Comcast Slams The NFL For Pulling Their Football Channel
On May 1st, the NFL is pulling its cable channel from Comcast's cable line-up over a dispute about the cable company's sports tier. As the deadline looms larger and larger, the company is taking their case to the people. David L. Cohen, an executive vice president of Comcast Corp, wrote the following opinion piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
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]
Post a comment
Comments:
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.
A poll Comcast can actually win. Who'd of thunk it?
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?
You know, if cable and satellite companies would go to 100% a-la-carte pricing, they wouldn't really have to worry about this.
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.
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.
As much as I despise Comcast, I am behind them 100% in this case.
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.
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).
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
Wow, could the poll be reworded, something like, "Which enterprise is less crappy to its customers?"
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.
"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.
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.
@klwillis45: Agreed. Most niche networks would fail and we'd have 33 versions of the American Idol chammel.
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.
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!
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
I wonder why my comments all of a sudden stopped showing up.
@Fresh-Fest-1986: However, since they actually used words besides just "Comcast", a majority are instead voting for Comcast.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@ncpeters: You are missing an option: "Who gives a damn?"
I find it very hard to muster sympathy for either of these organizations.
I find it ironic that Comcast is bashing them in the beginning for basically being a monopoly...
@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.
@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.
@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.
You forgot an option:
- Comcast
- NFL
- They are both moneygrubbing asshats that need to go away
@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.
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.
@kc2idf: Yup. Definitely the third side here--don't make me pay for a spat between two self-involved behemoths. Or the broadcasting thereof.
@Megan Squier: Actually, it is costing you extra. This is Comcast's entire point. If they are forced to include it in their basic cable package, EVERYONE will have to pay for it, so the rates will have to go up.
Basically, your Dish Network package could be a bit cheaper if they eliminated that network.
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.