Sorry, NFL Network, but you're greedier

As we have learned from the current writers' strike, making moral choices in a less-than-life-and-death situation is really not as hard as it looks. Yes, it is true that a lot of millionaires are out on the picket lines fighting for eight-cent DVD residuals on a $20 sale, but all you have to do is look to the other side of the dispute and the multi-billion-dollar companies that don't want to share and your mind is made up. Press the button. That was easy.

And with the crucial National Football League matchup between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers looming — a game that the NFL Network says should be airing everywhere in this great land but isn't, because of the greedy, greedy cable monopolies — well, again this is an easier call than it seems.

At issue is the fact that the NFL wants Comcast, Time Warner, Charter and all the others to carry its NFL Network on basic cable and pay for the privilege. THe cable companies are crying highway robbery. The NFL is saying, in effect, don't be such big babies, the NFL is incredibly popular and your customers want it — deal with it or prepare to lose your customers to satellite TV.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has even broken a cease-and-desist order (what a surprise, if you know Jerry) and spoken out loudly, encouraging people to switch to satellite.

Again, it may be tempting to take the side of a family-run business like the Cowboys against the big bad cable monopoly, except for a key detail: The NFL Network will charge the cable companies 70 cents per subscriber for the privilege of carrying their channel. Per month. Even in the off-season. Even if you couldn't care less about football.

That is one of the highest rates of any cable network. In fact, the only other two channels I can think of that charge that much are FSN, the regional sports network, which charges about twice that much; and ESPN, which charges about four times that much. The NFL Network is claiming that it's just another sports channel and offers a much better product than the college lacrosse and rodeo offerings often found on those other outlets that charge more money than they do.

That logic doesn't hold up, though, for one simple reason: The NFL Network is not an independent cable channel. It is owned by the provider of their on-air product. The reason FSN and ESPN charge so much money to be carried on your cable system is that they spent millions, even billions, to go out and acquire the broadcast rights to major sports from the teams and, in some cases, leagues (like the NFL). But the NFL Network is affiliated with the teams. As far as I can tell, Jerry Jones owns a piece of the NFL Network, which not only means he's not a disinterested party, but any media outlet that uses quotes from Jerry Jones without quoting his fiduciary interest in seeing the NFL Network carried is not playing straight with its readers.

The NFL Network is a cash grab, pure and simple, and will likely be paid for in its entirety by you, the customer, when that 70 cents is added to your monthly cable bill.

I realize no discussion of a cable bill is complete without a discussion of a la carte cable and what a crock that is, but there isn't time for that today, so I'll just link you to a sensibly argued piece by Joe Nocera last week.

Comments

Aaron,
You are totally missing the larger issue.
Yes, the NFL is greedy.
Yes,"ala carte *channel* pricing (from the *same* provider) is silly.
But, this is not the issue.
Municipal cable *monopolies* are the problem.
How do I *choose* Time-Warner?
Well, I don't.
Time-Warner - or Comcast, or Charter - was *mandated* to be *my* choice by someone in the local government.
CATV - provided by the same coax cable - once provided 5 channels into my home.
*Five* channels - that was wonderful and I still remember the Granny Goose movies.
This same coax line - as with the phone company's 50 year old copper cable - can now bring me HDTV, digital and 243 channels and DSL.
No one needs or wants to choose channels by monthly price. We need to choose *providers*.
I want to choose between Comcast. Time-Warner, Charter or even Google.
if I want the DISH-TV package in my home - by coax cable - why shouldn't I be able tochoose that?

[Mark Jeffries]

Nocera's article quotes a person complaining about "having to pay" for the shopping channels. Whether or not you got a la carte, you'd get them anyway, because the cable systems give the shopping channels free placement in exchange for a cut of the revenues from subscriber orders. You're stuck with QVC whether you like it or not, so get those Marie Osmond dolls! :)

[football Junkie for now]

I am a Time Warner customer. Not by choice but by availability. TW is the only carrier offered in my area. I've tried satellite but was not happy with it.

The NFL on their site attacks the cable companies as monopolies but they are the ones that exercise complete control over their games. Who plays when, who gets to see them, who gets to broadcast them. Talk about calling the kettle black...

The NFL has taken games away from the fans and is blaming it on the cable companies. What about the millions of people that don't have cable or satellite? If the NFL really is concerned about the fan keep the games where people can see them.

The issue has not been a big one until this week. The games on the NFL network to this point have been pretty mediocre. This all changes this week as millions are being denied the Cowboys/Packers game. The real pain will come, though, if the Patriots end up 15-0 because their last game is on the NFL Network.

NFL, stop the greed and show some fan appreciation before you end up like Major League Baseball.

[SatelliteStud]

The NFL is greedier? I think not. At the crux of the negotiations is equity ownership of the NFL Network. The big operators want a piece of the network just to carry the network. This is how they have become so rich over the years, they have taken pieces of the networks they carry in exchange for low priced deals. Finally somebody with something worthwhile (the NFL) is standing up and saying no

[Football Freak]

ESPN $3.26 per subscriber
FSN $1.92 per subscriber
TNT $.91 per subscriber
Disney $.83 per subscriber

All higher than the NFL rate and each ESPN channel charges it's own rate, ESPN 2 is $.41 per subscriber. Would Cable move ESPN to this digital sports tier, probably not.

[Disco]

Completely agree with this blog.

The NFL are a bunch of completely greedy bastards. All games used to be on broadcast television, way back in the day. The rules have changed over the years to the detriment of football fans. As a result, I get to see fewer games.

For once I have to side with the cable companies. The longer they refuse to give in, the more it'll cause billionaires to think twice about creating a new network for every little thing, then demanding carriage from cable networks.

Screw the NFL and Big Ten Networks.

[mjh]

I find myself agreeing with those who say that the cable monopolies play into this. The fact that there's a government supported monopoly on who gets right of way into a neighborhood limits the ability of competition to be effective.

From my perspective, I don't care who is or isn't greedier. It doesn't matter. Both sides own their respective properties, and should be allowed to negotiate however they want.

The ones I feel for are those who can't subscribe to satellite (e.g. they live in an apartment or condo w/no south facing property, or they live somewhere with too many trees). Those people have no effective way to get NFL network. And they are the ones who are most beholden to the government granted monopoly to the cable companies.

I find the C&D letters to be funny. They should be violated. I don't see any reason why Jerry Jones or NFL Network should be prevented from encouraging people to switch. If I can't come to an agreement with the car repair guy on my car, I'm certainly going to go down the street and tell my neighbors not to use them. If he goes to his pals and discourages them from selling to me, that's fine by me. My money will probably be more incentive for them.

Full Disclosure: I'm a satellite subscriber in a Time Warner city. If I still had TW, it'd be enough to get me to switch.

[kirt]

satellite sucks because it hardly works in bad weather, and they make you pay a bunch of money if you don't sign a 30 year mortgage. cable sucks because there is no competition. the nfl network sucks because they are trying to corner the nfl, which will lead to much higher than 70 cents/month in the future. so, find a friend that has satellite or go to a bar, and this will keep the ratings low, force satellite to stop using contracts, get advertisers to pull, or maybe someone will cave.

[Ed Dravecky III]

The same NFL that wants me to pay full price for pre-season games featuring nobodies and scrubs as I do for tickets to regular season games wants me to pay full price for the NFL Network even in the months when they're not carrying actual football games? The same Jerry Jones that got the taxpayers of Arlington, Texas, to buy him a shiny new billion dollar stadium so he could them charge them up to $50000 for a seat license and the privilege of paying $340 per *game* for one ticket into that new stadium now turns out to be greedy and self-interested?

I'm shocked. I'd be outraged too but the NFL TV deals ensure that all cable games, even NFL Network ones, are broadcast in local markets. I live in a Dallas suburb so I can watch the Cowboys from the comfort of my couch without having to dump Time-Warner. (Sorry, rest of the country!)

[Mark Jeffries]

Which will be My27, thanks to the deal Rupert made that assured that Fox-owned MyTV affils would get the NFLN team market rights in exchange for the Saturday night airing of "NFL Total Access" on the MyTV network.

In Green Bay, CBS affil WFRV and sister station WJMN in Escanaba, MI will carry the game--the NFL's letting ABC affil WISN in Milwaukee carry it, as well. Les and Iger must be relieved that it's the day after end of sweeps.

[CJ]

It's not the local municipalities fault. Cable Companies have a non-exclusive contract with cities. Comcast/Time Warner/Charter can all provide cable into eachother's city. But with a hand shake here and there they won't enter a competitors market. Becuase it could be their market next. NFLN wants too much for their limited programming. For 4 games/year it's not worth it. I'm going to watch at a bar and give the local spot my business.

[Jake]

The NFL / NFLN is definitely greedy. A lot of speculation is out there that within a few years, NFLN and NFL Sunday Ticket will control the broadcast of virtually all NFL games, except for national games on Sunday afternoons, Sunday evenings, and Monday nights.

I don't doubt that for a minute. And the NFL will be shooting itself in the foot when it does that.

[Nate]

Actually, for at least two days this week, Marquette/Escanaba was not considered part of the Green Bay market, because the NFL was going to force WJMN to not carry the game; mind you they carried the NFLN game with the Vikings last year. But this afternoon after everyone in the Upper Peninsula said 'oh no you didn't!', the league decided to to let them carry the game after all. WLUK in Green Bay is considered the UP's Fox affiliate by default and WJMN has never aired anything off-schedule from WFRV, so usually the area sees every Packer game, but the NFL was pretty much denying at least some of their most devoted fanbase the opportunity to watch the game. Meanwhile Madison, Wausau, Eau Claire and La Crosse are going to have to suffice with the sports bar experience or listen on the radio for the game and then the ESPN highlight reel after to get their fix.

This is just becoming beyond ridiculous, and here in Sheboygan, where we get both WFRV from Green Bay and WISN in Milwaukee with the game, they have to black out WFRV since Sheboygan County is considered part of the Milwaukee market and they're only authorized to carry the ABC HD signal for the Milwaukee area. It goes beyond NFL Network too, since because Charter doesn't carry the NBA TV network, they can't air NBA games on the HD Mojo network, they have to be blacked out. Only HD and the game is still on FSN or an equivalent...for now. What happens when the league channels become the main broadcasters of their matches and the cable companies have to negotiate through that?

That along with all this bickering over the Big Ten Network where we have state institutions and their coaches pretty much forced to campaign for a commercial entity over the interests of the university's own station, Wisconsin Public Television (which broadcast Badger football and basketball home games on delay for 47 years before BTN forced WPT to end rebroadcasts, which became their property), it smells of amazingly horrible conflicts of interests that show the greed of sports television righrs.

[Mike]

John Ryan a reporter for San Jose Mercury from San Antonio asked the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell the question below last week.

"Before 2006, those fans never had a problem seeing the Cowboys or the Packers on TV, and now they do. And the reason that they do have a problem seeing them is because of a decision the NFL made. It's not a decision that Comcast or Time Warner made … Are you aware of a Packers game that wasn't on across the entire state of Wisconsin before 2006?"

Goodell’s only response: "I don't know the answer to that one."

YEAH RIGHT! HE KNOWS THE ANSWER BUT KNOWS ANSWERING IT WOULD BE AGAINST HIS BEST INTEREST.

[Aaron]

I've been away all day, but kirt pretty much sums it up for me.

Now, to the person quoting me TNT and Disney carriage prices, thanks for proving my point. TNT is a major acquirer of sports and movies, so they are passing along costs. Disney spends millions on Hannah Montana and other original and acquired programming (do they acquire non-Disney shows? Don't know, but wouldn't really affect my argument).

Disney's case is a little complicated in that the ABC O&O stations — whom cable and satellite operators MUST negotiate with Disney in order to carry — offer Disney leverage that the NFL does not have.

But the NFL really can't claim it's just Disney in shoulder pads, because Disney at least spends money to develop content EXCLUSIVELY for Disney Channel. A lot of money. NFL pays Bryant Gumbel's and Cris Collinsworth's and a few other cheeseheads' salary to do "original programming" for NFL Net. But the main product, the football games, NFL Net gets for FREE. You can't charge 70 cents a month for what costs you nothing except a few salaries.

Sorry. I've been trying to see either the NFL's point of view or the pox on all your houses view. I can't here (though I agree cable could use some real competish in my neighborhood).

[Chris]

Keep in mind the big picture. The NFL does not need the NFL network. It's not like football games were in danger of not being picked up by cable companies. This is a self-created "hardship." (if you can call it a hardship). Both entities have an interest in running a profitable business so of course they are going to pursue that goal by any means necessary. However, the NFL ruined a system that was working. The losers, us.

[Mark Roberts]

If we had an FCC that actually regulated its industry, there might be a chance for a regulation that would go something like this: any cable network charging above a certain amount would be subject to a-la-carte pricing. Let's say that you, the subscriber, would have the option to drop any cable channel charging more than 50 cents a month per subscriber and you would be reimbursed for half that cost up to $2 and the full cost above that. Since sports channels (ESPN)
seem to have especially high rates, this would be ideal for the majority of subscribers who probably couldn't care less about ESPN. For the un-reimbursed portion of the dropped channel, the cable system could use it to cover administrative costs and subsidize all those other channels that they claim they're subsidizing. This would also discourage cable channels from
excessively high per-subscriber rates.

In return, for each for-profit cable channel that does not charge a per-subscriber fee (home shopping channels, this means YOU), each subscriber would be *paid* $1 per month to have it on the system.

Fat chance that any of these proposals will happen, of course.

[Mike Royce]

And what about the people who write these football games? Come on, NFL Network, stop screwing around and make a fair deal, we're not asking for much!

Whoops. Sorry, I'm woozy from picketing.

[Paul Murray]

"Basic Cable" has gotten so big that the name is a misnomer. I'm tired of the Big Ten and NFL Networks demanding to be on basic, and ESPN already being there. These guys do the impossible: make me side with the cable companies. I don't want to pay for sports on TV. Maybe a la carte goes too far, but would it be so unreasonable to create bundles of channels: a sports bundle, a movie bundle, etc.? Of course, real competition is the ultimate answer. We have multiple phone providers, why not multiple cable providers?

[Mark Jeffries]

Comcast offers a "sports bundle," but it's only for their digital tier channels--the Chicago analog channels of ESPN, ESPN2, CSN Chicago, Comcast-owned Vs. and Comcast-owned Golf Channel are not included. (ESPN Classic has been moved to digital.)

The digital sports tier has been expanded over the last year to add CSTV, GolTV and Tennis Channel as a few others to join old standbys Fox Soccer and ESPNews and additions from the last five years the FCS channels, Speed and--NFLN. A lot of the deal over Big Ten is that co-owner Fox wants it on analog (to be exact in Chicago, the blank channel where FSN Chicago was before it finally expired years after CSN Chicago made it irrelevant). For the last three months, Comcast has had a basically-black channel listed as "TBA" on the interactive guide--when you go to that channel, you get a message stating that this is where Big Ten would be if Fox and the Big Ten weren't a bunch of bastards (well, not those words exactly).

Meanwhile, Fox and Comcast have kissed and made up enough so that Fox Cavuto ogling at porn st--excuse me, Fox Business Network starts on Chicago's digital tier on Jan. 10.

[BIG T FROM KC]

LOOK BOOYOO IM TIRED OF HEARING ESPN GRIPE ABOUT THE GAME BEING ON NFL NETWORK LIKE THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT AT ALL TO JUDGE WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE CABLE AND DONT GET TO SEE MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL OR BEFORE THAT DIDNT GET TO SEE SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL BUT I ALSO AM MAD AT MY CABLE PROVIDER COMCAST EARLIER THIS YEAR IT WAS PART OF MY PACKAGE THEN ONE MORNING I WOKE UP AND DIDNT HAVE IT I WAS UPSET I CALLED AND THEY HAD LUMPED IT INTO A SPORTS PACKAGE WITH A BUNCH OF SECOND RATE SPORTS CRAP BUT I PAID THE 5 EXTRA DOLLARS A MONTH JUST TO GET MY BELOVED NFL NETWORK BACK IT IS MY FAVORITE CHANNEL ON TV RICH EISON, ROD WOODSON, AND MARSHALL FAULK ARE ALL GREAT AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT LAST SEASON WHEN THEY STARTED THE THURSDAY GAMES ON THANKSGIVING IT WAS A CHIEFS GAME AND AIRED ON LOCAL TV AS WELL AS NFL NETWORK SO AT LEAST HOME TOWN FANS COULD SEE THERE TEAM PLAY

[dave]

Having no choice I went with Direct TV about 1 season after they started airing the Sunday Ticket. I love direct TV. My family back east doesn't get all the channels I do and they pay more for less. It is unfortunate that everyone cannot see the game. websites run the game so you can watch on your computer try one of those. I could care about the business. Lets not argue and bicker over who owns what monopoly. Lets acknowledge what sport is the #1 in our country. Untill they screw that up, I'll do what I gotta do to watch my team. Really sorry about those people who can't enjoy the satellite signal. Go Steelers!

[Steve W.]

This is a little late for tonight's game, but AT&T U-VERSE ... direct competition for TW & Comcast and other cable companies ... has the NFL Network for NO ADDITIONAL COST to subscribers. Go to www.coolerthancable.com to see if AT&T U-VERSE is available in your neighborhood. I have it and I love it!

[Guyot]

Um, not to get off topic, but I feel the need to address this statement:

"Yes, it is true that a lot of millionaires are out on the picket lines fighting for eight-cent DVD residuals on a $20 sale..."

Just a little perspective; of the over 12,000 WGAmembers, less than 300 make seven figures a year. Less than 2,000 make two hundred thousand a year. Approx. 6,000 of us are unemployed each year.

I know you are pro-writer, and I know the point you were making, but it's not good for the public to be wrongly assuming that most of the writers on strike are wealthy.

Oh, and I love my DirectTV and NFL package. I've had DTV for over five years (in two states) and I think it has gone out due to weather maybe five or six times.

[James]

I only have two choices... Comcast or rabbit-ears (I live on the north face of a of a steep hill amidst a lot of tall trees).

I hope ESPN enjoys all the money they're making off me each month as I don't have the patience/interest to watch sports programming.

I'd rather be able to pick and choose which channels, even if I had to pay a tiny fee per channel. I'm sure my cable bill would still be less.