If you're in the Southwestern region of Ohio (i.e. Cincinnati) watching television via Time Warner, then most likely you're going to see a 5.1% increase in your rates, says the Cincinnati Enquirer -- effective today. I swear, if 200 MPH wind and -43 degrees wasn't enough... Time Warner's reasoning is that programming costs keep increasing pushing the rates customers pay. This happens during the peak of a major NFL Network/Time Warner dispute which has me questioning: Is this a power move by the cable company to solidify their justification against bringing the NFL Network to their programming?

There's an increasing fear that if people unload their paychecks for the NFL Network that it will encourage the league to install a pay-per-view type of system after the current agreement runs out. A test, so to speak, to see if people would pay money to watch games. People could be saying that as a scare tactic, who knows. I just know that Time Warner is right by insisting the network be shown on the Sports tier so only those that subscribe to it would pay for it -- from my understanding, that's the biggest hold-up.

Cable rates up in SW Ohio [Enquirer]
Doyel's here to help since you probably missed Bengals-Ravens [Sportsline]

Well, here we are. The Bengals are playing tonight (Thursday) on the NFL Network. If you're outside the primary market (i.e. Cincinnati) and don't get Channel 5, WLW-TV, then you're basically forced to a radio broadcast and NFL.com's GameCenter. You have no chance at seeing, perhaps, the best game of the season. People have offered the cable providers a sense of support by not demanding the network onto their cable systems. For example, as anticipated Thanksgiving night, there was hardly any demand from the customers to the providers to show the network like they had hoped afterwards. It's not like the network provides quality broadcasts anyway, like this NY Times article states:

Insight systems just picked up the NFL Network which serves people in Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

Cable Subscribers Aren’t Saying, ‘I Want My N.F.L.’ [NY Times]
NFL Network works to catch on [Enquirer]
Insight picks up NFL Network [Enquirer]

After having two full plates of turkey, mashed potatoes, corn, sweet potatoes and stuffing, I was treated to two apple pies and a pumpkin pie. I won’t lie. I take full advantage of Thanksgiving at the family’s house. And it’s almost like my mother, after years of dealing with football – one of her most hated things in the world – she instinctively timed the dinner perfectly. Not long after Miami secured their 27-10 win over the Detroit Lions, the dinner bell rang. After eating enough food that could feed Warren County, I made my way to the couch and turned it to Fox to see Tampa Bay take the field for their first offensive possession. I didn’t miss a second of NFL action; just the boring rubbish that followed and preceded the games. For that and the delicious food, I'm thankful for mom. Of course, like the years before that, I led the prayer for dinner and shocked EVERYONE -- including my mother -- when I finished saying "thanks" for football and the Cincinnati Bengals. I got the stare.

As the trend continues in the NFL this year during national games, the games were boring and mind-numbing. I guess it’s what you can expect. Detroit is always on Thanksgiving therefore making the games typically bad. Joey Harrington was booed in Detroit and Fox was getting off on a warm Tony Romo love-fest.

That was all the football I got. Boring games that if prompted, I’d never pay to watch. There was no night game for me. See, I’m one of the victims in the Time Warner/NFL Network wars. I’m the innocent Frenchman that begs American soldiers to take my daughter away from the bombarded town like the scene in Saving Private Ryan.

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen doesn’t much mind that only 41 million have access to the network. He’s a chairman of the league's broadcasting committee and called the Chiefs/Broncos game "historic".  He continues, "I think as you look into the future three or four more years," Bowlen said, "it will be a fully distributed, 365-day, 24/7 network. And it won't just be about the NFL." What the hell else could it be about? It’s the NFL Network. Shouldn’t it be about the NFL?

Basically Bowlen is saying to you, the customer, you will have to pay money in order to watch NFL games. To me, this is setting a horrible precedent for the future. Not only would you pay money to watch the NFL, but you’d get a network called the NFL Network that won’t always be about the NFL. That’s false advertising, to me.  Bowlen’s right about one thing; this is just the beginning. There will be a day when you’ll pay $20 just to watch the Bengals live on television.

It’s not just the three major cable companies that are refusing to pay for the outrageous costs.

To be honest, I haven’t lost any sleep over not getting the NFL Network. The games most likely, like most national NFL games, will be over by the third quarter. The only thing that interests me about the network is games replayed the next day.

Otherwise, I’ll just ignore the diatribe of NFL spokesmen telling us they have best programming ever and we’re "suffering" like starving people in third world nations. Really. If the NFL Network is promoting that we’re suffering, wouldn’t they reduce their demands that the major cable companies have gaffed at? Probably not. They have the best programming ever. Just ask them.

I'm a little surprised that my co-NFL bloggers have remained relatively quiet on their opinions about the network. It makes me think that I'm the only one that really has a problem with this. And maybe my opinion that the NFL is starting to think too highly of themselves falls in the minority category. Of all the NFL blogs in SB Nation that mentions this is tommasse at Pats Pulpit saying "Note to NFL: Nice work. Solid plan." Yes, that's dripping with sarcasm.

Note: I think it's interesting if you look at my posts from the birth of the blog until now. My opinion has absolutely changed as I've learned what the hold up is.

Broncos aren't part of some fans' feasts [Denver Post]
Bowlen envisions bright future for NFL Network [Rocky Mountain News]
NFL Network Is Still Plugging Holes [Multi-Channel]
Outlook Dim for NFL Network, MSOs [Broadcast News Room]
NFL Network-Time Warner feud unlikely to be resolved by Thanksgiving [My San Antonio]
No settlement in sight between Time Warner and NFL Network [Desert Sun]
Comcast at odds with NFL Network [Clarion Ledger]
Rutgers fans could miss bowl game [NY Post]

ESPN.com’s John Helyar does a nice job summarizing the NFL Network vs. Cable Programming battle that continues to ensue. In short, the NFL is demanding outrageous fees that the cable providers are refusing to pay. The NFL Network also wants their programming on basic cable; not any type of sports tier.  The NFL has even sued a cable provider for putting the NFL network on a sports tier.

As growing confidence in their stance continues, the NFL network says point blank, the NFL is "TV’s most valuable programming."

Palansky fails to mention that it’s the NFL demands that are preventing people from watching a live NFL game on their network. Then the "NFL spokesman" acts like a seventh grader that can’t play on the swing-set because there’s no space available.

I don't blame Time Warner and the cable companies as much as most do. Television programming in general is skyrocketing costs and that trickles to the subscribers. Yes, a battle between multi-billion dollar companies makes most of us roll our eyes when costs create a stalemate on an agreement -- justifiably so. But in the end, this battle will affect us. Either we get the NFL network on basic cable increasing rates that puts more "to owe" on your bill or we don't get the network at all. And no, I don't want to see an increase on my bill just to get a few NFL games on television. I miss 13 games weekly. So missing one the NFL Network makes no difference to me. (The Bengals vs. Ravens on Thursday's NFL Network will be shown on local television, so we won't miss that)

What are your thoughts? Make your selection in the poll to the right.

Chiefs and Broncos on TV? Only for some [ESPN.com]

The NFL Network: A little full of themselves?

At first, I was a normal fan that asked the simple question: "Why in the world wouldn't Time Warner pick up the NFL Network?" I figure if the cable company added a charge to their sports-tier network that it would be warmly welcomed by fans and subscribers. Ask someone why they'd want a satellite that's prone to outages from thunderstorms and I'm sure that NFL programming weights heavily on that.

Ask the NFL Network why they're not on Time Warner, and they'll tell you to please "ask them. Time Warner is insisting we be carried as an extra charge Sports Tier package which will cost you more money. We think your cable bill is enough and you should not have to pay any more to get NFL Network. No other operator charges extra for NFL Network, nor should Time Warner. NFL Network has been working hard for the past three years to get local cable companies to carry NFL Network. If Comcast, the largest cable company in the country, and DIRECTV and Dish Network, the largest satellite providers can all carry us, why not Time Warner?" (NFL.com)

From a fan's perspective, the NFL Network just says you don't have to pay anything while the cable companies absorb the costs for running the network. What they fail to tell you is that you will indirectly absorb the increasingly expensive programming. The NFL Network and Comcast came up with an agreement on August 16th, 2004. At the beginning of 2005, some Comcast customers began to see an average 1.2 percent increase in their rates. (KeepPhillyCompetitive.com)

Massachusetts saw the same thing as Comcast raised rates, on average, by 5.9%.

So while they are right, Comcast doesn't charge their subscribers directly for the NFL Network, the increased rates across the board do affect customers.

DirectTV raised their average rates by 4% at the beginning of the year. Dish Network did the same.

My point isn't rate increases for cable/satellite providers; that's about as certain as paying taxes. It's the contention that the NFL makes you think it's all free. All the providers listed by the NFL have seen at least one rate increase since their respective partnerships.

So in what relation does all this have with the NFL Network? Since announcing they would broadcast eight regular season games in 2006, the NFL Network raised their rates on cable companies by 250%; which translates to $137 million. The NFL is asking for a price that's in the top-ten cable networks and to be on basic cable. Keeping it on the sports tier ensures that only those that subscribe to the sports tier are charged.

Time Warner thinks the price is ridiculous for, essentially, only eight NFL games. Time Warner's goal is to reduce the rate of growth on programming costs for all their customers; not just appeasing NFL fans. Do you accept that?

In the end, it's the fans that will lose this battle. If you support Time Warner picking up the NFL Network, with all their demands in tact, then expect an increase in your already unbelievable bill. If you don't support it, then don't expect to see the NFL Network. Regardless, it's you that will lose either way.

NFL Network is counting on fans to pay a lot for a little.
NFL Get Real!

These two sweethearts are sour with each other. Adelphia cable, which carries the NFL network, was acquired by Time Warner. Time Warner then did what they usually do; ticking off their customers. They decided to drop the NFL Network that was carried by Adelphia that customers subscribed to.

Then...

I've had friends that own the NFL Network that, for the exception of a few programs, don't watch the channel regularly. I expect that view from a lot of people that are passive fans. I remind them I'm one of thousands that write about their favorite NFL team for free. On their follow up, with my perspective in mind, they say, "oh, yea. You'd love it." No kidding.

The actions with former Adelphia customers are proof the juvenile temper tantrums Time Warner is willing to throw when forced to comply with their customer demands.

Quick note: my internet connection is provided by Time Warner. So if this blog goes silent, you'll now why.

The problem with the NFL Network is their limited reach.  A majority of people in the Cincinnati area don't get the option to watch the NFL network because Time Warner isn't broadcasting the channel. The problem is they're not updating anyone so no one knows what to expect.

So I fired off this e-mail to Time Warner:

My name is Josh Kirkendall and I write for several fan websites regarding sports in the general Cincinnati area.  Many of us are inquiring if there's a remote possibility Time Warner will in some shape or form broadcast the NFL Network.  Thanks for any updates you can provide.

Peter King, in a late January Edition of Monday Morning Quarterback observed this about the NFL Network:

9. I think the NFL Network really had no choice but to get some football of its own, which it did with the announcement (after Richard Sandomir of The New York Times broke the story on Saturday) that the Thursday-Saturday late-season package would be seen on the NFL's 24-hour channel. Trouble is, the channel isn't in enough homes right now, maybe 25 or 28 million.

The late-season games give the network a chance to go to cable systems and say: "You have to have us." And they'll get on, because no cable system will want the wrath of its subscribers who say: "We want the NFL!"

I'll update if I ever get a response from Time Warner.

I don't subscribe to the NFL network. Not by choose, rather restriction of circumstances. I live in an apartment that forbids satellites on or around their property. So I'm relegated to Time Warner cable. Time Warner's position, according to the New York Times (Posted November 16, 2005)

some cable operators, like Time Warner, will not carry it without regular-season games.

There will be eight games broadcasted on the NFL Network -- including one with the Bengals. Don't worry about missing any action though. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that local teams will get the games on local channels IF the NFL Network doesn't reach mainstream cable operators in the area.

All of the games also will be shown on local stations in the teams' home markets. The package was created by taking Saturday and Sunday games that originally would have been shown by the league's broadcast partners.

After doing a Google search, there's overwhelming consensus that Time Warner will add the NFL Network very soon as a result of regular season games. Honestly, I wish Time Warner would get off their horse and just give their subscribers the option to pick it up. Now only if we can get a la carte cable choices, we should be happy campers. C'mon FCC, git 'er dun.