tk13
11-23-2006, 02:39 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_4708796
NFL Network hit with access issue
By Patrick Saunders
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/23/2006 12:19:35 AM MST
Like a 325-pound defensive tackle, the omnipotent NFL knows how to throw its weight around.
Nothing illustrates that better than tonight's game between the Broncos and Kansas City Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium.
When football fans sit in front of the television and gobble down their pumpkin pie, they will be watching a game on the NFL's infant network. It is the first of eight Thursday-Saturday games this season produced, directed and televised exclusively by the NFL Network.
But the game behind the games has been as rough as a blindside sack.
The 3-year-old network has been criticized for trying to strong-arm cable TV companies into carrying its product at an exorbitant rate. It's been scolded for blacking out loyal fans who can't get the proper cable connections. It's even been called in front of a U.S. Senate committee to explain its future intentions and answer questions about antitrust laws.
But like a defensive tackle bull-rushing the quarterback, the NFL Network plows ahead, supremely confident in its product and the public's desire for it. Indeed, NFL Network president and CEO Steve Bornstein has called the pro football league "the most popular programming on the planet."
Bornstein said adding prime-time, late-season games to the NFL Network's all-football menu of highlights, pregame shows, analysis and fabled NFL Films productions was the next logical step.
"Football is the perfect 24/7 sport because of its importance to the country," said Bornstein, the former head of ESPN. "And we're excited about presenting everything we do, not just these eight games."
In the Denver area, as well as Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the NFL Network is available on Comcast cable, but only on its digital tier. It's also carried by major satellite providers DirecTV and the Dish Network. And because NFL rules stipulate that over- the-air stations in the home cities can broadcast games,
Cable TV wars
As of Sept. 1, the NFL Network claimed about 41 million subscribers, very good for a relatively young network but far short of its goal of being in 65 million homes by the time the Broncos and Chiefs hooked up tonight.
As the network attempts to plug into mainstream cable television, there have been plenty of blown fuses. The basic dispute pits the network against some of the nation's biggest cable companies, chief among them No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable, Cablevision Systems Corp. (a New York-area provider) and Charter Communications, who aren't carrying the NFL Network. The root of the feud, of course, is money. Caught in the middle are the fans.
"The NFL Network keeps the pressure on because it believes we will ultimately end up charging all our customers to satisfy the few who want these games," Fred Dressler, executive vice president of Time Warner Cable, told Sports Business News.
Time Warner said it would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states. The cable giant's stance is that the NFL Network belongs on a sports tier, where true NFL fans will pay for it.
The NFL Network used to charge cable companies 20 cents per subscriber per month. After the addition of the eight-game package, it reportedly began charging 70 cents, more than cable staples such as CNN, Discovery Channel and Nickelodeon. However, The Wall Street Journal reported in April that ESPN charges cable companies more than $2.50 per customer per month.
That's why Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, chairman of the NFL's broadcast committee, disagrees with those blaming the NFL Network for the stalemate.
"What we are asking of the cable companies is not an inflated price," he said. "We are not asking like $2.50 per game. We are right there with everybody else."
The NFL, already set to make $3.7 billion this year from television deals alone, has been aggressively publicizing its position. Seth Palansky, the NFL Network's spokesman, has been quoted extensively. He recently said the network "is the most valuable programming a cable company can offer, and a cable company not carrying live NFL games is like a grocery store not carrying milk."
One NFL newspaper advertisement aimed at Time Warner read: "Don't let Time Warner ruin your football season. You'll miss NFL games if you don't call and demand NFL Network now."
Dressler fired back, telling The New York Times: "To suggest that anybody's season will be ruined for missing eight games is ludicrous."
There had been hopes that the dispute would be settled before the NFL Network televised its first game, today, but there is no end in sight.
What's next?
Last week, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., wanted to know more about the NFL Network's future.
"We're intrigued, to put it mildly, with what the NFL has in mind," he said during a 90-minute session featuring NFL executive vice president and general counsel Jeffrey Pash.
Pash answered questions not only about how the NFL Network's plans could affect cable and satellite rates, but also whether the NFL televising its own games raises antitrust issues in connection with the Sports Broadcasting Act. Pash said the NFL Network's programming does not conflict with antitrust laws because it's "pro-competitive" and "expands choices for consumers."
Pash, citing the NFL's lucrative relationships with other networks, said it would be years before there would be any other major changes in how games are televised.
Lucrative indeed. Last year, the NFL completed deals with NBC Sports on a six-year, $3.6 billion deal to carry Sunday night games and with ESPN on an eight-year, $8.8 billion contract to televise "Monday Night Football." Two years ago, CBS and Fox extended their Sunday deals for six years, with CBS paying $622 million annually and Fox paying $712 million. DirecTV extended its contract for $3.5 billion over five years.
Bowlen likes the progress the upstart network has shown.
"I'm not at all unhappy with where the NFL Network is at right now," Bowlen said. "I am unhappy that some people won't get to see the game, but I don't think that's our fault."
NFL Network hit with access issue
By Patrick Saunders
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/23/2006 12:19:35 AM MST
Like a 325-pound defensive tackle, the omnipotent NFL knows how to throw its weight around.
Nothing illustrates that better than tonight's game between the Broncos and Kansas City Chiefs at Arrowhead Stadium.
When football fans sit in front of the television and gobble down their pumpkin pie, they will be watching a game on the NFL's infant network. It is the first of eight Thursday-Saturday games this season produced, directed and televised exclusively by the NFL Network.
But the game behind the games has been as rough as a blindside sack.
The 3-year-old network has been criticized for trying to strong-arm cable TV companies into carrying its product at an exorbitant rate. It's been scolded for blacking out loyal fans who can't get the proper cable connections. It's even been called in front of a U.S. Senate committee to explain its future intentions and answer questions about antitrust laws.
But like a defensive tackle bull-rushing the quarterback, the NFL Network plows ahead, supremely confident in its product and the public's desire for it. Indeed, NFL Network president and CEO Steve Bornstein has called the pro football league "the most popular programming on the planet."
Bornstein said adding prime-time, late-season games to the NFL Network's all-football menu of highlights, pregame shows, analysis and fabled NFL Films productions was the next logical step.
"Football is the perfect 24/7 sport because of its importance to the country," said Bornstein, the former head of ESPN. "And we're excited about presenting everything we do, not just these eight games."
In the Denver area, as well as Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the NFL Network is available on Comcast cable, but only on its digital tier. It's also carried by major satellite providers DirecTV and the Dish Network. And because NFL rules stipulate that over- the-air stations in the home cities can broadcast games,
Cable TV wars
As of Sept. 1, the NFL Network claimed about 41 million subscribers, very good for a relatively young network but far short of its goal of being in 65 million homes by the time the Broncos and Chiefs hooked up tonight.
As the network attempts to plug into mainstream cable television, there have been plenty of blown fuses. The basic dispute pits the network against some of the nation's biggest cable companies, chief among them No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable, Cablevision Systems Corp. (a New York-area provider) and Charter Communications, who aren't carrying the NFL Network. The root of the feud, of course, is money. Caught in the middle are the fans.
"The NFL Network keeps the pressure on because it believes we will ultimately end up charging all our customers to satisfy the few who want these games," Fred Dressler, executive vice president of Time Warner Cable, told Sports Business News.
Time Warner said it would have to pay $140 million a year to provide the channel to all 13.5 million of its subscribers in 33 states. The cable giant's stance is that the NFL Network belongs on a sports tier, where true NFL fans will pay for it.
The NFL Network used to charge cable companies 20 cents per subscriber per month. After the addition of the eight-game package, it reportedly began charging 70 cents, more than cable staples such as CNN, Discovery Channel and Nickelodeon. However, The Wall Street Journal reported in April that ESPN charges cable companies more than $2.50 per customer per month.
That's why Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, chairman of the NFL's broadcast committee, disagrees with those blaming the NFL Network for the stalemate.
"What we are asking of the cable companies is not an inflated price," he said. "We are not asking like $2.50 per game. We are right there with everybody else."
The NFL, already set to make $3.7 billion this year from television deals alone, has been aggressively publicizing its position. Seth Palansky, the NFL Network's spokesman, has been quoted extensively. He recently said the network "is the most valuable programming a cable company can offer, and a cable company not carrying live NFL games is like a grocery store not carrying milk."
One NFL newspaper advertisement aimed at Time Warner read: "Don't let Time Warner ruin your football season. You'll miss NFL games if you don't call and demand NFL Network now."
Dressler fired back, telling The New York Times: "To suggest that anybody's season will be ruined for missing eight games is ludicrous."
There had been hopes that the dispute would be settled before the NFL Network televised its first game, today, but there is no end in sight.
What's next?
Last week, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., wanted to know more about the NFL Network's future.
"We're intrigued, to put it mildly, with what the NFL has in mind," he said during a 90-minute session featuring NFL executive vice president and general counsel Jeffrey Pash.
Pash answered questions not only about how the NFL Network's plans could affect cable and satellite rates, but also whether the NFL televising its own games raises antitrust issues in connection with the Sports Broadcasting Act. Pash said the NFL Network's programming does not conflict with antitrust laws because it's "pro-competitive" and "expands choices for consumers."
Pash, citing the NFL's lucrative relationships with other networks, said it would be years before there would be any other major changes in how games are televised.
Lucrative indeed. Last year, the NFL completed deals with NBC Sports on a six-year, $3.6 billion deal to carry Sunday night games and with ESPN on an eight-year, $8.8 billion contract to televise "Monday Night Football." Two years ago, CBS and Fox extended their Sunday deals for six years, with CBS paying $622 million annually and Fox paying $712 million. DirecTV extended its contract for $3.5 billion over five years.
Bowlen likes the progress the upstart network has shown.
"I'm not at all unhappy with where the NFL Network is at right now," Bowlen said. "I am unhappy that some people won't get to see the game, but I don't think that's our fault."