var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Jason Fisher
July 6, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

A cable company not being truthful to it's customers? What has this world come too? I wish there was an alternative...that's right, DISH.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
chrisexv6
July 6, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Fisher:

Thats right, CABLE IS UNABLE!!!

Im a DirecTV customer/fan myself, but Dish or DirecTV doesnt matter as long as its satellite.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
prag
July 6, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The best thing for consumers would be for the NFL to allow customers to pay for NFL network if they want it and stop demanding that cable providers jam it down everyone's throats. It's an expensive station with a very limited amount of real programming. If NFL network is worried about an \"opt-in\" model then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ncpeters
July 6, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@prag: That's funny, thinking a company would do what's best for consumers. The NFL should never created this station and just taken the money from Comcast to put the Thursday night package on Versus (for $800 million/year) but they thought they could do better creating a channel and it backfired, but the NFL will not admit failure so they're doing everything possible to try and force it into everyone's home even though it's a niche network (and I'm a huge NFL fan but that network is worthless outside game days and as an alternative to ESPNs draft coverage).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Raiders757
July 7, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters:

I wouldn't say it's worthless. Every week night at seven, they do have a decent hour of up to the minute coverage. Like you mentioned, they blow ESPN out of the water for draft coverage, which is not hard to do, as ESPN is a pathetic network of North East biased corporate spew. ESPN's NFL coverage is pathetic at best, so thank God for the NFL Network, and even bigger thanks that it doesn't cost extra. Screw you fuggs that think it should cost extra to get. I pay enough for cable as it is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darascon
July 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ncpeters: Plus, NFL replay??? It's why they invented DVR's. And you're right about the network outside of gamedays. I mean, really, how many times can you actually really seriously watch NFL cheerleader camp?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
July 6, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Darascon: Heck, everytime you come home without a date...:)

At least they pick up some of the college bowl games, too. So it isn't a complete drought.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nato0519
July 6, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The best thing for everyone would be to have NFL do the same thing MLB does and offer an awesome app for out of market games and than catch all the local ones on channels you already get. I'd rather pay MLB 100 bucks a season for 2,000+ games than pay comcast another dime. For the thursday night games go spend 25 bucks at a restaurant or bar and watch them there and support that local economy lol

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
July 6, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nato0519:


The NFL does offer an awesome app for out of market games: it's called NFL Ticket, on DIRECTV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
July 6, 2009 1:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nato0519: Yeah, I'd rather go spend a few bucks to have a beer and watch on a sports bar's big screen than pay for cable. Seems a much more efficient use of money!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
July 6, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Yupp...and you get beer. That's pretty key for me.

Additionally, there has been an article on this very website to the effect that the MLB app does not deliver on its promises...e.g. not giving access to HD streams when it clearly states that it will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nato0519
July 6, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Yeah mlb has been pretty lax on a their promises but even if all I got was just some standard def stream of my games it's still better than shelling out 199 to comcast to get the same games. Plus if I'm somewhere other than home that has wi-fi with my laptop I can still catch some games. So yeah mlb still has some work to do on their app and promises but i'd rather shell it out to mlb knowing they'll work hard to fix it instead of comcast using it to figure out how they can screw me more.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
July 6, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like the fact that as time goes on, consumers get less options/packages, and far fewer \"inexpensive\" packages. My dad wanted to get internet with Comcast, and they told him the cheapest plan they had was 6mb at close to $60 a month. I seem to remember there being packages around 1mb a month in the past for about $25 or so. Also, cell phone packages just get more expensive. As someone that uses maybe 200 minutes a month, I don't need the fancy \"all you can eat\" plans for $70 a month.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
jeffs3rd
July 6, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I had to specifically request comcast's lowest tier package, which is $25/month for I think 768 up and 256 or 384 down, I can't remember the exact numbers. They are still out there.

And I agree on the cell phone plans. What a crock that is. My wife and I are on a plan for $90/month for 3 lines (2 cells and one VOIP) with T-mobile with something like 400 minutes and 300 texts. When we got the voip we looked into updating our package (it's been about 4 years) and a package around the same level was now well over $110 for the same setup and 100 extra minutes. I said no thanks. We don't use that many minutes, and not for an extra $20+.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
July 6, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: A lot of times, those packages are still available on a request basis only. My parents get a basic cable package that the company's website and brochures claim not to offer. 20 bucks a month...a third of the cost of the most basic cable offered publicly. It never hurts to ask if there's something with fewer options!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frank64
July 6, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: Those packages are only smart if you can't get TV from an antenna.

If you are going to pay just for the very few channels they give you for the basic, you are paying for low def on channels you could get HD for free.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shoelace414
July 6, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who watched zero NFL games last year, I'd really like it if I didn't have to pay $2/mo to have access to NFL network just because.. well.. because some people want access to it.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Underpants Gnome
July 6, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shoelace414: As an NFL fan who watches zero spanish language TV, C-SPAN, Fox News, Lifetime, Nikelodeon, Disney, etc... Short of ala-carte pricing, we're all subsidizing each other's viewing habits.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frank64
July 6, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome: But it is not equal. We who don't watch NFL will pay much more for that channel than you pay for another channel.

It IS a slippery slope, but the degree of the cost does matter. With your logic we could keep on adding an adding channels and keep on adding and adding to the costs of cable for everyone. Why not do a la cart and give people the choice on whether it is worth it or not? Comcast tries to do this in this case, but I guess lost.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Underpants Gnome
July 6, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: It's the old ESPN argument too, why should ESPN charge more for it's channels than anyone else? Answer: because they have higher viewership than anyone else.
Don't get me wrong. I want a la carte pricing. I hate this current system with the tiers, where if I want all my sports channels, I have to pay for all that crap I don't watch, plus my premium sports fee. At least you have the option of not paying for the sports tier.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
July 6, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome:


They don't have higher viewership, actually, they're just \"must-have\" TV - even if you don't watch a lot of HOURS of ESPN, when there's something on there you want to watch, you really want to watch it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
July 6, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Which is a great argument for relegating all sports programming to on-demand PPV rather than dedicating whole channels to it and wasting bandwidth showing filler programming all the times that there isn't a game on.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
July 6, 2009 1:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shoelace414: Yeah, on the one hand people rightfully complain about lack of ala carte pricing, but then the people who want the \"NFL Network\" whine when they DO get ala carte pricing for it, because apparently what they really want is for everyone else to pay for it too, for some reason.

I don't want to give Comcast more money because someone wants to watch pro football. I also don't want to pay money that subsidizes the NFL any more than they are already a taxpayer-subsidized monopoly.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
zentec
July 6, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Corporate America never learns. Each passing year, these nitwits ratchet up anti-consumer practices until it catches the attention of government and then a game of Whack-A-Mole ensues.

Corporations try to avert the attention with \"self-policing\" modifications and changes, but the pursuit of the almighty dollar is just too much to resist and they find themselves on a crash course for a slapdown.

Happened to the credit card industry, it's playing out with the cell phone industry and soon the cable companies and their partners in crime, the networks, will get theirs.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
TheSpatulaOfLove
July 7, 2009 1:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zentec:

I agree - it's coming, and is why it's so important for the average Joe to pay attention to Net Neutrality issues. Unfortunately, it's been argued mostly in tech circles and slowly the internet freedoms are being nicked away while crap like this goes on to distract.

Personally, I've become so disenchanted with anything that has to do with television, I just ignore it now. If it weren't for my wife and kids who want to mouth-breathe in front of the one-way box, I would have shut it off completely years ago. ~$100/mo for 500 channels of bad programming, even worse commercials, constant reruns, sports channels and religious channels I can't OPT OUT of and bullshit contracts - no thanks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
July 7, 2009 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheSpatulaOfLove:


$100/month? Wow, I pay $45/month, including HD and DVR, but then again I don't get HBO/Cinemax/Showtime.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Joe Isham
July 6, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here in Houston, Comcast has notified us that the NFL Network will be on the Digital Preferred tier as well as the Sports Entertainment Pack. We'll see.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
July 6, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ahh, but if you already have 'Digital Preferred' then you are getting NFL added gratis, yes?
I guess it depends which side of the fence you are on if this is a good deal or a bad deal.

Now the NFL staying in bed with DirecTV as far as Sunday Ticket goes...major suckage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
July 6, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good. I'm glad Comcast and the NFL could reach a deal.

I'm currently trying to determine if I want to keep to paying for TV. The TV portion of my Comcast bill just went from $44/month to $110/month, and then back to $65 when I called to renegotiate (canceling HBO and Starz).

I'd call Verizon/Fios or DirecTv, but I just assume I'll get some promotional rate for the next year and then once again be stuck with the expense of the regular rate or the hassle of trying to negotiate.

I'm getting ready to say \"fuck it\" and just get out of the pool.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
July 6, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does the title say $60 or $200? Is the sports package unavailable in some areas, forcing people to pay the $200? Or did you just include that because someone could choose to pay $200/yr to get more channels with the NFL Network? If the former, you could have mentioned that in the article. If the latter, there really is no reason to put that in the title. You could also pay an extra $1000/yr to get a whole bunch of other channels in addition to the NFL Network, but you don't have to.

Re: \"The compromise between Comcast and the NFL Network did nothing for consumers.\" - I'm actually kind of surprised that Consumerist is in favor of making customers who don't want a channel pay for it as part of the standard package. I'm glad I don't have to pay for the NFL Network, because I'd never watch it. Don't be mad at Comcast for not forcing all of their customers to pay for an unnecessary channel - be mad at the NFL for showing a few games a year on an otherwise useless channel.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
frank64
July 6, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The people who want the NFL package don't want to pay $20 a month for it, they would rather everyone pays $5. The idea is to get someone else to pay for it.

This type of thinking goes into many of our societies thinking and allows for the increase in prices for cable, but also for health-care and taxes.

This same type of thing happened when Netflix increased the price of the Blue-Ray option. People who spent hundreds more on new HD equipment and new BR disks cost more thought they shouldn't have to pay extra- the extra costs of the disks should be paid by everyone.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnva
July 6, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: There is a huge difference between something like healthcare (or health insurance) or taxes and this. With healthcare, or many of the other things taxes pay for like the military, collective pooling of resources is merely a way to ensure that EVERYONE gets something that EVERYONE needs.

Contrast that with this, where NFL fans want to make people who have no interest in the NFL pay for it in order to subsidize their entertainment. That's a way different situation. Aren't non-sports fans already paying enough to subsidize the NFL, what with all the cities that actually raise sales taxes to pay for football stadiums and the like? (Although I will admit that there MIGHT be some indirect economic benefit to the stadiums; there is no such benefit to forcing non-fans to give money to Comcast in order to subsidize the NFL Channel).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drrictus
July 6, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: And now, breaking news: water is still wet.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
July 6, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Two things:

1. Where did the \"$200/year\" part come from? Although it's in the title, it's not spelled out in the article itself. Why is it in the headline, then?

2. Re: \"Verdict: The compromise between Comcast and the NFL Network did nothing for consumers.\"  Where's the surprise here? Did anyone with a brain seriously believe that either Comcast or the NFL was truly concerned about consumers? Since when did consumers' well-being ever figure into this? If either or both parties had ever been genuinely concerned about consumers, a deal would have been reached years ago, and it would have been a better deal than this.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
July 6, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop:

The $200/year is if you get the Digital Preferred package instead of just the sports package. Of course you wouldn't choose to pay the extra $10 a month for the Digital Preferred package unless you actually wanted the other channels it includes, so it's rather disingenuous to imply that you'd be paying $200/year for the NFL Network. This is something that really bothers me about some of the Consumerist writers - are they really any better than the companies they criticize when they try to mislead their readers like that? I know we can't expect this site to be unbiased, but it's pretty much routine to have misleading or overblown article titles.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
July 6, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: If that's what they're alluding to (and it appears to be — I just did the math and it's $203.40 — then you're right, this is a mischaracterization of the situation. If all someone wants is NFL Network then it's $60/year ... period. If NFL Network happens, in addition, to be part of a different package, that something else entirely.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
andyross
July 6, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The package names seem to vary from area to area. Here in Chicagoland: There used to be Classic, Plus, Preferred. Plus and Preferred were eventually merged, and called Preferred. A few months ago, Preferred and Classic were merged, and is now called Classic. The entry level, which is isn't too different than the original Classic, is Starter.

Somebody on another forum posted the changes, which are due July 30. Some of the channels are in Digital Classic AND Sports/Entertainment. You can subscribe to Digital Starter, then add in S&E to get the channels for less than upgrading to Classic.

* ESPN Classic - Moving from Digital Classic to Sports Entertainment Pkg
* ESPNU - Added to Digital Classic
* NFL Network, NHL Network, NBA TV moving to Digital Classic, along with their HD counterparts, where available
* ESPNNews & MLB Network moving to Sports Entertainment Pkg , along with their HD counterparts, where available.

Of course, this means a huge $$ increase in a few months for Digital Classic subscribers.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
frank64
July 6, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@andyross: It is a huge increase if you accept it. It could be a decrease if you elect to go back to the basic channels or quit cable. That probably won't happen though as people just complain and say \"but I need....\" and pay the extra.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tvmitch
July 6, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This wholly depends on the market; not everyone is set up like Tucson. Best to check with your local Comcast folks to make sure where NFL Network falls.

If it doesn't fall within a package you have, it may be worth your while to negotiate with them to try to get a promo rate on a digital package. I'm locked in for a year for all the mainline digital channels (below 200 in our area, southeastern PA) for something like $58/month, about $20 off their normal rate.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
July 6, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once again, ala cart channel selection would solve all these problems.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Suulia
July 6, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wrong.

Digital Classic was $15.95 and Digital Preferred is $16.95. Literally *nobody* was subscribing to Digital Classic anymore since you can get a whole lot more channels for just a dollar more.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chris_d
July 6, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am so sick of this crap. We're now paying for Big Ten Network for $1/mo in the \"Family Cable\" package here. I'm just going with OTA TV. TV just wastes my time anyway. I'll save a butt-load of money and be in better health.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
cc82
July 6, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm a football fan but think the NFL network is crap. They have a handful of games on Thursday night each season, with only a few probably ending up to be good matchups. The rest of the time it's junk filler programing. It would be unfair if Comcast passed on the extra cost to every subscriber, this way at least only those who want it will get it.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
July 6, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

On the contrary, if the deal means that people who don't want the channel don't have to pay for it, I'd say that's a win for consumers.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
allnitecp
July 6, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not that this change affects me much (I prefer the college games to the professional ones) but I was steamed to find they took the HISTORY Channel off the Basic Standard (analog) package over the weekend! Mind you, I don't pay a thin dime for the cable TV since the standard analog package comes included with my Internet service.


I have lost about 5 channels since the beginning of the year, but Cartoon Network and History were the biggest. Its only a matter of time before they force you to get a digital box to enjoy their services. That'll be another $5 please!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Lukecadet
July 7, 2009 3:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sounds like more from our friends at the \"Good Enough\" company.

For example:
1. We (comcast) are putting a 250gb bandwidth limit / month. We will be releasing a online meter for you to check your usage soon. It has been 9 months since they said that but the tool still doesn't exist. I guess that is Good Enough.

2. Want to record a program while your not home?? Sorry you have to get Directv or ATT Uverse for that. Our DVR records programs and that is Good Enough.

3. Want your DVR to not record the same episode 3 times? Sorry we get bad guide data. Our DVR is Good Enough. (The competition figured out a way around this)

So when do we get a innovative and superb service from Comcast?? Never cause what we got is Good Enough.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Javert
July 9, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I don't understand is how the NFL is allowed to get away with this (and the entirely outdated sellout/blackout rule) when they receive anti-trust exemption from the federal government.

I have an idea, start being reasonable with the American people or we remove your exemption. How is that for a solution?

Reply
");