Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Dallas Cowboys news on your cellCommish addresses NFL Network issue
10:49 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007 | Permalink
E-mail News tips
 |
 |
 
|
|
February 2008
Categories
Movers and Shakers Pre-season Texas Stadium dallasnews.com
Sports Blogs |
The way things are shaking out, there will be no more important game on the Cowboys' 2007 schedule than next Thursday showdown with the Packers, set to be televised nationally by NFL Network. And -- as Peter King has pointed out the last couple weeks in his Monday Morning Quarterback column -- plenty of people in the capitals of the two teams' home states figured to be shut out because of the spat between the league and cable companies. At issue is where the cable companies are putting the network. The league believes it should be part of basic cable. Time Warner and Comcast disagree. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is a central figure in the dispute, as the chairman of the NFL Network committee, and is working closely with state politicians and commissioner Roger Goodell to try and get this resolved in time for markets like Austin and San Antonio and Oklahoma City to see both his team's appearance on the league's house channel (the other one is Dec. 22 at Carolina.) Anyway, today, Goodell got on a conference call to discuss the issue. He did talk about the prospect of fan's in those "secondary" markets losing out. One thing I didn't know, and found interesting -- Milwaukee is considered as part of the Packers' "home market", so they'll get the game over the air there, joining Green Bay-Appleton in receiving it that way. No such luck for 'Boys backers that aren't within an earshot of Valley Ranch. Follow the jump for part of the transcript and be advised, it's lengthy. Q: Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys, has been quite vocal about this dispute and has suggested strongly that people ought to drop their cable subscriptions and go to Dish, whether that be Dish or DirecTV. Do you agree with Jerry's statements? Do you feel that's the way to react to this situation? A: Well, Jerry is the head of our NFL Network committee, and he does believe passionately in the quality and the interest in our product. What we're trying to do and Jerry is trying to do is tell fans that it's not going to be available on the cable operators that are holding out. The fans need to make sure that they're aware of that far enough in advance so if they want to find an alternative way to see that game, they can make the necessary plans, and that includes potentially changing services. The cable operators that are holding out have been very clear with us that they don't think our fans watch these games, that there's not that much interest in this package, and we disagree with that. We are asking our customers to make sure that they let the cable operators know that, both by giving communication back to the cable operators, or if they determine it's in their best interest, to change services. Q: Do you believe that the cable operators are eventually eyeing the NFL Sunday Ticket as a way to get some leverage against you or the League? A: They've expressed interest in the Sunday Ticket package, and we are aware of that. We've had discussions with them. We've had negotiations with them, and we haven't been able to reach a conclusion that makes sense for either party. So do I think that they continue to have an interest in that? I'd say yes on one level, but on another level they tell us that all of the football fans that actually want Sunday Ticket have already got a satellite, and we don't accept that either. So I'm not sure they express interest in having it but on the other hand they say there are not a lot of customers that still want it out there, and we don't agree with that. Our big focus that you should be aware of is we want to make sure we maintain a quality free television product. We need to have all our games on free television in the home market, and free television is very important to us as we continue to grow our game and bring more football to more fans. Q: Before 2006 fans in Texas or Wisconsin or maybe here kind of in the outlying areas of the Bay Area had always been able to see their team, no complications. It was on free TV. So how is it now that you can pin the blame solely on another party when you guys are the ones ‑‑ you changed this distribution model. You're the ones who chose to put these games on a station that wasn't available. A: First off, you still can see it in those home markets. The core of our policy is that we would continue to show it on free television in those two markets. The second piece of it is these games were shown on a regional basis. We don't have all of our games on a national basis. We don't have the required number of windows to do that. As an example, I think two of the games this past Sunday were the only two games that would be available in more markets than the games that are going to begin on our Run to the Playoffs package beginning Thursday night, other than the national windows, of course. We have regional windows. This was an attempt to take a couple of games that would be taken in a regional window, take it out and create a 365‑day‑a‑year network where we can deliver football every day and every minute of the day to fans that want to see NFL football and to see football in general, and we think this is delivering on our promise and our objective here of creating a network that will appeal to all football fans and give them that product. Q: I understand that, but let's take, for instance, the Cowboys‑Packers game and take the markets of Madison and San Antonio. 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 that the NFL made. It's not a decision that Comcast or Time‑Warner made. A: Well, we disagree with that because we think it is. Again, I think you're making the same point we're making, which is this is compelling product. The fans in those markets want to see these games. Cable operators are telling us they don't, and we disagree with that. You're making exactly the point we're trying to make here. We know this product is in demand in those marketplaces and fans want to see them outside of the primary markets and across the country. That's why we created a national network, and we believe that there is great demand for this and that the cable operators will hear from the customers over the next several weeks. Q: So through 2005 those fans could see that product, right? Am I incorrect in that? Could fans in San Antonio not see every Cowboys game through 2005? A: It depends on whether it's a national game or not. We could not put all of our games on national platforms. This was an opportunity for us to create a new window and a national platform which hasn't been done before. This was an opportunity to complement and support what we do on Sunday nights and Monday nights which is to take a regional broadcast that's not getting to a large majority of the country and get it out to a broader audience. Q: Are you aware of a Packers game that wasn't on across the entire state of Wisconsin before 2006? A: I don't know the answer to that one. I could find out for you. Q: One of the big story lines this season has been the Patriots. There appears to be a good chance that they will enter that final week without a loss, and I'm curious, given the potential historic nature of that game, which I believe is on the NFL Network schedule, are you still absolutely adamant that that will remain on NFL Network? Is there any chance if the Patriots enter that game undefeated, of taking it off and trying to get it on nationwide in some other way? A: You must be a Patriots fan because you're saying there's a good chance they're going to remain undefeated. I don't know whether they will or not, but obviously the Patriots' record is continuing to be a big story and a good story for the League. It is the last game of our NFL Network schedule, and it will remain on the NFL Network schedule. Again, it goes to the point that these games are in great demand around the country, and there will be a national desire to see that. The cable operators are saying there isn't a national desire to see that, and that's what we are trying to make the point of, that there are fans that want to see these games. Q: Did you make any conscious decision ‑‑ I know at the beginning of each season it's impossible to really predict how compelling these games will be. But it seems that there are more games this season that have a certain nationwide appeal, the Packers, Cowboys, the Patriots. Did you look at the schedule and feel like you needed to upgrade these eight games to some degree, or did it just kind of work out that way? A: I think you sort of answered your own question. There's no way for us to be able to determine in April when we finalize the NFL schedule who are going to be the key match‑ups at any point in the season. So it's difficult to be able to do that in April. I wish we could, but because the NFL results are so unpredictable and team performance is somewhat unpredictable, we're just not able to do that. Q: You said at the owners' meeting in Philadelphia that the discussions with the cable companies at that point were not very active. Has anything changed? Has there been any last‑minute attempt at a resolution? A: Unfortunately not. We're not seeing any indication that they want to negotiate. We have reached out and we continue to reach out in trying to resolve the matter. But at this point in time we don't see any resolution to this. There are no negotiations ongoing, and they continue to take the position that these games are not of interest to their consumers. Q: Is one of your dilemmas that the 70 cents a month that has been widely publicized as what you're asking, 70 cents a subscriber per month, that if you went below that figure, if you sat down with Time‑Warner and Comcast and went below that, wouldn't your deals with Direct and EchoStar cause you to lose tons of money ‑‑ you've already got deals for 70 cents. Isn't that your deal, you're painted into a corner, you really can't come off the license fee that you feel is fair for the Network? A: No, that's not. First of all, let me remind you that we have a deal with Comcast. This was carried on Comcast last year and they paid that rate and they didn't pass it onto their consumers, at least directly. And when they took it off earlier this year against our wishes, I don't recall and I don't believe that they gave a refund to those customers. In fact, they just put through a price increase in the last several weeks that was significant; it was over $50 or $60 a year. I don't think we feel we're painted in any corner at all. I think what we're trying to do is get fair value for what we think is a tremendous channel 365 days a year. It's not just about eight games. We think the programming on a yearly basis is extraordinarily popular, and we do very well with it and our fans want to see it. We obviously want to make sure we get fair value for it, and we will negotiate for that. But we are willing to negotiate and we are willing to be flexible because we think it's important to our fans to get to the broadest possible audience. Q: Could you outline a little bit, I know that you were talking to the FCC about maybe agreeing to a binding arbitration where you would try to convince an impartial arbitrator just as Time‑Warner Cable, let's say, that what Time‑Warner Cable wants to offer and what you feel is a fair value and then the arbitrator would choose one of the two, that there would be no splitting of the difference. Could that be a solution to this? A: You're aware of the fact that the FCC is focusing on the position of cable in today's media world. Is it becoming too dominant? That's something they're looking at on a broad level. Many of the issues don't affect us. There is an FCC mechanism that's been used before in the case of regional sports networks, and we think that it potentially could be helpful to us in our situation as well as some other independent programmers like Hallmark that are trying to get distribution at a reasonable rate, and we have engaged with them and we would be willing to do that. We think that that type of a structure and the history shows that there's usually a settlement of the issues rather than actually going through that process because both sides reevaluate their position and come to an agreement. So we would welcome that. We are looking for any process that would help us reach a resolution as quickly as possible on terms that both sides can be comfortable with. Q: I believe the question was asked about whether you would arrange the schedule based on the interest of the games, length the season. Obviously you never know how the season will turn out, but was the schedule arranged in order to have teams in these games that were in markets such as Texas where Time‑Warner was dominant, where obviously Time‑Warner would be placed in a difficult position if it didn't carry, for example, a Cowboys game or a Texas game? A: The complexities with putting together the NFL schedule and balancing the two Sunday afternoon networks, Sunday night, ESPN on Monday night, the NFL Network and trying to get through all the other scheduling factors, it's just impossible. We tried to balance our schedule so that it's possible for all our broadcast partners, including the NFL Network, and do what is in the best interest of our fans to make sure we are getting the broadest possible exposure of the best games. Q: But it is to your advantage probably, would you not agree, that you do have a Cowboys coming up where you do have fans in San Antonio and Austin and Waco and markets like that that won't be getting the game and will be putting perhaps extra pressure on their cable carriers at this point? A: Clearly the Packers‑Cowboys game next Thursday is going to be in great demand and is completely opposite of what the cable operators are telling us and you and their consumers -- that there's just not great demand for this. There is going to be great demand for that game, and very clearly there's going to be a tremendous customer reaction. We want the customers to know that game is not going to be available to them, and they should express themselves to the cable operators, or if they feel like they want to get it, change their service. Q: Here in Wisconsin we have an interesting situation where we have two primary markets obviously in Green Bay and Milwaukee that get Packers games over the air in situations like next Thursday. But here in Madison and other locations there are quite a number of Packers fans and there isn't that kind of situation. Do you see any flexibility in the future with those rules to open those games up to over‑the‑air broadcasters around the state of Wisconsin? A: This is the same rule we've had since 1987 when we brought ESPN in, and we required that ESPN put this on free television in each of the two participating markets, so there's been no change in that policy and I don't expect it going forward. Q: Do you see this as a complexity of having large fan bases, or is this just a ‑‑ A: Well, that's a good problem to have. We recognize there are millions of fans in Wisconsin that want to see NFL football, and that's what we keep telling the cable operators, that this is something that's going to be in great demand, that they want to see the NFL Network 365 days a year. I'm not suggesting they're going to sit in front of the television all day long, but there is great programming on all year round that would be of interest to those customers. Q: You mentioned the importance of having games on free TV. What about the fans who in the past would have gotten these games on free TV or just on basic cable who now will not be able to get them? For instance, it was mentioned Madison, San Antonio, places like that would have always gotten them on free TV or basic cable, and also nationally, as well, on certain games. What about those people? A: Well, again, if you go back on ESPN when we've had games on, they've always been required to put them on the free television in those two home markets. We've continued to do that. Q: Right, but there are several cases where the whole market is essentially very large, where there is extremely large interest outside of the home city for various reasons. It's my understanding in the past those markets always got those games on free TV. A: That's not true, not when you're talking ‑‑ Q: Not ESPN, but every other game. A: I understand, but that's not the case, because again, many of our games have regionalized. Not every one of our games is on free television. Q: So people in San Antonio will get Cowboys games, right? A: It depends on what the local affiliate wants to put into that, but I would presume most of the time they get either Dallas or Houston. Q: So what about a situation of places like San Antonio and Madison? A couple people have asked this because that's the main question of how those ‑‑ the switch from say CBS or Fox to NFL Network does affect those places, and that's a big change in those places. A: Again, it does on two levels. One is we are taking these games to a national platform in hopes of broadening the audience. There are certain markets that will be impacted negatively on that like a San Antonio in a case like that. That's why we believe the San Antonio market and why we've been working so hard. Jerry has been out in the market making it very clear that Time‑Warner, who's the largest carrier in the San Antonio market as an example, does not believe there's great demand for this, and they are not getting any customer reaction. Well, they have to make sure that that's clear to the cable operators that it is an issue and we do want to see these games. That will get cleared. Q: What would you say to a fan in San Antonio who currently has basic cable who would still not be helped if it was put onto digital basic, who would say, well, again, under the old system I would have gotten this game; why did you change the system? The NFL did choose to change the system from one that would have provided them with this game in the past. A: This is why you make sure you get to your cable operator and make sure they're very clear that they want these games and they want to see them as part of their cable bills, and they do not want to see them with an additional charge. If we went with what the cable operators are saying as one example and put them on a sports tier, you would have to pay as a customer even more money to get that. We don't think that's right. We think this should be available on digital basic so a broad audience can get that and they can get that with no additional charges. |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
Posted by Pokes @ 11:57 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
I get the dish and I'll get the game. Although the birds in my backyard seem to think the dish itself is a great toilet. At least until it rains, and it gets washed away. Thats all I have to say, bu-bye
Posted by Dan @ 11:59 PM Wed, Nov 21, 2007
Wow Albert, that's a piece of reporting.
That's earning your pay.
First off, bars will do well that night, at least those bars that have NFL Network.
So people can see the game, it's not like it's not televised. It's just that some people won't be able to see it at home.
I'm with the League, if the Cable companies offer VHI and MTV as part of Basic, which nobody watches anymore, what with their dopey "rock the vote" nonsense, and their ridiculous shows, then the cable companies ought to air America's pastime as part of basic.
I get channels like the Lifetime tv, which airs nothing but docudramas of some woman coping after divorce, or some woman coping with a stalker. I get other channels like Oprah's, I get the Sundance channels, which offer movies that denigrate my country. And other channels I don't want, which offer morbid fare, I have to get to, even though I don't want them, don't watch them.
And I had to pay extra to get the NFL Network.
And I shouldn't have to.
The cable operators are nakedly lying.
The way to deal with their nonsense that those who want the Sunday Ticket "already" have the Dish, and no one else is interested, is by polling.
Polling questions ought to be handed out at every game, and made available at every NFL website. Fans ought to be encouraged to fill them out.
So the next time JJ wanders in to deal with some deceptive cable company executive, JJ can bash him over the head with FACTS, figures, polling results.
Not to mention, the NFL ought to take some attack ads out on the cable companies. Go after them, make them feel the heat. The cable company customers are already irritated what with the price of phone, digital and high speed Internet connections. I'll have to pay $120 per year just to be able to receive the HD signal.
So the cable companies are sitting pretty, and need to be made to feel the heat.
The NFL could say that after all current agreements run out with the networks, we'll move ALL games to the DISH, effectively sealing out the cable providers.
Such a threat would carry weight, real weight.
And JJ is the PRECISE guy to deliver that threat, with a smile, yet a glint in his eye.
The other thing the NFL needs to do is put more games on during the week nights, especially the final five weeks of the season. As soon as the College season ends, they should start airing games on Saturday night too.
And another thing they should ponder, is moving SUPER BOWL SUNDAY, TO SUPER BOWL SATURDAY NIGHT. There are studies that reflect the lack of productivity that follows Super Bowl Sunday. People throw parties, but the game would be bigger, likewise the entertainment value, if it were moved to primetime, Saturday night.
And the NFL Network needs to get rid of the "Put up your Dukes" segment. I like Dukes. But he's ALWAYS SCREAMING at the camera. He gives me a headache.
Tell him to calm down, or take some valium or something.
Posted by Saint Jimmy @ 12:06 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
These TV rules that the NFL have are so freakin moronic. When were they created? Back in the 50's or something? I can understand the 72-hour blackout rule. But with the globalization that's gone on in the past 20 years with cable and internet you'd think the NFL would adapt to the times.
What is the point of only showing 1 game in an NFL city when the hometeam sells out their game? Are they afraid that a Texans fan in Houston won't watch the Texans game because they could also watch an NFC game on FOX? That's just a big F.U. to fans of other teams living in a different team's city. How is that good business?
That'd be like saying: Oh hey there Mr. Houston Cowboy...we really do appreciate all the money you give us by buying our Tony Romo jersies and Cowboys hats...sorry to tell you this but we're going to screw you cause we scheduled your team opposite of the Texans game and you won't get to see your Cowboys.
As for the NFL Network. What about those people who rent a house, apartment, condo, or townhome but the landlord won't allow them to put up a dish because it's "tacky"? I guess they're either not important enough or expected to find a place to live based on whether they can get a satellite or not? Talk about backwards thinking.
Posted by BigTexKahuna @ 12:07 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Ah, screw these guys! Out here in Paradise, unless you've got 'da Dish, you ain't gonna see the NFL Network. Me and the little woman live in one of these shoe boxes high in the sky, and it's part of our building code that we no can have 'da Dish attached to our lanai ('dat be a balcony to some of y'all...). Our building provides basic cable as part of our maintenance fee, so we get broadcast TV along with FOX, CNN, ESPN, and all that other stuff... BUT NO NFL NETWORK! Fortunately for me, my good buddy, who fixes cars for a living and has his own shop, has 'da Dish down there at his place... so 'dats where I'll be next week and for 'da Carolina game, too! But... I still say, "Screw Jones, Goodell, and whoever else came up with the stupid NFL Network scam in the first place!"
Posted by Vox Veritas @ 12:20 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
break free of the cables that bind you and get with the '00's, guys! Get a dish of some kind, it's a better deal than cable anyway. Time Warner gargles my nuts and you know it does. I chopped a 175 year old oak tree down just so I could have a clear shot to the south from the back part of my roof. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN.
Posted by Saint Jimmy @ 12:25 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Jeez Dan, maybe you should take some of your own advice and take a whole bottle of valium. Bashing MTV for trying to motivate and educate young people into voting for someone they believe in and talking trash about some channel that allows artists to express their thoughts/beliefs/ideas? If you don't like those things maybe you should go find a country that's better suited for you. I hear that North Korea doesn't have problems with voters and TV channels allowed to show whatever they want. Man, it's no wonder America is on the fast track to fascism with people like you around.
Dude, there's a reason why there are 80 channels. If you don't like something you can find something you will. There's no need to bash it, call it dopey, or complain about what's on it. It's not like Lifetime is holding a gun to your head making you watch the story about a woman finding courage to leave an abusive husband. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that someone does or finds their own inspiration from it to leave their abusive relationship.
Posted by bob @ 12:45 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
What the NFL doesn't realize is that its not as simple as just going out and getting a dish. In most markets you can't get local channels unless Dish or Directv broadcast local channels in that area. For instance, where I live if I got a dish I would not even be able to get the major networks of ABC,CBS,NBC or Fox, period. I.E., I couldn't pick up a single game at all. Thats what the idiots and greedy sob's in the NFL can't understand.
The other thing is a lot of people depend on cable for internet in rural areas. If they dropped cable they would have to go back to dial- up for internet services.
Thirdly, why would anyone in their right mind pay Jerry Jones $50,000 just to purchase a ticket to his new playhouse when all he plans on doing is ripping the fans off as much as he can get away with.
Posted by Dan @ 12:47 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Ignorant voting isn't voting, it's responding to media stimuli.
They're not looking for genuinely informed voters.
They desire poorly read, poorly informed youth to vote a certain way.
It's the ANTITHESIS of participatory citizenship.
Instead of trying to get people who don't understand the issues, the stakes, the personalities, the history, instead of getting such people to vote, they should be trying to persuade people them NOT to vote.
Republican government depends upon an INFORMED citizenry, not sheep led about by fads, celebrities and fashions.
Posted by Kyle @ 1:07 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I just cannot believe the nonsense Time Warner continues to put out about NFL Network. They say that putting NFL Network on basic cable would cost their customers money, and they don't want to do that to their poor, poor customers. Phooey! It's going to cost money either way. Either I have to pay more for basic cable, or I have to pay for some sports pack. They're not out to save their customers' money. They're simply out to maximize their profits. That's what business is, I suppose, but seriously, spare me the feigned benevolence. The worst part is I live in an apartment with no view to the south, so jumping to Dish isn't an option. Otherwise, I would have done so long ago.
Posted by Dave @ 1:56 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
At what point did he actually answer the final question???
A fan who has basic cable, in the past would have been able to see next week's Cowboys/Packers game...no matter what happened. Now, he can't, no matter WHAT company he uses for his cable. And you can try and blame that on whomever, but no one in their right mind is going to put a random, 2 year old network that is essentially out of season 8 months a year onto basic cable...and this is coming from a Comcast subscriber who pays the extra money to get NFL Network, but still thinks the NFL's stance is ludicrous
Posted by Jeff in Columbia, SC @ 2:50 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Roger Goodell is a lying sack of manure! So dishonest, so evasive.
I'm not a fan of cable and their business practices in general but-- its the owners who took these games off of national television. It is the NFL's fault that much of the nation as well as the regional markets of the participating teams will not be able to see these games. The journalists were asking the right questions.
The "NFL's stance is ludicrous"! (amen Dave).
P.S. Has the NFL extended refunds or lowered the price of the "Sunday Ticket" package when they moved one game a week to put on the NFL Network?? I doubt it.
Posted by Red @ 3:21 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I grew up in Dallas. RAISED on the Cowboys all my life! But now I go to college in Austin. They better resolve this issue before that Green Bay game or else I'm going to be so pissed off. Seriously.
Posted by Mark @ 6:02 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Dan is right. I have DirecTV and it IS cheaper than cable. But it isn't fair that for the people who have cable, cable is still better than rabbit ears.
This whole thing is out of our hands. I don't know why cable wants to charge a premium when dish doesn't. Money is a big motivator, especially when our very own fans in the Boys' capitol won't be able to see it.
Look guys, have faith in Jerry J. My guess is that if we don't make it to the big show this year, we will next year. Hopefully, next year this will be worked out.
I feel thankful for being able to watch it. Necessity made me switch to satellite. It is about $20 cheaper a month.
Posted by Mark @ 6:43 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
saint jimmy,
I wouldn't be so hard on Dan. I think you misunderstood him. I, myself, who was a teenager when MTV came on board, and loved the concept of a music video channel, have to admit that MTV is nothing like it was in the beginning.
What Dan is saying is that the cable companies are charging nothing for a channel like MTV. Now, I don't watch MTV because I have out grown it. I do watch lifetime channel sometimes.
The point is that certain programming, like MTV, Lifetime and the NFL network appeal to certain demographics. Cable is trying to sell that by pure numbers there will be no interest in the NFL network.
If that is the case, then why charge for it? I have no interest in MTV, especially since, in my opinion, the 80's had the best music. But, my own 11 year old will watch it. It is all demograhpics.
I blame the NFL for this, as well. I live in North Carolina, and am a diehard Cowboys fan. That game will be on NFL network. Now, what I want to see, knowing that the game will be sold out, it should be on television - a FOX game, locally. So, will it be shown on FOX, and the NFL network? If just NFLN, then there is a problem, and I don't think the commish exlpained himself very well. Because it was the NFL that had a hand in this, as well.
Remember, Jerry Jones is supposedly on our side, but money talks, and it is the driving force. Both sides want to come out with cash in their pockets, and DirecTV paid a lot of money for the NFLN, and cable doesn't want to pay that kind of money unless it can make it back and the only way it can do that is to charge a premium for it, yet it says that no one will watch it.
Cable isn't dumb, they know people will watch it, but the only people who want to watch it is us. What the cable companies need to realize, and they probably do, is that the most watched program in history have been NFL football games.
Posted by Maverick @ 6:54 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I have the NFL Network, along with 250 other Directv channels, so who cares? Let others fend for themselves. I'll be watching the game in style on HDTV living the high life. As for the rest, LET THEM EAT CAKE.
Posted by Mark @ 7:05 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Is maverick your moniker, or the way you live your life?
This a blog for Cowboys' fans, yes, but for you to rub it in like you do, isn't cool. I wish there was a way for every fan to watch the game, and I am thankful that I get to watch it. But I won't rub it in on the ones who can't.
You aren't cool, man.
Posted by Prentice S @ 7:07 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
After all of the spin by the NFL and cable operators the fans that help make the game get SCREWED because of what?
Posted by rick @ 7:19 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I just love the satellite fanboys. "yeah dishes rock!!" haha yeah they do. Until you get a gust of wind or god forbid it rains. Then all you get is a bunch of chopped off colorful little blocks. "its cheaper"? That depends on what package you have guys. Just like cable. I still owe dishnet 200 bucks from before I switched to cable. Had all the premium channels. Went with AT&T/comcast/tw or whatever they call themselves now and have all the channels (including NFL network) AND broadband Internet for $160. So it just depends guys. Besides, just relax. I'm sure the cable companies will cave. They always do. The only channel I missed from dish was the speed channel. (formula1 - motogp, etc. You know REAL racing, not that nascrap) they told me they didn't offer it but when I called cs they just charged me an extra 5 bucks and look now: its part of basic cable........
Posted by David @ 7:40 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I put the blame on the money grubbing NFL for this debacle. That is absolute BS by Goodell about having no control over the scheduling of the games on NFL Network. They absolutely scheduled major national market teams for the sole purpose of trying to blackmail the cable companies into including the network. They knew that this is exactly what would happen. They don't care one bit about the average fan. Why should the cable companies be charged as much as they would for a channel that in the long run would get as much viewership as Lifetime. Have you seen the c**p they put on 8 months out of the year. Yeah, I want to watch the same show over and over 7 times a day. Whoppie! With that said, I have Verizon so I get the NFL Network, and have watched a grand total of about 3 hours in the past 12 months.
Posted by james muckleroy @ 7:45 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
ALL I KNOW IS JERRY AND THE LEAGUE ARE SOME GREEDY SELF- SERVING BASTARDS..BOTTOM LINE...IT'S A LITTLE LATE TO MAKE DEALS AND EXCUSES NOW. mOST OF US WILL MISS THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE YEAR BECAUSE OF NFL GREED. MAYBE THEY SHOULD TAKE SOME OF THE PLAYERS SALARY TO COVER COSTS...GOD KNOWS THEY ARE GROSSLY OVERPAID. oR HEY JERRY, THAT GROTESQUE AD YOU MADE..WHAT ABOUT THAT?? CAN'T PROVIDE GAMES FOR YOUR FANS BUT NO PROBLEM STUFFING YOUR POCKET!!!! WORST DAY IN HISTORY FOR NFL FANS. CHEATED. IS THIS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS? COUNT ME OUT. THIS AINT BOXING. A HUGE SHAME. MAYBE I'LL GIVE UP ON THE NFL. CUZ THIS IS THE LOWEST SPORTING RIP OFF EVER!!!!!
Posted by james muckleroy @ 7:48 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
OH YEAH, DON'T BELIEVE A WORD JERRY SAYS..HE MADE THIS HAPPEN!!!! HE IS COZY IN HIS SUITE, SELLING BEER AND JERSEYS, WHAT DOES HE CARE!!!! RIP-OFF !!!!!! AND GREED!!!!
Posted by Donovan @ 7:51 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Both entities are fueled by mental deficiency and greed.
The cable companies already have a second tier "basic" package that you have to pay extra for. Adding the NFL network will cost them extra, true, but their alloted local advertising spots on the games televised (local team or not) will make up for that easily.
The NFL moved select games to the NFL network for one reason: to generate more interest in their channel. Before the games were moved over, the biggest advertisers on that channel (besides the NFL itself) was Fatheads and the amazing weed wacker direct marketing junk. Making the network available everywhere will generate that interest and attract more advertising money.
Both sides want it all, so there will be no compromise.
Posted by John @ 8:53 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I am a diehard Cowboys fan, but I live in Austin and have Time Warner. Regardless, the fundamental cause of this problem is the greed of the NFL. They chose to start the NFL Network, and it is their arrogance and greed that drives them to think they can dictate the cable companies.
For the NFL to actually say the fault lies with the cable companies is just wrong.
We live in a free-market capitalistic market. Like them or not, it is the cable companies choice on where to put a network. The NFL doesn't tell Target where to place NFL merchandise in the store - it is Target's store. This is no different.
Posted by Maverick @ 9:02 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Hey, Mark, I'm going to cut you some slack since you obviously don't know me. If you're not intelligent enough to get Directv, while falling for the cable "BS", then you're on the same level as my special boys, Timmy and the gang. And, that, my friend, is below the "C" level. But, hey, just because I forgot the "smiley" faces doesn't mean I was dead serious about it. I mean, if Timmy and Pat Boy don't take me seriously, why should you? Here's some extra smiley faces for you :):):):):) Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!! God, I love this place, and most important, thank God I'm a Cowboy Fan!!!
Posted by Maverick @ 9:09 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
James Muckleroy...man, slow down a bit. Even I don't get that rowdy. Don't blow a blood vessel on this holiday. Lord knows we need some sensible, rowdy people to counteract the PIJB. Just have a beer, get some more turkey, sit back on that black lounger, and watch my Boyz kick some ever loving *ss on your HDTV. If you're in Texas, just think how blessed you are. Major brownie points if you were born in the great capitol of Austin. As the commercial says, "Just living the high life".
Posted by Long Ball @ 9:16 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Here's my letter to Time Warner, mailed in August of this year -- if more fans would do the same, maybe they would get the idea!
Mr. Robert V. Moel
President, North Texas Division
Time Warner Cable
3301 West Royal Lane
Irving, TX 76063
Dear Mr. Moel:
Last week, I was listening to a radio commercial by Rich Eisen, asking Time Warner Cable subscribers to petition their company to carry the NFL Network. I remember thinking to myself “I sure am glad that I’m with Comcast”. Needless to say, Thursday evening (7/27/06), I was concerned when I received a form letter from you stating “Time Warner Cable will be replacing Comcast as your new cable company within the next few weeks.”
I called your Flower Mound office, where the letter originated, Friday morning (7/28/06) in order to learn the status of this acquisition and was told that it would be effective Tuesday, August 1, 2006. I then asked to speak to someone concerning the potential availability of the NFL Network and changes to my internet service, as I have three television sets and internet service with Comcast. I was told my call would be returned that day, which it was not. I called again Monday morning (7/31/06), talked to a different receptionist and was assured that my call would be returned that day, which it was not. I called again Tuesday morning (8/1/06), a bit more frustrated and irritated, and the third person I spoke with gave me the number of Carolyn Spain, your assistant. I left a voice mail, asking for a return call, which I never received.
I called again this morning and visited with my fourth contact with Time Warner and relayed the story above – she learned that you were in a management meeting, but at least stayed on the phone until I was connected with a customer service rep. I now know that I will have to change my e-mail address within the year (including the notification of hundreds of consulting clients) and that as of now Time Warner will not be carrying the NFL Network (which I already knew after turning on my television last night).
I have over twenty years of merger/acquisition experience and totally understand the process of negotiations; however, I negotiated the package of programming that I wanted from Comcast and that includes the NFL Network. I truly hope this is only one of thousands of responses from disgruntled Comcast subscribers that you have received and I hope as well that you will respond to it expeditiously and accordingly. Verizon has installed their FiOS television service in our subdivision (which includes the NFL Network), I already have my residence and cell phone contract with them, and if I have to change my internet service, I am only going to do it once. So I sincerely hope you can tell me what I hope to hear soon; otherwise, I will have to make a change myself “within the next few weeks”.
Sincerely,
I am now a happy customer of Verizon FiOs service and save over $60 per month on TV (with better reception), internet (faster response time) and phone service (unlimited long distance). By the way, Time Warner's rates continue to escalate -- get a grip folks, they're trying to play hardball negotiation with the most popular (and powerful) sports entertainment league in history -- send'em a letter if you're a subscriber!
Posted by David @ 9:39 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
So does anyone remember the failed Cowboys Network? Wasn't that squashed by the greed monster NFL Network?
Posted by Phil Mayfield @ 10:05 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
We have a package of two home phones, internet, and cable TV all though Time-Warner. Jerry Jones' advice to "simply" switch to Dish Network isn't so simple when it involves such packages. I think it's a cop-out meant to pressure T-W and take heat off the NFL as the bad guys.
Goodell kept repeating that T-W doesn't think there would be any interest from local viewers in the Cowboys-Packers game. I doubt that T-W is really that naive.
Whomever is the "bad guy," there are going to be millions of angry Cowboys & Packers fans if the NFL and T-W don't act quickly to resolve this. We don't like being pawns in their little power struggle, and this is not the way to reward loyal fans or subscribers.
Posted by Brandon B @ 10:09 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
All of this boils down to money. Period. The NFL wants more and started the NFL Network to make more money. The cable companies also want more money. So, they put the NFL Network in premium packages because they know die-hard football fans will upgrade their service and spend more money.
The problem lies in the fact that for one to make more money, the other will make less. The NFL can't make as much advertising money with the NFL Network in premium packages. The cable companies will lose money if they move the channel to basic packages because they have to pay a pretty penny for that channel. Neither is giving in without a fight.
The simple fact is whether Goodell wants to admit it or not, the NFL took free games and moved them to a pay channel. The NFL (Jerry Jones included) knew without a doubt that this fight would take place. They are completely prepared for it. I receive spam email about once a week from the NFL stating cable companies are fascist pigs for screwing their customers. I love the way Goodell refuses to acknowledge this.
Between this situation and the way he has dropped the Patriots cheating, Goodell has turned into a mafia-like godfather. Cable companies have to pay their "protection" money to the NFL or risk an out and out advertising campaign directed at the cable companies' customers. If NFL teams commit "crimes" against the family, all is good as long as the team continues to bring in revenue. Imagine what would have happened if a team like the Lions or Browns had cheated like the Patriots. And nothing has ever come of the other allegations about the Patriots miking players to get the opposing QB's calls at the line.
The NFL has turned into a joke and the fans are caught in the middle of it.
Posted by Austin Guy @ 10:09 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
One thing everyone has failed to mention is that the NFL is trying to charge the cable companies over $170 MILLION for access to these channels. There is a reason the cable companies are playing hard ball.
Look, I hate Time Warner as much as the next guy, but in the end, I think it might actually take some legislative action to put these two greedy entities in place. Several Texas Legislators have mentioned that if they get involved, the CONSUMER is going to be the one that wins.
THAT JUST MIGHT BE WHAT IS NEEDED TO PUT THESE PEOPLE IN THEIR PLACE.
As of now, we in Austin, which has been able to see Cowboy games freely FOREVER are the ones suffering.
Posted by tex @ 10:13 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
I am lucky and fortunate to have satellite and directv and in fact, Sunday ticket Superfan. It's a lot of money and my wife grumbles that I spend $150-180 on it per month.
If people don't want to spend that kind of cash, I would suggest a combination of things:
1). Get DirecTV without Sunday ticket. You will still have NFL network. Cost of basic DirecTV will be ~$45.
2). If you live outside DFW (far away), do the same as #1, and if you want to watch EVERY Cow game, buy a Slingbox and place it in a friend's house who lives in DFW, a Grandma/Grandpa, brother, etc. Then you could be in Shanghai and watch any Cow game any time on your computer. Slingbox is a one time charge of ~$200 and no renewal/monthly fees. Heck, I hooked up my Slingbox and watched Mavs games in Singapore! I watched Cow games on a mobile phone in Hawaii on the beach!
3). Sports bar. Easy/cheap, but only recommended for college/young guys. I did this option for years in the 90's. I watched all the Aikman era Cows in a sports bar on Long Island. You know what? I had a great time, even better than now. Just pick a good one with DirecTV and no cover charge if you buy a burger. Cost? Less than $10 a game and thus approximately $160 dollars a season. Less, if you know that the Cows play on NBC Sunday, ESPN Monday night, national Sunday games and Thanksgiving. So the money should be less than $160.
Thus, there are options for those who don't want to or unfortunately can't afford these ludicrous prices for Sports.
Where's there a will, there will be a way in this electronic era. You just have to plan ahead, and with stuff like Slingbox, you can watch any Cow/Mavs games and stick it to Jerry and the NFL and the cable companies.
Posted by DarrenT @ 11:55 AM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
First off let me say I've got Direct TV along with the Sunday Ticket (250 a season more if you want all the games in HD). I think the cable operators have a point. The NFL pricing for cable is 70 cents per customer per month. For every fricken customer every single month. Even us die hard Cowboy/NFL fans will hardly watch the NFL channel during the off season much less anyone else. Why charge everyone 12 months out of the year for what only 20 percent of their customer base wants only 6 months out of a year. Not hard to figure out who is screwing who. Roger and Jerry are living in dream land. Also, last time I checked we live in a capitalistic society and if Warner or Comcast dosen't like the NFL's pricing scheme they shouldn't have to carry it nor should our governement or some arbitrator force them to. Dang people wake up!
Posted by Mike @ 12:23 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Dan,
LMAO you think Goodell did a personal conference call with Breer? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA You're nuts.
Yeah, Goodell sat down to answer all of these questions so elaborately for one Albert Greer.
Man how easy it is to fool people.
Posted by Kevin @ 1:03 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
And I thought Texas was a Republican State!. Come on people, you're acting like a bunch of Democrats with your sense of "Entitlement" of free NFL games. Which are not FREE, you pay the cable company, either directly or by buying a sponser's product. Nothing is for free! The days of the aluminum foiled, rabbit eared watching, belly button pickers are coming to an end (and thank God). I've been DirecTV customer since 1994. Why? Because cable sucks! They have limited channels and the quality sucked at the time (before digital cable). I got to see more channels and I saw them clearer. I wanted more (and at the time)I was PAYING LESS and I am probably still paying less (outside of NFL Sunday Ticket). You want it, go get it, stop whining that it should be giving to you like a mama's teet. Even she cut the rope at some point and made you work for it. Or to look at it another way, get DirecTV, pay less than cable and get the NFL Network for "free" as part of their basic package and you have the best of both worlds - unless you really like the aluminum foiled rabbit ears then I can't help you.
Posted by james muckleroy @ 1:12 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
don't worry about me, Maverick, this is the way I roll..they are greedy SOBS, no doubt about it...i missed the games last year as well..very uncool...No one needs to worry about my Jesus and Shiva state of mind...I'm on target- and they take us for consumer idiots...nothing ever malicious from me, just straight up.....happy thanksgiving everyone...Cowboys 37 jets 13...but you never know sometimes, do ya...but we'll win this week, and next week, and so on....
Posted by james muckleroy @ 1:20 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Uh Kevin, just shut up...how old are you??? entitlement?? republicans.?..yeah you must be one, ignorant and way off base as usual. Your comment is laughable and insulting.Right back at ya. You're dead wrong...so don't make more of an idiot of yourself...or whatever...most of us are more discerning and intelligent than that. issue over and out. blah blah blah....GREED= USA ~!~in this case, no other way about. No more arguing. You're in complete donkeyfied error...HT ~!~
Posted by Kevin @ 1:47 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Uh, my point exectly. Thanks Muckles!
Posted by Kevin @ 1:48 PM Thu, Nov 22, 2007
Uh, my point exactly. Thanks Muckles!
Posted by Matthew @ 4:05 PM Sun, Nov 25, 2007
I am thuroughly pissed about this I am a huge football fan but I should NOT have to pay extra for games that I should be able to see it is rediculous I am already paying an outragious price for cable TV and I can't switch to sattelite the quality is aweful.
Posted by Mike Y @ 10:53 PM Wed, Nov 28, 2007
im tired of greedy people like jerry jones. I mean aren't you happy that Romo's jersey is the number 1 selling jersey and that sales have gone up by almost half? compared to last year. I mean be happy the boys are doing good and help out your fans by showing us the games on regular cable. We already have to pay for our cable service and now we have to change our company in order to see the games. ABSURD!!!!! we have been fans in the ups and downs. But we are still fans of the boys.