There's several issues with the government -- like how they apply their laws (or force their influence, on trivial things, on our daily lives) -- that I passionately disagree with; weighing in on media distributions with a business (NFL) that's allowed to practice within a monopoly, and the exemptions that favor the NFL in terms of the television contracts, seems to be a waste of time for our government.

The FCC (who's more stiff than Frazier's ex-wife Lilith) recently ruled that Comcast MUST carry the NFL Network based on a certain price, through their digital tier. A quick history. Comcast carried the NFL Network on their Digital Tier (starting in early November in 2006) until they decided to move it to their sports tier in early August, 2007. The NFL took Comcast to court, which favored Comcast. The appeals process lasted until this week, which favored the NFL Network, forcing Comcast to carry the NFL Network back to the digital tier.

I've watched the NFL Network, and to this day, other than the live NFL games, I've little seen little benefit for it (and perhaps I'm better off that I don't have to listen to Warren Sapp speak out of his ass... thank god Inside the NFL went to Showtime). I rarely watch football programming during the week -- unless it's a game -- so I'm well aware I'm in the minority, and in the end, it doesn't matter to me personally. But I'm just one. Then again, I wouldn't mind having the abbreviated replays on the Network.

On the other hand, I find it ridiculously hypocritical that one satellite provider is exclusively allowed to carry the NFL Ticket, while a significant majority of the NFL population is blacked out. The fact that people in other countries (like Iran) can watch more NFL games than I, in a given week, is appalling. Like many of you, I stick it to them, watching NFL games, on internet broadcasting sites (god, I love the internet). The crazy thing is that I'd gladly pay for the NFL Ticket, so think of the money they're losing. And I'm just one. And no, based on idiot regulations and policies, I can't switch to a satellite.

There might be a compromise between the NFL Network and Time Warner. Let me say that again. There might be a compromise between the NFL Network and Time Warner. And the benefits to all of us, might be quick. Like sometime next week quick.

Were they pressured?

Take this perspective. When the NFL Network tells you that Time Warner is preventing you from seeing their games and 24x7 coverage, do they really think you're that stupid? It is, after all, their ridiculous assertion that taking the games away from all but 35 million households (of which only 1.6 million subscribe) is Time Warner's fault -- not the network that journeyed the games to Rivendale where no one else can find it, unless it wants to be found. The Big Ten Network is taking the same approach. And each time I'm told that both networks are being prevented from reaching their target audience, I laugh. If these networks weren't created, the games wouldn't be broadcasted on those channels. Simple as that. Don't take us for fools.

"Cable companies swim in a multi-billion dollar tower of gold coins." Both networks are just as greedy establishing channels to increase revenue for their respective product. If the cable companies are greedy, then the networks aren't? They're the victims? Furthermore, if Oprah created her own channel, would you be willing to pay for that general increase on your bill for basic? Or would you agree it should be on a digital tier that you would have to pay for to receive so the cost isn't spread out among all cable subscribers?

"Cable companies could absorb the costs and not charge anyone." The first question that has to be asked is do you run a business? Furthermore, take the Oprah hypothetical -- because obviously you'll be more willing to pay for the NFL Network if you were the CEO of cable company-A. The NFL is demanding between 50-75 cents per-subscriber while the Big Ten Network is asking for a full dollar per-subscriber. For comparison, ESPN charges $3.26 per customer -- "by far the highest rate of any U.S. basic cable channel."

Currently, the NFL receives $712.5 million per year from Fox to air NFC games. CBS is paying $622.5 million a year to air AFC games. Between the two networks, that's $8 billion that will paid through 2011. DirectTV, with exclusive rights to air the games of both networks, paid $3.5 billion for the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Now, we're up to $11.5 billion. NBC is paying $650 million per year on a contract that runs through 2012 for Sunday Night football. ESPN is paying $1.1 billion a year through 2014 for Monday Night football games. [Source: ESPN]

All television contracts added up, that's $3.785 billion per year that the NFL receives. Talk about greedy. The Cable companies pay service, InDemand, had offered a bid for NFL Sunday Ticket in 2002 before an agreement was reached for an extension between the NFL and DirectTV. The Cable Companies didn't care for exclusive rights, they just wanted to broadcast it. The cable companies missed the deadline and the league reupped with DirectTV.

Note: The Super Bowl produced $336 million in revenue.[Source: Forbes]

So what does the NFL suggest to you, the viewer that wants the NFL Network, but can't have it because their near $4 billion revenue on television contracts just isn't enough? They are urging you to cancel cable and get satellite. Yep. That's how low and panicked they are now. Jerry Jones threatens more games will be aired exclusively through the NFL Network. Even Congress is being asked to intervene. Mommy is being asked to settle another dispute.

Gregg Easterbrook notes the NFL's hypocrisy:

Easterbrook concludes:

Note: Combined, Time Warner and Comcast reported $68.5 billion in revenue in 2006. Time Warner ($43.6 billion in 2006) Comcast ($24.9 billion in 2006).

So basically, with all that said, nothing has changed in the past three years.

Cable Plays Hardball With the N.F.L. [NY Times]
Of Tiers, Football and Dollars [NY Times]

What do you get when leagues start grossly overestimating the interest from the public? You have the NFL Network and Time Warner unable to broadcast to some customers because compromise is only a word that sits idle and alone in the Oxford Dictionary. ESPNU, the network that aired last year's Crosstown shootout blacking out a majority of Cincinnatians from cheering on their respective home town teams, was an inconvenience, but they are now on Time Warner.

When we heard that the Big Ten will have their own network, you almost had the feeling that this exact thing would happen. Time Warner, holding onto their guns, will only put the network on their digital sports tier, rather than basic, so people that want the channel, pay for the channel. Not the other way around.

As Ohio State fans with Time Warner, we'll miss out on four games this year (Youngstown State and Akron and possibly Northwestern and Kent State). The SEC could be following suit next season and the Pac-10 and ACC are considering.

Boy, I can't wait until we're paying $3,000 per month because regular network programming will be a thing of the past.

Buckeyes blacked out [Enquirer]

First it was the NFL Network refusing to come to terms with Time Warner leaving millions and millions of football fans in the dark during their national games; unless it was in the home market. Then it was ESPNU that blocked out the Crosstown Shootout (UC vs. Xavier) in Cincinnati. Now it's the Big Ten Network that has Ohio State fans concerned that they'll miss some college football games this season.

This is the new trend in sports broadcasting. You have to pay for sports specific channel to get fulfill the addictive coverage of our respective sports. The demands the channels are asking for isn't falling in line with mea-companies like Time Warner.

However, as per this article, ESPNU and Time Warner came to an agreement. The launch date is TBD.

I think the NFL and some owners are pissed off. They have to be. They claim to have left over $400 million on the table during television negotiations so they could broadcast eight measly games on the NFL Network (by the way, there was a game Thursday night I heard). Anyway, the cable companies (most notably Time Warner and Cablevision) and the NFL Network remain at a stalemate. So, for whatever reason, Roger Goodell announces the NFL will be free for one week during the time two bowl games will be played.

1.) Why is the NFL Network hijacking two bowl games? Funny name for a station carrying college football games.
2.) Imagine right now if you're a Rutgers fan.

Time Warner and Cablevision are having none of it.

The NFL Network is providing one week of free programming from December 24-30th. NFL.com likens it to HBO or Showtime having a free preview weekend. Of course, during that weekend, HBO doesn't black out programming like the NFL Network will for the Saturday night game between the New York Giants and Washington Redskins. Which means we'll have the same programming that's keeping the demand for it relatively low.

NFL Network offering free week [NFL.com]

This is a non-Bengals related local sports post. Tomorrow (Wednesday), the University of Cincinnati plays Xavier in the annual Crosstown Shootout. The level of discussion is down this year. Some say it's because Cincinnati has changed so much, that the fanbase has either changed or remained skeptical. Some say it's because Bob Huggins is gone so the level of intensity in the rivalry has waned.

Either way, unless you have ESPNU or go to the game, you won't have the luxury of watching it. Like the NFL Network, ESPN wants their ESPNU channel on basic cable while charging cable companies way more than Time Warmer wishes to charge for their basic service risking more increases to their basic subscribers.

I'll admit, I'm a little surprised that none of the local channels are bidding for broadcasting rights like WLW-TV did with the Bengals Thursday Night game.

But, it's going to get worse.

Welcome to the new age of sports television.

Crosstown blackout [Enquirer]
Enquirer Shootout Section [Enquirer]