![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-706988-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Fresh-Fest-1986: However, since they actually used words besides just \"Comcast\", a majority are instead voting for Comcast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-522684-100x100.png\")
A poll Comcast can actually win. Who'd of thunk it?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-105855-100x100.png\")
@klwillis45: Well, they aren't wrong. But the Kettle is definitely calling the pot black.
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.
@Papa Midnight: The slight problem is that Comcast is rather bs'ing you in regards to the charge for the NFL Network. Being a DishNetwork customer, I get the NFL Network. I don't particular care about it or watch it, but I know its there, and the charge is still less than it was when I had Comcast 7 years ago.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-210047-100x100.png\")
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?
I think the NFL needs to have it nose slapped. It has gotten way to big for it's birches. They have some nerve to demand that every person that watches TV should pay them money. Really get over yourself. Really there own laws to keep competition out that is so a load of crap. And now forcing games overseas and taking away games from fans here. I am not traveling all over hell's half acre to watch a football game. Don't get me wrong I love football and I love my Bucs (good, bad or indifferent) but honestly I am so sick of this whole NFL network thing I could scream. Please NFL pull your head out of your butt and play nice with the other children.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@ADismalScience: No more exemption and mandatory drug tests of Olympic Sports scrutiny.
As a guy that plays sports, not watches them, I don't care much about the games. But BOY would it be fun to see Pro Ball whither once they had to play by the same rules as every other one out there. Heh, especially the anti-doping ones.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
@I_am_Awesome: It also allows the NFL to behave in an anticompetitive way that would normally subject it to stiff penalties. The exclusivity of its televised games is a good case in point. Joe Schmoe could start a competing league (in fact, others have - how soon we forget WFL, USFL, and XFL) but he can't get games broadcast or in some cases even build a stadium because the NFL Goliath will quash his effort at every turn, with impunity, because it cannot be charged with anticompetitive behavior.
@humphrmi: New league opening this year, UFL, TV contract with Versus, a channel owned by Comcast. People should really read the NFL Antitrust Exemption before commenting on it, because you people have no clue what you're talking about.
@ncpeters: Blah blah blah, yeah Versus, I can just see the guys talking about watching UFL on Versus around the water cooler this winter.
When they sign up with a real channel, let me know.
@humphrmi: OK, the NFL has a contract with ABC/ESPN, as does the Arena Football League. Is that a real network? You mention the XFL, which had a TV contract with NBC. Is that a real network? Please give a situation in the last 20 years when a rival league wanted to build a new stadium and the NFL squashed it.
@ncpeters: Arena Football. That's a laugh. 17 games in 2008, all but one on ESPN2 (apparently The Ocho wasn't available) starting as late as 11PM. Phew, I'm sure the networks bent over backwards to give them that schedule!
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-243547-100x100.png\")
@ADismalScience: It's too bad Comcast didn't have this hard line stance when jacking up the fees to carry YES. Just because I'm in the market does not mean I want to subsidize the Yankees network.
@ADismalScience: I don't think I'd want to invest a lot of money in a football league that competed directly with the NFL. That being said, if someone is silly enough to try, the law should not prevent that.
You know, if cable and satellite companies would go to 100% a-la-carte pricing, they wouldn't really have to worry about this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
@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!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70169-100x100.png\")
@tgrwillki: Well, since a good portion of those niche channels are dying because they can't get advertising revenue, I'd say the point is moot.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-487473-100x100.png\")
@klwillis45: A la carte certainly is. As pointed out below (though I would like to elaborate further), most niche channels would fail if they were places in A la carte pricing structures. Most Likely, it would result in an implosion of cable networks programming, because they would no longer be able to negotiate contracts for carriage that included carrying other, less popular networks as a part of the agreement to carry something like MTV or comedy central.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@tgrwillki: i think this is just an argument presented by cable cos. to maintain the status quo.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-114659-100x100.png\")
@tgrwillki: But if I want to continue paying something like $12/month for ESPN (really, its that expensive.. I've heard cable guys say its almost half the cost of your service) that should be my choice. Right now, EVERY cable system carries ESPN. And as part of ESPN's agreements, they basically say that you can have ESPN for 13/month, or ESPN through ESPN 8(De Ocho) for 12/month. So if I just want the base ESPN, Cause I don't think poker is quite really what I want to watch on ESPN, I would be able to only pay for that. Bundling also keeps lot of crap channels around.
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.
@QuantumRiff:
they should make the disney channel pack as the espn pack more like HBO be able to pick to pay for it other then be forced to pay for it.
@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.
@Canino: You would probably end up paying the same or at least close to it for those 20 channels as you now do for 200 unless the only channels you watch are the small niche ones. This is assuming there are even enough people that want to watch those niche channels to keep them in business. If they go under, then you're left paying just as much as you do now for fewer channels if you want any at all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
@klwillis45: Agreed. Most niche networks would fail and we'd have 33 versions of the American Idol chammel.
@Coles_Law: Good, the niche channels that can't support themselves would fail, the talent pool would become more competitive and then we might actually have some good shows on TV again.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@Kogenta: Has the Internet, which does not use \"bundling\" to pay for all the websites out there (your ISP fees goes to network access, not payments to websites), led to the \"death of diversity\" of content online?
@backbroken: Of course it is. But there is no reason why the cable companies could not move to an Internet-like model, where they don't choose the programming and force you to buy a bundle to get the content you want. They could make their service all video-on-demand and charge a flat fee for access, or they could charge different amounts for different content on a fine-grained basis. I'm just using it is an example to show that it wouldn't necessarily lead to a \"death of diversity\". I think it's more likely it would lead to MORE diversity (if the monopolistic corporate gatekeeper disappeared) and a death of crap channels.
@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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-285629-100x100.png\")
@Canino: You're failing to see it? What's so hard? Why do you get cable in the first place if you're only interested in seeing and subsidizing what's popular? Stick to network tv then. The reason people get cable is for the greater variety. They're pooling their resources so they can have that variety and access to niche programming.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@LostTurntable: If you like what's currently most popular and profitable--American Idol, reality shows, etc.--that's great. If you don't, then you're out of luck. It's not about what's good, it's about what sells.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87183-100x100.png\")
For an industry that has raised cable rates past 3x inflation I feel little to no sorrow for Comcast, Charter, Cox, etc. I agree the NFL Network isn't helping the situation with the cost aspect and the insistence of providing the network on a general tier. I really believe that this is greed versus greed and, as always, no one is going to win unless they both give some ground.
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.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-55114-100x100.png\")
As much as I despise Comcast, I am behind them 100% in this case.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103994-100x100.png\")
@Murph1908: Wow - Never thought I would agree with Comcast.
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?
This is ridiculous. I wonder, did regular cable package rates DROP when NFL was moved to the sports teir?
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-541151-100x100.png\")
Both sides are being fundamentally dishonest on the issue. Comcast has never had its customers' best interests in mind, only how much scratch they can steal away from their customers' wallets, and knowing they have virtually a monopoly, they bleed wallets plenty. And the NFL continues its patently false claim that \"people want the NFL Network,\" which, if true, they'd get the viewership numbers and be able to charge advertising rates to support the channel's costs--especially because the channel doesn't have to pay for rights fees to broadcast games (which is one reason why ESPN charges systems so much to carry the channel).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-400343-100x100.png\")
Doesn't NFL charge a special sports pricing on DirectTV? Isn't that pretty much what Comcast is doing?
I believe their antitrust exemption is based on the NFL being able to negotiate TV contracts on behalf of all 32 teams. I dont think it has anything to do with being the only pro football league in the US
@Tarak Suthar: You are correct. There actually is a competing league opening this year, the UFL. It will have 4 teams total, with Orlando, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and New York. It will play games on Friday night. One of the stipulations of the NFL's antitrust exemption is that the NFL cannot play Friday games, but this doesn't apply to the UFL. The UFL has a TV contract with Versus, which is owned by Comcast.
Wow, could the poll be reworded, something like, \"Which enterprise is less crappy to its customers?\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160819-100x100.png\")
Wow clash of the titans... biggest cable company against the biggest pro sports entity in the USA. Personally I think NFL sucks for being exclusive on Sunday Ticket to DirecTV still, but I can't really side for Comcast with the way they run things.
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.
@dreamsneverend: I agree. We have no choice except for Comcast because of no line of sight to the DirecTV satellite. I don't know why the NFL would alienate millions of potential customers on Comcast by their exclusive deal with DirecTV. Because of that, there is no way in hell that I'll pay extra for NFL Network.
\"Does Comcast have the right to charge whatever it likes for cable channels as part of its business?\"
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
As the number 1 NFL fan in the country*, I still think the NFL is in the wrong here.
* - I feel making a statement like this with no attempt to back it up still strengthens my above position.
@rpm773: You just made my afternoon. :-)
I'm with you - my husband LOVES footbal, and I like football, too, but the NFL is definitely in the wrong.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I'm so glad I don't give a crap about sports, and certainly would never pay money to watch people play games.
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.
Comcast is asking for the PUBLIC to help them out?
I hope they realize the problem.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-513573-100x100.png\")
The main reason we have DirecTV is the NFL. Until the cable companies work it out so they have Sunday Ticket, they will never be an option in our household. Also, for those of you who say that NFL network is only good for the regular season games - you are not true football fans!
@changed my name:
cable companies don't have the bandwidth for ST HD any ways with have to shut down channels to make it fit maybe if they went to mpeg4 but then they will need replace a ton of boxes to make that work.
@changed my name:
Right. Let's not forget the Cheerleader Challenge, repeated over and over for 2 months.
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.
Isn't anyone else happy to see someone trying to screw Comcast? I love the NFL network, which is included in my girlfriend's basic digital package under DISH Network. I don't have it at home because my condo association forces me into Comcast, meaning I would pay an extra $10 a month to get the NFL network. I hate you Comcast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-776577-100x100.png\")
@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.
@Hadoken3: I would have to point out that the Catholic Church actually would argue that point, sort of - where do you think the term \"Devil's Advocate\" came from?
I just have to point out the mild irony there. Besides this being a lesser form of Godwin's Law.
@Hadoken3: If you want the NFL channel, pay for it. I don't want the NFL channel on my Comcast subscription, and I don't want to pay for it. Simple. I don't want ESPN, either, but thanks to the lack of ala carte programming, I'm stuck paying for something I never watch. It sucks.
I can't believe I just voted for comcast, but I think the monopoly exemptions that the NFL receives are bogus. They've grown to a money hungry hog. I applaud comcast in informing its customers that they will not miss ANY Eagles' games, as they are required to be broadcast on a local affiliate in the hometown. I also like comcast's punch at DirecTV, which just paid some ungodlike hundred's of millions of dollars to maintain exclusive with the NFL monopoly.
@swissdietcoke: But Comcast ignores the fact that they are using a loophole in the law (and probably some generous political contributions) to maintain a monopoly on Phillies, Flyers, and 76ers games in the Philadelphia area. Read this article for more info: [www.forbes.com]
@swissdietcoke: I think they are both abusive monopolies. Comcast is using their monopoly power to force all of us to subsidize sports programming already. A large part of your cable bill is going indirectly to the NFL, NBA, and other pro sports leagues indirectly via Comcast and the networks that carry the games. And that sucks that people who don't like pro sports have to subsidize them just to receive other entertainment programming.
NFL Network is not worth it. Like Cohen said, it's essentially a network of filler with only 8 actual games. How the NFL thinks they can justify higher pricing is beyond me, and I'm a big football fan.
I wonder why my comments all of a sudden stopped showing up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-439678-100x100.png\")
boo, Eagles!
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.
Both sides are wrong...
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.
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.
I find it ironic that Comcast is bashing them in the beginning for basically being a monopoly...
You forgot an option:
- Comcast
- NFL
- They are both moneygrubbing asshats that need to go away
Remember when Patriots-Giants was only on NFL Network and it was the game where the Pats were going for 16-0 and it took threats from Sen. Patrick Leahy to get the NFL to agree to broadcast it on network TV? That's what we're dealing with here. It's extortion.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614980-100x100.png\")
I will be out of the internet for the next few days while I undergo a complete physical and psychological evaluation due to the fact that I just felt sorry for comcast.
Your regularly scheduled posts will continue at such time that I feel I am of sound mind and body.
Thank you.
so if comcast is right on this one, does that mean the NFL should take its place in the \"Worst Company in America\" bracket?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326882-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-738213-100x100.png\")
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.
@JGKojak: Yeah, a la carte is one of those ideas that sounds really great at first until you think it through. Then you realize it's a really bad idea.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78520-100x100.png\")
I live and die for NFL football each fall, but the actual NFL business is becoming downright evil. They need legitimate competition to prevent shit like the EA/NFL deal from going down, along with this whole NFL Network mess.
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.
\"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 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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-144398-100x100.png\")
I find it hard to feel sorry for a crappy cable provider who constantly raised my rates without every giving me a reason or benefit. It's May, were jacking up your rates!
I hope the NFL network sticks it to COMCRAP
Yet they take away Cartoon Network away from me unless I rent the cable box other. First it was TCM and then TBS and now Cartoon Network. I don't feel sorry for Comcast even less when I get Fios.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-600891-100x100.png\")
Comcast puts the NHL Network in their sports tier. I wouldn't mind paying for it, but it is only one channel. I have no interest in the other channels in their sports tier.
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])
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22998-100x100.png\")
-rant on
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
I actually voted that Comcast is right here. Screw the NFL for trying to force people to pay for the channel that they could potentially not want in the first place.
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.
I also agree with comcast. Why should I pay more when I already get all Redskins games via FOX, CBS and NBC? Really if you think about it, this is just crap. If the NBA network is not on basic cable, why should NFL network (which is chock full of non-essential programming) be any different? Why should everybody have to pay to subsidize the few million NFL Network viewers?
When NFL says \"We don't want you to pay extra for NFL Network\" ... that's just double talk. As if Comcast will not pass on the price of NFL Network to everyone. If the NFL really wants to make it available for free, why can't they foot the bill?
The NFL should be happy people want to watch them. They could be hockey.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-148464-100x100.png\")
I hate Comcast for the crap they've pulled and I sorely wish I had another viable option for where I live. And I love me my football. LOVE IT. Wish there were 2 seasons a year.
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!
@floraposte: If waht you're saying is true then the 'good' programming exists on a false basis, supported in large by people who don't actually watch it. Forget that. If there was a purge of extended cable channels then the ones that remained would scoop up the talent worth taking and the quality/high rated shows on those networks would move as well. It's not like everything that is shit is popular and everything that is good is underground and hidden from the masses.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Comsact is right. I don't care about football, I certainly don't want to pay for a special football network. Putting it on a special tier is the right thing to do.
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.
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!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-887707-100x100.png\")
I can't vote. The correct choice isn't available. But I definitely do not want NFL trying to get money out of me for buying their crap.
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.
We have Time Warner in the L.A. area and we haven't had the NFL network for a couple of years. We had it as part of the sports tier when it first came out, but for some reason, the picture and sound on it were terrible. Then TW decided it didn't want to pay extra for it, and dropped it from the lineup. Haven't really missed it, even though we spend most of the weekend in front of the TV watching football during the season.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-27921-100x100.png\")
I think this whole argument is that we don't want to pay for what we don't use. People who don't want to watch NFLN act outraged about paying higher prices for cable, when there are a ton of other channels no one watches that collectively exceed the cost of NFLN being added. Granted, the NFL is being somewhat greedy by pushing this so hard, but the fact is TV in its current form is becoming an outdated medium. More and more people are deciding to forgo cable and satellite and just get their shows online because of the high cost. I think sooner or later they are going to have to agree to an a la carte package or reduce prices drastically to stay competitive.
The whole business models of cable companies and content providers is f'd up.
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 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.
Wait, so Comcast is complaining about \"a special exemption from antitrust laws that helps maintain its monopoly\" on televised sports? Apparently this is much different than the special exemption they received to help maintain their monopoly on carrying Philadelphia sports (Comcast Sportsnet-Philly).
i'm a pretty big NFL fan and i don't watch the NFL network. THe only times they have had a 'significant' game it ended up on normal tv anyways (the Pats/giants game a few years back... that ended up on about 5 networks in the NYC area)
They're both wrong. They're both screwing over customers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20804-100x100.png\")
\"Comast is the most sophisticated, lucrative, and powerful cable company in the world, with a special exemption from antitrust laws that helps it maintain its monopoly on cable television.\"
fixed that up for you.
\"The NFL is the most sophisticated, lucrative, and powerful professional sports enterprise in the world..\"
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$
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-466344-100x100.png\")
FUCK YOU COMCAST!
Treat your customers fairly and maybe you'll get some sympathy.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
This may become a moot point next year if the NFL and its players union don't come up with a new collective bargaining agreement that includes salary caps. Either there will be a lockout and we lose part of all of the season, or watching football becomes no fun when powerhouse teams like the Cowboys, Steelers, and Patriots offer insane amounts of money to players and become the only ones who win championships.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-932865-100x100.png\")
This just seems like a pissing match between two bad profit making scummy monopolistic corporations over money.
I dumped Comcast as soon as competition in the form of RCN was available to me, and would never go back to Comcast. But they are right on this one. Cable subscribers shouldn't be forced to pay for NFL games whether they want them or not. Similarly, however, Comcast and other cable companies should unbundle their other channels so we don't have to pay for the ones we never watch.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
Actually, I like the fight between Comcast and the NFL better than any content either provides.
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.
They're BOTH greedy scumbags. Plain and Simple. 1st of all, MLB is a more lucrative entity than NFL, and enjoys the same exemptions. If the other providers can provide it for free, so can Comcast, but then it would cut into their CEO's pensions, and we can't have that. We need an NFL network and an MLB network like we need used socks. Again, they are ALL greedy scumbags
It's COMCASTIC
I hate Comcast
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-99510-100x100.png\")
The NFL is going down in my estimation. They've been linked to drugs too many times and they think they can make more and more money instead of making it just the game it once was.
To the NFL: Kiss my ass!
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.
$1.10 a month is about what the cost is, which means Comcast will charge its customer atleast 3-5x that amount and get a nice profit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-710849-100x100.png\")
Comcast is without doubt the worst TV company in the history of man kind
And they are right
That says something
While I don't like to watch football or other sports, And I cringe to say, I have to side with Comcast with this one.
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.
Okay, so, my problem with this is that they put the NFL network on the additional sports tier, but the Big 10 network and the MLB network end up on basic?
And, the fact that every other major carrier in the country has NFL on their basic-er tier.
But, they're both ridiculous.
The NFL is insane. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all have networks that reside on paid sports tiers, and they're claiming they shouldn't be in that same boat. Why not? you're the same thing. Popularity of the sport aside, you're a network dedicated to 24 hour coverage of a single profeesional sports league. You should be on thew same place as the other networks with similar content. Plus, it's a bad network outside of 8 nights per year and the NFL draft if you're really into draft analysis. That's it.
It's probably already been said, but the NFL network is on the basic tier of Verizon FIOS....more business for them!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-109901-100x100.png\")
I think that Comcast has a legitimate gripe, but I will always vote against the cable company's, sorry.
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.
Comcast lost me when they failed to get in on the last direct TV contract to allow their users to see all NFL games. I am an NFL Fan and I went to direct TV. I love the system and I love the NFL sunday ticket. I get to see all the games all season that I want for the price of 1 maybe 2 tickets to a live game. Sorry Comcast you have long been doing it for yourselves and doing it to your customers. That is why I left 4 or 5 years ago and you still can't see the games I want to on Comcast. I am glad to give Direct TV and the NFL my money
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.
I hate Comcast. I have the NFL and American football more. The NFL is subsidized corporate welfare at its worst.
Ultimately, why should people not interested in watching American poofball be forced to pay for it?
Ultimately, screw both of 'em.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-694560-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-126486-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64687-100x100.png\")
The NFL needs to realize it has a niche network and stop trying to charge rates similar to ESPN and CNN. Outside of 8 games a year the NFL Network has no content worth watching.
@ncpeters:
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.
@ncpeters: I actually am inclined to side with comcast on this one. I feel really dirty now.
@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?
@ncpeters: You are missing an option: \"Who gives a damn?\"
I find it very hard to muster sympathy for either of these organizations.
@ncpeters: That's right, the NFL Network doesn't have that much to offer. My husband is a HUGE football fan and he never watches the NFL Network. Its mostly a bunch of dumb commentary he doesn't want to hear to begin with.
It comes standard on our Dish Network package so its not costing us anything extra.
@ncpeters: I, for one, won't pay extra to not watch NFL Films and related crap when I could be watching Futurama instead. Put me down for saying Comcast is right this time.