1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NFL network redzone channel

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by PA GIANTS FAN, Aug 15, 2009.

  1. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    1,118
    0
    Jul 20, 2007
    Yes, but Fox and CBS are competing for contracts; they don't automatically get those contracts. You don't think there are local ABC affiliates, at the very least, that wouldn't love the chance at their local NFL team every Sunday? It's not like Fox and CBS control the NFL. The NFL has a product that everybody wants.

    Besides, Sunday Ticket will still be a subscription service no matter how many television providers have it and with blackouts local affiliates will still have no competition for the "biggest" games of the week and which ever networks get the national television rights will still get the revenue from national ads.

    Also, with NBC's Sunday night football, both CBS and Fox are already starting to lose some control over their Sunday afternoon packages. They've accepted that because of the value the NFL is to them.
     
  2. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    Spot on take.

    The same people over and over every time the contract gets within 12-18 months of expiring, repeat the same nonsense.

    Cable has never had access to NFLST(Games) and never will as long as there are OTA network affiliates that are broadcast partners of the NFL.


    Be it the current OTA network partners Fox,CBS & NBC or replace one of the with the other OTA network partner ABC the fact remains no cable entities will ever have access to NFLST.

    League doesn't want it and the networks damn sure won't go along.

    The Cable version of the RZC was to appease Comcast with a slight Consolation prize when the NFL extended the last ST deal with D**.


    For as long as there are OTA's involved there will never be cable participation.
     
  3. Red Dog

    Red Dog Godfather

    411
    0
    Aug 3, 2008

    Yeah but the contracts, no matter who wins them, automatically have more value if control over the local markets is included. As for flex-SNF, that reduced the relative value of the Sunday afternoon packages but the NFL figured that was more than offset by the increase in value of the #1 primetime package.
     
  4. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    1,118
    0
    Jul 20, 2007
    With blackouts, networks (and their local affiliates) will still be the only game in town when it comes to local team match-ups and marquee match ups that don't conflict with the local team's schedule. Also, if the NFL does eventually open up Sunday Ticket to other providers, it's not as if it will be free (as the new cable/E* RedZone channel essentially is.) The vast majority of people will still be happy with the coverage they get without paying for a package.

    IMO, the increased value of the primetime NBC package proves my intial point. If the NFL can make more money by limiting broadcasters control over their product, they will.

    To get back to the original point of this thread, IMO the "new" RedZone channel has limited the appeal of switching to DirecTV based primary on their football package and as subscribers I believe we should be upset that we have to pay hundreds of dollars in order to get a channel very similar to what other providers offer for a minimal sum.

    As consumers and not DirecTV advocates, I feel we should all ultimately be happy with the NFL opening up their product to all providers. Assuming the free market works, it should drive prices down for consumers or at least keep them steady.
     
  5. Red Dog

    Red Dog Godfather

    411
    0
    Aug 3, 2008
    Absolutely - I would far prefer ST to be available across all platforms, particularly since millions are shut out from DTV for logistical reasons. I was one of those people for many years and it was insanely frustrating. It increases choice which would likely drive prices down. I think the cable RZC is a great development, but like I said before, the NFL has historically been very tight with the supply of their tv product and I think this is essentially the NFL throwing a bone to detractors (plus it's likely something they can make some kind of money on - particularly if it is not commercial-free).
     
  6. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    If the NFL ever chooses to drop OTA Broadcast network partners then and only then will you see NFLST opened up for other possible DBS/Cable providers.

    As long as there are OTA Network Partners though the Package will NEVER be opened up for any non D** entity.

    The speculation while making for good conversation and solid discussion is entirely moot.
     
  7. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    1,118
    0
    Jul 20, 2007
    Could you give your reasons? It's hard to dispute something when you give absolutely no reasons and state it as though it were the voice of god.

    Personally I doubt the NFL currently cares much about DirecTV. They paid the most so they got the package. If E* (the only other true national provider) had actually been willing to pay for it at a greater price, the NFL would have chosen them as their sole carrier. If other television providers felt they could make their money back, they would carry it. That DirecTV alone pays enough to exclude any other deals should worry us as subscribers because that "extra" cost to exclude competitors is passed on to us, unless DirecTV doesn't care about making a profit.

    Television is one of the better examples as to why monopolies hurt consumers. Look at people in Philadelphia who can't get their RSN. Or what might happen with Versus. Or that no carrier other than a cable company carries AMC HD. When one television provider has complete control over content it screws over consumers.

    Again, getting back to the original point. is the new cable/E* Red Zone channel contractually not allowed to be carried by DirecTV? (I promise you that I ask purely out of ignorance.) If DirecTV is allowed to carry it (say as part of their sports pack) and they haven't already announced it, I believe it shows they consider it real competition to what they charge hundreds of dollars for. If D* aren't allowed to carry it, then it shows that the NFL is looking after their own bottom line and doesn't care about limiting the value (now that it is signed) of the current Sunday Ticket contract.
     
  8. dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    Arent there already plans to make sunday ticket available via computer by 2012 to people who cant get directv ?
     
  9. dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    Directv doesnt charge hundreds of dollars for redzone ?
     
  10. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    In my best John Facenda keystroke:lol:


    The reasons are too many, too layered and far too long to type in a post here.

    Not trying to be dismissive or a jerk as I'm sure by looking at your previous posts that you are quite capable of understanding the facts when presented no matter the complexity.

    I will make a couple of quick points,

    This cable RZ package was negotiated for by the NFL with D**'s blessings in the last Sunday Ticket contract extension.

    This is not some surprise, or proof that the NFL is diluting D's ST product.

    You make mention that other providers would carry it if the price was right.

    Other providers would carry it(NFLST) at most any price. The NFL chooses for their own business reasons to not make this package available to the In Demand Cable consortium or any other Cable company not affiliated with the In Demand Group.

    I will go as far as to say even if Cable was a top bidder for the product they still wouldn't get the deal. It would cause far too much consternation with the most valued TV partners the Networks.
     
  11. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006


    Yes indeed. To a select few.

    I'm referring to DBS/Cable entities.


    I believe that it will be made available to people that can't access D**'s signal. It won't be made availble though to patrons that just choose not to access D's signal for personal choice or convenience(bundling) reasons.
     
  12. Red Dog

    Red Dog Godfather

    411
    0
    Aug 3, 2008
    I tend to agree. I used to think the NFL was stupid for not spreading it all around, but then the more I thought about it and seeing as how the NFL is tight with the product historically, they must have crunched the numbers to determine they are better off financially overall with the current setup.
     
  13. dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    But that select few would be almost everyone in NYC.
     
  14. Red Dog

    Red Dog Godfather

    411
    0
    Aug 3, 2008
    I'm interested to see if they try that obscene $350 price for areas outside NYC when it expands next year. $350 in Manhattan is a lot different than $350 elsewhere.
     
  15. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006

    Agreed!

    Price Point though will deter quite a few.

    It's been my experience that most of the patrons that want to access this type of stuff via their ISP don't want to pay any extra to do so.

    If they are indeed willing to pay it's usually a small monthly fee.

    This particular package will be as expensive or even slightly more expensive than NFLST is currently priced.
     
  16. dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,750
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    On NFLN total access tonite during a RZ promo rich eisen specifically said:

    "....so when a team goes inside the 20 yard line fans see the crucial plays as they happen."

    So again to me this implies that it will only be "live" from the 20 in & the rest will be "not live" highlites.
     
  17. Eksynyt

    Eksynyt Icon

    870
    11
    Feb 8, 2008
    So if the qb gets sacked and a team goes back to the 21 yard line and it's the only game left in the 1PM block, then we won't get to see the team try a game-winning FG attempt?
     
  18. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    1,118
    0
    Jul 20, 2007
    My entire quote:

    As most have said, there's a difference between DirecTV's Redzone and the Redzone offered by other providers. My point was/is that if the new Redzone was such an inferior product DirecTV would offer it to their customers in the same manner other providers because it wouldn't interfere with selling Sunday Ticket packages. That they don't suggests the channel is viewed as real competition, unless there are contractual reasons why they can't show it

    How exactly did the new Redzone Channel have DirecTV's "blessing?" They signed a contract to still be the exclusive carrier of Sunday Ticket games, that doesn't necessarily mean they were happy with everything in the contract. It's like saying flex scheduling had CBS and Fox's blessing. They agreed to the contract the NFL gave them; they probably got some concessions, like a limited control of what games are handed to NBC, but I doubt they were thrilled that some of the big season games they had previous shown could be switched to another network. DirecTV did the same thing with a slighlty watered down Sunday Ticket contract. They all wanted the NFL and they ultimately have had no choice in the matter, other than to walk away from the table.

    It's hard to see how the NFL hasn't been willingly diluting their product. The flex scheduling is one example. Thursday night games is another. That after "feuding" with cable companies a couple years ago they gave away their marquee regular season matchup to all broadcasters is a third. IMO, to say the deal they signed with DirecTV is not another example of this is quasi-ridiculous. For the first time, certain aspects of Sunday Ticket are available to people who don't subscribe to DirecTV. This is a dilution of the product. Cable and Dish Network can now claim, with more veracity than they have before, that you aren't missing that much football by switching to DirecTV and paying an exorbitant sum for Sunday Ticket.

    This diluting of NFL product goes way beyond the narrow scope of DirecTV. In the past couple years, I've heard many argument as to whether the NFL is hurting their product by making more games available to the general public, through flex scheduling and Thursday night football. It seems like the NFL is slowly moving in the direction of other sports in making all their games available to more people than ever before. The latest Sunday Ticket contract shows the same shift in priorities. Is there really any argument that the new Sunday Ticket contract is not diluted compared to previous contracts?
     
  19. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008

    Actually the NFL is very happy with DirecTV. They have made things on their own, like DirecTV's redzone channel, shortcuts, game mix, and Snap (Now the NFL redzone channel). All of these things made people enjoy football that much more. Sure they paid the most but they also did things to enhance the NFL as well.

    Just because someone pays the most doesn't mean a company is happy or renews an agreement with them. Take the speculation that Verizon will be getting the I-Phone because of AT&T's policies with it. Not to go off topic just a relevant example.

    DirecTV has no reason to carry the new redzone channel. It's completely inferior to what they have setup. The interactive features of score guide give more data then the NFL snap did and is more customizable. The DirecTV RedZone channel is live all the time with a full time announcer. I'm sure that the NFL would love to get paid for DirecTV subs on their new channel but DirecTV has no reason to carry it.

    When the first contract was done with NFL and DirecTV it was stated through many sources that Fox had the NFL put a clause in about a maximum number of subscribers that were allowed. It's obvious that if they reduced the price in half that more then double the people would sign up. No one knows the real number and people posted speculation.

    The people I feel sorry for are the ones that are going to sign up with Dish or Comcast because of the new adds and then realise they got blindsided by legalise writing of NFL games which are incorrect in the expectation. Comcast is running adds now saying "Never miss a game on Sunday" because one team will at least get in the red zone once.
     
  20. QuickDrop

    QuickDrop Hall Of Fame

    1,118
    0
    Jul 20, 2007
    Okay, here's a question. You are a DirecTV subscriber without Sunday Ticket. Your neighbors have Dish Network or Comcast. Which provider is offering the best NFL coverage on Sundays to their customers?

    IMO, DirecTV customers should have the same opportunity as subscribers to other services to receive a supposedly crummy channel for a nominal fee instead of getter a better version of it as a bonus for pay $400 extra dollars.

    So you're saying that because of speculation surrounding a contract signed in the mid 90s that in 2014 the NFL wouldn't consider opening up the package to other subscribers?


    I can't see why you should feel sorry for them. People who switch from DirecTV probably are doing it for a myriad of reasons not simply because they somehow believe that Sunday Ticket package is offered by their new provider. Cable and Dish have been advertising for years that you get all the football you could want with their services. That they now have their own version of the Red Zone channel actually lends a slight bit of credence to their claim. The question yet to be decide is whether cable and E* subscribers who might have switched to D* for football are placated into staying put by the new Red Zone channel.
     

Share This Page