nhpatsfan
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.POSTED 8:52 a.m. EST; UPDATED 9:18 a.m. EST, November 25, 2006HAVING NFLN DOESN'T MEAN GETTING NFL GAMES
Picture this. You've spent all day eating food and watching football on television and eating food and watching football on television and drinking beer and watching football on television and eating food. The extended family has finally cleared out of the house, the first two NFL games have ended, and the third one is getting started soon.
There's been plenty of controversy in the newspapers about the inability of the NFL and cable companies like Time Warner to strike agreements regarding the addition of the league's in-house network, but it's not an issue for you. Your cable company has NFLN, and while 70 million households will be unable to watch the Chiefs and the Broncos, you'll be gnawing on some more dead turkey while Jake Plummer launches a few wounded ducks.
But then something happens. It's time for the game to start, but it's not on. You grab the remote and punch in the numbers for NFLN again, but instead of the Chiefs and Broncos there's an NFL Films production about some old team from Pottstown.
What the f--k? you shout. Then your wife gently reminds you that your five-year-old son is sitting next to you.
That scene played out in more than a few households on Thursday night, due to the fact that NFLN imposes an additional fee to cable companies for the ability to broadcast live regular-season games, and some cable providers simply chose not to pay it.
The problem is that some of the cable providers who chose not to pay the extra fee apparently neglected to tell their customers that the Thursday night game would not be available.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed via e-mail on Friday that the an extra charge applies. "Yes, fees were adjusted to reflect the value of NFL Network with NFL games, which are the highest-rated programming on television," Aiello said. "Cable operators that carried NFL Network prior to NFL Network acquiring the rights to the games had two choices: [(1)] Carry NFL Network with the game package on terms that 170 cable providers throughout the country have accepted as fair, reasonable, and a good value[; or (2)] Let customers know of their choice in time for them to do something about it. A handful of cable operators apparently chose to do neither."
At a time when Congress already has expressed concern about consumer access to games aired on NFLN, this development is, to say the least, unfortunate. Though we don't question the ability of the NFL to get fairly compensated for its immensely popular product, this strikes us as one of those situations in which the inability of the parties to resolve their differences in a satisfactory manner will result in a third party (i.e., the government) imposing a resolution on them.
The real pisser is when you have a cable provider that carries the NFL network, but they opted NOT to carry the live NFL. We tuned in to see the game last night, only to see a message informing that we would not be seeing it. So, we have the NFL Network, but no live games. What the HELL was the cable provider thinking? I have Metrocast Cablevision, and I've gone to battle with them many, many times. This is perhaps the last straw.
NFL Films slow-motion style is TIGHT.
The real pisser is when you have a cable provider that carries the NFL network, but they opted NOT to carry the live NFL. We tuned in to see the game last night, only to see a message informing that we would not be seeing it. So, we have the NFL Network, but no live games. What the HELL was the cable provider thinking? I have Metrocast Cablevision, and I've gone to battle with them many, many times. This is perhaps the last straw.