Comcast says:
The NFL has been misleading the public by accusing Comcast of depriving cable customers of its network. I would like to set the record straight.The truth is that Comcast wants to carry NFL Network, and we have been working hard to come to an agreement to do just that before our current contract with the NFL expires on May 1. In fact, we have offered to continue to carry the network under the terms of our current contract, but the NFL has refused.
You may wonder why. We're asking the same question.
The NFL is the most sophisticated, lucrative, and powerful professional sports enterprise in the world, with a special exemption from antitrust laws that helps it maintain its monopoly on televised football. The NFL already makes more than $20 billion through long-term deals with ESPN, CBS, Fox, and NBC - more than the television-rights fees collected by the NBA, NHL, and NASCAR combined.
But the NFL wants more, and it's trying to use its enormous market power to force millions of our customers to pay for games they have always seen for free. (On top of that, it denies tens of millions of cable customers access to hundreds of games provided exclusively to DirecTV.)
Comcast currently makes NFL Network available on the dedicated sports and entertainment tier. We view this as the best and fairest way to provide NFL Network's expensive programming, because viewers who want to watch the channel can do so, while those who prefer not to aren't forced to cover the network's high costs.
NFL Network provides only eight live, regular-season, out-of-market games a year. The vast majority of the network's programming is filler such as training-camp coverage and draft analysis, which may interest the super-fan, but not most cable customers. And yet the network wants to charge higher fees than virtually any other national cable network.
Since the NFL doesn't like the terms of the contract it signed, it has repeatedly asked the courts and government authorities to require that the terms be changed. Contrary to the NFL's recent claims, though, the Federal Communications Commission has made no final determinations as to whether the NFL's claims of discrimination by Comcast are valid or bogus.
But despite our offer to do what's in the best interests of fans, we anticipate that the NFL may terminate Comcast's right to carry NFL Network. No matter what happens, though, Philadelphia fans will still see every Eagles game and all the NFL games on CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN. In fact, we carry more than 250 NFL games across the country every year.
Nobody can doubt Comcast's passionate commitment to giving our customers the best sports programming. We own the Flyers and the Sixers, and we bring thousands of professional, college, and local sporting events to our customers each year.
We have reached hundreds of agreements with other cable networks, and we typically renew our network agreements without any interruption of service. We would like to continue to carry NFL Network. But we will do so only on terms that are fair to our customers.
The NFL should join us in putting the interests of fans and the viewing public first.
You can review the NFL network's side of the story here. And, of course, there's actually a third side of the argument, the consumers who don't care about football and don't want their basic cable rates to rise to pay for the NFL Network.
So, Consumerists, let's settle this once and for all. Who's right? Does Comcast have the right to charge whatever it likes for cable channels as part of its business? Or is it unfairly singling out the NFL channel as the league claims? (Comcast apparently does not put the channels it owns or has ownership interest in (Golf Channel, Versus and MLB Network) on a sports tier.)
NFL Network is not for everyone [Philadelphia Inquirer]
]]>Ultimately, why should people not interested in watching American poofball be forced to pay for it?
Ultimately, screw both of 'em.
]]>Both sides are looking pretty greedy at this point, but I've got to side with the NFL Network, and all the sports channels that are funneled into Comcasts 'sports tier' while Comcast sports channels get bunched in with the basic package. I'm not suggesting that Comcast add NFL to the basic package, but rather kick their own sports channels to the sports tier.
Networks rely on ad revenue. When Comcast makes a deliberate move to place their sports channels in front of more viewers from the competition, it seems like a direct abuse of their position. At the same time, they're putting the cost of their sports channels onto average users who may not want them, which is exactly what they're bitching at NFL Network for.
Move 'em all to sports tier. Be done with it.
]]>Easy solution! Offer a la carte programming already. I'll pay for the dozen channels or so that I watch and you can keep the rest. Even at $5/channel its cheaper than my current bill.
]]>@shalegac: Ah.... Hulu. The only "T.V." I watch. I don't even have a T.V. in my apartment -- just a dual monitor system (23" & 22") and a 17" laptop.
I just wish Netflix would have more "recent" movies on thier "Watch Now" area. I'd honestly be willing to pay 2 or 3 times more for a subscription if I could actually get newer or "more popular" movies on there.
]]>It's probably already been said, but the NFL network is on the basic tier of Verizon FIOS....more business for them!
]]>Its a fine line, but its all about the wording.
]]>And, the fact that every other major carrier in the country has NFL on their basic-er tier.
But, they're both ridiculous.
]]>There are many people who for whatever reason cannot subscribe to any satellite services. For me - due to terrain, there is no visible line of sight to the horizon band where the satellites are parked. Unless I build a 400 foot tower and place the dish antenna on top of it, I ain't getting their service. If I want more than four channels I am going to have to get cable. Sucks to me me.
]]>And they are right
That says something
]]>What cable bills should look like in a la cart mode would be this:
Equipment rental .......... $05.00
Delivery and maintenance .. $10.00
Content Access ............ $11.94
MTV ...................... $00.10
Comedy Central ........... $00.10
Nickelodeon .............. $00.10
Spike .................... $00.10
VH1 ...................... $00.10
Hallmark Channel ......... $00.08
TNT ...................... $01.00
ESPN ..................... $03.65
NFL Network .............. $00.61
Big Ten Conference ....... $01.10
HBO ...................... $05.00
Total ..................... $26.94
*these are very accurate carriage costs
]]>In case it hasn't already been pointed out, the article is wrong-- Comcast does have MLB and the Golf Channel as a part of the supplemental sports tier.
]]>To the NFL: Kiss my ass!
]]>It may be a "niche network", but it's still better than that joke known as ESPN, and it only covers one sport. ESPN is so terrible, that it shouldn't even be allowed to charge anything at all for it's broadcast.
It's biased, unprofessional rumor mongering, makes ESPN no better than a tabloid magazine. Anyone who still gives the channel any merit, is a clueless idiot. Sure, watch the game programing, but once Sportscenter or any other "news" programing comes on, change the channel as fast as you can, less you enjoy hearing baloney disguised as factual news.
]]>XFL. Almost got me on that one. Yeah, they had some NBC primetime spots, but I guess you can't piss off the NFL or Lorne Michaels, cause after one game went 15 minutes into SNL, the network made the league change their playing rules to make the games shorter.
]]>I just have to point out the mild irony there. Besides this being a lesser form of Godwin's Law.
]]>I hate Comcast
]]>I love NFLN during football season, but the rest of the year I never, ever watch it. If they want to yank their channel from Comcast, good riddence NFL Network. I won't miss it.
]]>Actually, I like the fight between Comcast and the NFL better than any content either provides.
]]>the issue with the argument is that you don't really know if people will opt to buy the channels or not until you allow them the option. many of the channels on tier 2 or tier 3 might be watched if it weren't for the fact that a person is required to buy a whole slew of channels they're not going to watch.
here's a perfect example: i love natgeo WAAAAAY more than discovery. but natgeo is often digital tier 3 (sometimes tier 2) whereas discovery is extended basic. that's a $30-40 monthly price difference for one channel. who cares if it comes with 100 other channels if that's the only one i want to watch?
i think a la carte could work (provided you didn't have to subscribe to specific channels for 12+ mos.). not only would it allow a more accurate indication of what people really want to watch, it could result in these niche channels unveiling full programming instead of the 12hr. infomercial supplement & quarterly programming updates.
why not give people a choice, if only on the higher tiers? throw in a few "pick your own" stations on the lower programming tiers, &/or allow people to buy tier 2/3 stations like premium stations such as hbo, cinemax, showtime.
]]>When they sign up with a real channel, let me know.
]]>@Spectre1125: The Boondocks, not The Boondock Saints. That would be a cool crossover though.
]]>Wow, seriously?
How about instead of crying about whether or not the NFL or Comcast deserves more of our money, we should be asking why this even makes cable more expensive for us in the first place. When did it become okay for businesses to pass the buck down onto consumers?
Oh wait! It isn't. However, because of the regional monopolies our cable system has a tendency to create, you don't necessarily have a choice of cable services. If competition was a concern and Comcast thought they were going to lose customers, they would be happy to throw money at the NFL. Why can I say this with certainty? Because a business is designed around MAKING MONEY, regardless of any "ethical" or moral issues that might be brought up. If Comcast thought they could make more money without the NFL network in their line up, they would drop it as soon as they could. This might even be a step towards that.
If Comcast thought they could make more money by replacing good customer service with machines, hiring less capable technicians for less money, and outsourcing jobs, they would. If Comcast thought they could get you to pay them despite bad signal, malfunctioning features, and channels that don't even come in, they would. If Comcast thought you wouldn't complain when they continue to charge your account despite you having already cancelled their services, they would do that too.
The enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy. Comcast isn't defending the little guy or whatever other populist BS they are trying to pull. Tell them to pay the NFL more cash and then cancel when they jack your rates up. Show them you don't like the way they do business instead of just complaining about it. Go to the library and read a freaking book.
This all reminds me of the R. Kelly episode of The Boondock Saints.
]]>What I would actually prefer is a more Internet-like model, where Comcast merely provides intermediary access to a "video Internet" and we purchase content directly from the content providers.
]]>@ncpeters: I actually am inclined to side with comcast on this one. I feel really dirty now.
]]>Treat your customers fairly and maybe you'll get some sympathy.
]]>@Jacob Schumer: Surely you know Comcasts record of being nice to the public...
]]>@Canino: Yeah!!!
I so much want the Infomercial Network so I do not have to worry about non-paid programming and newscasts interupting my beloved infomericals during the day time...
All Infomericals- All of the Time!
]]>Ummmm...hate to burst your bubble there Comcast-shmuck..but the English Premier League is quite a bit larger in size. Real Futbol...not throwball. Typically, there is over a billion people who watch the EPL every weekend around the world and that doesn't count the cup/tournament games.
Comcast = substandard service and expensive price$
fixed that up for you.
]]>@johnva: Now THAT is what I call comparing apples to oranges!
]]>Sound absurd? That's because it is. Now realize that the cable industry, thanks to digital transmission and encryption, could easily technically enable ala carte programming. They're just clinging to that business model because it benefits them. Ultimately, I do think that the Internet video may kill their business unless they somehow kill that off (maybe with bandwidth caps).
]]>@Hadoken3: Looks like you failed to read the article, otherwise you'd see that while Comcast is definitely the Devil, your particular issue might not be Satan's fault.
]]>I find it difficult to chose a side on this matter. On the one hand, I'm not into the NFl channel. It sucks. On the other hand, so does Comcast. It's like no matter who wins, we all lose.
]]>The NFL is the most sophisticated, lucrative, and powerful professional sports enterprise in the world, with a special exemption from antitrust laws that helps it maintain its monopoly on televised football. The NFL already makes more than $20 billion through long-term deals with ESPN, CBS, Fox, and NBC - more than the television-rights fees collected by the NBA, NHL, and NASCAR combined.But the NFL wants more, and it's trying to use its enormous market power to force millions of our customers to pay for games they have always seen for free. (On top of that, it denies tens of millions of cable customers access to hundreds of games provided exclusively to DirecTV.)
Not one lie was told.
]]>The short example: Comcast _PAYS_ for QVC and the shopping channel. They are not _paid_ to carry those channels, they have to pay. Obviously, those costs are passed on to the consumers.
]]>I went to the NFL network site linked, and it's funny how the guy says he does not want customers to pay more, but isn't that what they want to do - charge Comcast more... which of course is passed along to it's customers?
]]>The solution: ask Congress to make a law requiring all cable TV carried in digital (beyond the minimum tier of carrying local broadcast and local access) to be a-la-carte. The technology to do this is already done. Then I don't have to buy any NFL crap.
]]>Is there an option for they are both wrong? If Comcast is so concerned about the viewers right to pay for only what they use why don't they offer individual ch.s instead of packages? I wouldn't mind paying for CNBC or even A&E but some of the crap I get is totally useless to me. Strange that Comcast seems to flip flop on this. It sounds like they did a cost study and figured out that forcing customers to pay more for the NFL content will cost them more in cancelled services than it will gain them in their profit margin on the NFL content. Motives aside, I am in favor of anything that gives the consumer the ability to decide exactly what he is paying for!
]]>In the best of worlds, a la carte programming would be available: pick the channels you want, don't pay for the ones you don't. I watch fewer than 1/3 of the channels Comcast charges me for.
]]>@QuantumRiff: At the same time I am all about an ala carte package. I hate having to pay for and shuffle through E!, Style, Mtv, etc... I understand these are owned by larger providers (Universal, Disney, etc...) that may have other content I want (ESPN), but I don't want a majority of them. I never watch them. I wish I could pay for the channels I want with an option to pick up more or drop more as time moves forward.
I suppose that needs to be done with a box but there has to be a way to work it out. Maybe I should just stick to Hulu.
]]>@LostTurntable: The way I see it is it would probably lead to the death of diversity. Because to stay afloat all the channels would end up having to compete on who can obtain exclusive rights to broadcast whatever hot reality TV series is up that year just to retain viewers.
]]>That being said, there are things the NFL is pretty assholish about a few things, and the NFL Network is the worst of it. I already HATE the idea of having Monday Night Football on basic cable. Now they want us to pay an EXORBITANT amount of money to be able to watch 8 games on a channel with a different number on it, simply because they think they can get away with it. No friggen thank you.
The NFL Network is a bad idea that's even more horribly executed. You simply cannot have a channel devoted to one sport and expect it to be successful for one simple reason. The offseason. Even if you scraped up enough content to fill in the time in between games, you've still got months out of the year with NOTHING. So you want people to pay more money than any other network for content that only a tiny fraction is of any meaning, and that fraction is only available during 1/3 of the year? Go screw!
]]>This is retarded. Anyone with internet can watch the Thursday games for free on NFL.com (at least, in 2008 we could)
Who the F would pay extra for NFL network.
]]>Look I understand the business side of things. But both parties are acting like douchebags. The fact is Comcast, I like football so much that your steadfast decision to be "right" will have people leaving in droves to DirectTV just so we can see as many games as we can.
Is the NLF a bunch of money grubbing douchebags as well? Most definitely so, but they have the product, Comcast is just a delivery mechanism.
NFL your sunday ticket bullshit is just that, bullshit. DirectTV or no, you will never see me pay for the NFL Suday Ticket until you come to your senses.
To the FCC, BREAK UP THE CABLE MONOPOLIES IMMEDIATELY. I need some CHOICE in my city (Houston, TX). Comcast has gone nuts with their pricing and Houston's network is far inferior to other Comcast networks because we are having to deal with Time Warners "leftovers" when they ditched the Houston market.
-rant off
]]>To those of you voting for Comcast - don't forget that they play the exact same card when they own the content.
Comcast's own Comcast SportsNet (home to the Phillies, Flyers, Sixers etc.) is somehow exempt from the must-carry regulations (on the shocking technicality that it is transmitted to the carriers with microwaves, and therefore is not the "satellite cable programming" that Congress wanted to make sure everyone had acces to) - which means that they are free to lock out DirectTV and other sat. viewers from their monopoly product. (You can read the FCC's terrible 1998 decision here [www.fcc.gov])
]]>Or even more 'analysts' giving their predictions of the draft for 3 straight months, then their predictions of the season for 4 months. We can't get that anywhere else.
Yes, there are some good things on NFL network. As a Bears fan, I HATE Favre, but I enjoyed the special they did on him.
But if I didn't have it, I wouldn't pay for it.
]]>@Megan Squier: +1 for a la carte cable. I like to watch the news, comedy central, BBC america, tbs, and speed channel...seems crappy to pay ~$80/month to get all of that.
]]>@zonk7ate9: Expensive? When I had Comcast it was only like $2 a month to add this channel to my package.
]]>I hope the NFL network sticks it to COMCRAP
]]>I really, really hate televised sports. Part of the reason the cost of cable is obscene in Boston is NESN, a network that really should be optional, but isn't.
Let's go one better and get all the cable providers to dump the NFL Channel. Sound good?
]]>"Comcast has been misleading the public by airing commercials advertising that it has the most HD channels. I would like to set the record straight.
The truth is that DirecTV actually has the most HD channels, and Comcast has been working hard to be able to make these claims without being completely dishonest. In fact, our claims are 100% true if we include our selection of HD OnDemand programming in our figures while also omitting the fact that DirecTV also has HD programming on demand that is available for download."
Fixed.
]]>I'll never forgive the NFL for killing the NFL 2k franchise. I need to go fire up the Dreamcast to play some NFL 2k1.
]]>Ala Carte would end up increasing your fees for less programming-- and, besides, you'd probably pay for "blocks" of channels (i.e. Fine Living with Food Network, Home and Garden, etc; Sports, obviously, etc.)
You'd probably be charged MORE for the Sports tier, since who doesn't want ESPN, resulting in numerous household budget arguments.
In other words-- BAD BAD IDEA.
]]>The last time this came up, they showed the per-user fee that the NFL network was charging. It was higher than ESPN, and double that of CNN and Fox News. I'm sorry, but as much as I love the NFL, they don't have the content to justify that cost.
]]>@ncpeters: I'd pay extra if they would STOP MOVING THE CAMERA all the time. Geez...are they trying to give their viewers motion sickness?
]]>Your regularly scheduled posts will continue at such time that I feel I am of sound mind and body.
Thank you.
]]>We have NFL Network on 2 channels for some reason (through Comcast) and if it drops after May 1, whatever. I do watch the games on it, but I wouldn't miss them all that much. The danger of barring customers from your product is that they'll realize they don't actually need it anyway. I'll be too busy watching MLB Network to care.
]]>FCC commissioner last year made a point that some markets, people have to pay for the Tier with 50+ channels to get the 2 foreign language channels they actually watch, since they don't speak English. Ala-Cart would be HUGE to them, and also to those stations, since they would directly benefit.
]]>@LostTurntable: most niche channels would fail if they were places in A la carte pricing structures.
I'm failing to see the issue. If they can't compete on their content, why should customers be paying a package deal just to subsidize them?
]]>Basically, your Dish Network package could be a bit cheaper if they eliminated that network.
]]>@swissdietcoke: Millions? Ladt I checked DirecTV's deal is in the multiple billions range.
]]>Competing leagues DO have the right to exist. The antitrust exemption does not prohibit other leagues from competing, it just allows the NFL to exist as a single entity despite its lack of competitors.
]]>You forgot an option:
- Comcast
- NFL
- They are both moneygrubbing asshats that need to go away
I'm with you - my husband LOVES footbal, and I like football, too, but the NFL is definitely in the wrong.
]]>@citking:
A lot of those price increases are driven my the programmers (not just NFL network, but all the others). Cable companies are actually spending a larger portion of their TV revenue on programming now than they were a few years ago.
]]>I find it ironic that Comcast is bashing them in the beginning for basically being a monopoly...
]]>I find it very hard to muster sympathy for either of these organizations.
]]>Can someone who voted for the NFL in this poll make a case for why they are in the right here? I can't fathom how they are and surprised this percentage isnt more like 95-5 in favor of Comcast.
]]>the NFL Network charges Comcast like a $1/month for the channel. That is very expensive for a cable channel.
HOWEVER, Comcast turns around and charges $10/month for the sports tier (the other channels on the sports tier combined cost Comcast only a couple of dollars). So, the NFL Network is being greedy, but so is Comcast.
Hopefully, one day we can have fairly priced a la carte programming and we can all pay for the channels that we actually want.
]]>At the same time that this happened, it would also lead to additional questions as to how the cable companies would build their rate structures based on federal regulation.
This is far from comprehensive, but I'm sure you can get the idea.
]]>While I dislike Comcast, I can definitely see the point he is making and the behemoth that is the NFL I do believe Comcast will win in the end though. NFL network is only good for like 6 games a year, chances are they aren't your team and if you're REALLY bored, watching old games.
Their commentary is terrible and the production value is worse.
]]>@klwillis45: A-la-carte is a dangerous proposition.
How?
Personally I would much rather pay for each channel I watch than pay for 20 channels I watch and 200 I don't.
I'm sure there are downsides so maybe not 100% a-la-carte, but some breakdown is needed.
]]>It comes standard on our Dish Network package so its not costing us anything extra.
]]>I hope they realize the problem.
]]>@Coles_Law: *channel. Sigh.
]]>That being said...what happenened to "Ala Carte" programming? Because I am sure Comcast will reach an agreement with the NFL, and it will result in my regular cable bill going up yet again, another $5 a month, just so guys can watch foosball on Sundays, when I only want to watch like 10 different channels, and none of them involving ESPN, NFL, etc.
]]>@klwillis45: Agreed. Most niche networks would fail and we'd have 33 versions of the American Idol chammel.
]]>* - I feel making a statement like this with no attempt to back it up still strengthens my above position.
]]>@Canino: Be careful what you wish for. A-la-carte is a dangerous proposition.
]]>Comcast does, and they do make use of it. They ripped my company's channel from their basic cable lineup and gave their customers nothing in return, while keeping cable subscription costs the same.
]]>Why can't the NFL be cool like the MLB network.. both Sd and HD feeds with no major fights getting on cable systems this spring.
]]>ALL Cable should ala-cart, none of this bundle bullshit where we pay for crap we don't want. I should be able to pick 20-30 channels I want, and nothing else. And not have to pay extra to support channels I'll never ever ever watch.
NFL and Comcast, and frankly so can my own cable operator Cablevision.
]]>Almost forgot, that's a max of 8 per season. It drops to 7 if your home market team has a game on the network.
]]>I feel that cable companies need to BTFO on rate hikes and lousy customer service.
I also feel that the NFL needs to stop becoming a greedy money-munching machine. They lost a lot of my support when I couldn't get ESPN Football 2K6 and sold out to Madden's crappy franchise.
]]>You know, if cable and satellite companies would go to 100% a-la-carte pricing, they wouldn't really have to worry about this.
]]>@Fresh-Fest-1986: For the record I understand this isn't really a bracket.
]]>The NFL Network is attempting to dictate the pricing structure and content of cable packages by virtue of the popularity of its content. I hope it fails.
Furthermore, I hope their antitrust exemption is destroyed and competing leagues gain the right to exist. After all, things as complex and essential to standardize as screws, operating systems, and cellular data networks exist in a world without trust exemptions - what basis does the NFL have for monopoly in this day and age? Because their rule structure is sacrosanct?
]]>A poll Comcast can actually win. Who'd of thunk it?
]]>Putting Comcast against the NFL on these boards is the easiest "Worst Company" bracket so far.
All you had to do was write a paragraph that consisted of "Comcast" 58 times with no information and everyone would vote for the NFL.
]]>