The issue, I'm assuming, is that the NFL Network only gets that "base" amount of 60-70 cents (maybe even less depending how much the cable company takes of that), while it's the cable company that gets the "premium fees" (which in my area is like $5-10). So, in effect, the NFL Network is getting "robbed" of money that really they are responsible for generating.
Now, again, I'm assuming this is the issue (maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment), because if what I described above is not the case, then I can't understand what the fight would be about.
Tangentially, if the NFL Network was too stupid to not spell this out in writing before agreeing to be on cable, then I don't have much mercy for them. IOW, if they knew full well that the cable company *might* charge extra for their channel, but didn't specify in writing that this would not be allowed (unless they got a cut), and counted on people getting angry about the increase, then they underestimated the apathy of the typical consumer.
The issue is that the NFL Network carries 8 live games year. The other 357 or 358 days are filled with endless reruns of dreck, slop, cheerleader auditions, and the 1964 AFL Follies blooper reel (which I actually watched). The cable companies don't want to charge every customer 60-70 cents a month all year along so that fotball fans can watch 8 games a year.
The cable companies have to either cut their profit, or raise their rates, which is always oh so popular. If the NFL would give away the network, and make money off its ad revenue, I'm sure something could be worked out. In San Antonio, Time Warner has said that they will bump some other channel and broadcast the 8 live games, but the NFL, while crying that it wants fans to see the games, insists that cable companies carry the NFL network 24/7 all year long.
There is no hero in this standoff, but the NFL is the party that is trying to use political pressure to intimidate cable companies into carrying a channel that the cable companies believe they will lose money on.