the top ten as far as affiliate fees. TNT gets a bit more but not even close to $1. TBS gets less. The History Channel falls in the $0.25-0.50 range somewhere I would guess.  BTW, these numbers are available because most networks are owned by publicly-traded companies, ESPN by Disney (DIS) and Discovery by Discovery Holdings (DISCA), for example. At the bottom of the barrel you have The Hallmark Channel, owned by Crown Media, which gets less than $0.10.

ESPN is shady. I worked for a cable company (Cox) during the deal and they were basically lying their asses off to consumers. They wanted a huge increase in the money the cable companies gave them but to also stay on the basic cable lineup at the same time. So the cable companies say no and ESPN starts running ads talking about how bad the cable companies are.

ESPN is owned by Disney. OF COURSE they are shady. Disney uses ESPN as a bargaining chip to get cable companies to include the Disney channel as well.

Disney used to be a seperate purchased station no less.

But channels would cost more than we pay now.

Hell, just look at console retrogame collections!

The Midway Arcade Treasures sets had about 20 games a disk (in volume 1 and 2.  3 being a racing collection and irrelevant) for 20 bucks with special features and whatnot.

The XBLA games (what few they have released from these sets!) are 5 bucks a pop, and only have XBLA's awful online play.  (And gamer points for the idiotic.)

24 games on the first volume for 20.  Currently 20 on XBLA will get you the 4 titles I believe they put on it.  (Joust, Gauntlet, Robotron, and Smash TV I think.  There may be a few more though.  But at 5 a pop.)
That means you don't get Spy Hunter, Defender, Stargate, Joust 2, Paperboy, Rampage, Bubbles, Roadblasters, Blaster, Rampart, Sinistar, Super Sprint, Marble Madness, 720, Toobin, Klax, Splat, Satan's Hollow, Vindicators, and Tapper.

On volume 2, you get more of the same, though more recent titles.  (Of which Mortal Kombat 3 is the only one I believe is on XBLA.)

Its just as bad if not worse with Namco Museum (either the original PS2 version or the later one with Rolling Thunder on it.)

On a side note, is it any wonder these collections are NOT backwards compatible?  (Im suprised any of these collections are.  Its pretty much the reason I still keep my X Box around.  As an arcade machine to play 7 arcade game collections.  I wised up and took the slightly inferior emulation but will still work on my PS2 releases for other ones.)

TV networks are far greedier and it would be even worse, except they would be slamming you on a monthly basis.

(Then again, with Steam and how many sheep only want to play it and forget it, a subscription ONLY model for games is on its way.  I guess all these DVD sales that pretty much save shows and movies aren't worth some asshole with an MBA's idea that enough people don't care about owning to keep anything just don't figure into their plans.  Like Tom Petty says "All the boys upstairs wanna see is how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free." pretty much.)

Collections are really inefficient means of putting things together. They are great for some, the people who like to collect things. For others, who just want the one or two games that are on the disk, they don't mind putting down $5 on a single game. It's the pricing of convenience.

But again, a la carte channels are to me just a stopgap to the eventual streaming of all content via the Internet, most likely on a pay per download basis. The more people who use it, the less the price will need to be.

 :awesome_for_real: Haemish's naive statement for the day.   "Hay, I know we've sold 6million views at $5 a piece, why don't we lower the price now that it's so popular?"

Also, you're correct in everything moving to a subscription model, very soon, jain.   It already happens with corporate softwares, it's only a short bit until it happens to everything else.  For the same price.

Back on the cable price-per-channel, those are what they charge the affiliates.  If you think there wouldn't be an upcharge, or an increased charge for less-watched channels.. well, I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you.

Oh, no, I'm well aware of how corporate jackhobs think about that sort of thing. But really, if they can charge $5 for something that costs them $.60 to make, well, that's more profit and more profit = more shows mostly.

A pay per view model is good for the light viewer and bad for the heavy viewer. Vice versa for the subscription model.  What if you could pay for CNN by the hour? Lots of interesting distribution models available that most of the industry has no interest introducing. They make a lot of money with the status quo so why risk it?