Comcast and NFL Network Should Really Go Get A Room
The Comcast vs. NFL soap opera has gotten very, very old. But the bickering behemoths are preparing to end their dart-eyed glares with a steaming-hot, anger-fueled liplock.
Comcast was set to stop carrying the NFL Network May 1, but messaged customers shortly after the date declaring that the parties were close to a deal. Now Sports Illustrated's Peter King reports negotiations are now at the goal line.
The greed-mongering cable giant and the greed-mongering network have tangled for much of NFL Network's 6-year life. To quickly summarize, Comcast only wanted to include the network in its cable packages if it could gouge customers for more money by elevating it to an extra-pay tier. The NFL wants its network to be included in the basic digital packages, and has angered fans by sequestering some of its own regular-season games to air on the channel.
Now it looks like the NFL Network will get its way, although who knows what concessions the league had to make to get Comcast to play nice.
NFL Network had been carried on a pay sports tier for Comcast's 24-million subscribers, and the NFL for years has been arguing its channel should be on the regular digital cable package with the ESPNs and CNNs of the cable TV world. Now that is close to happening. The deal would mean that instead of paying about $7 per month for the channel and other pay-TV sports channels, Comcast subscribers will get NFL Network with its regular digital package — and it will increase the number of TV homes the Network is seen in from about 35 million to close to 50 million. More importantly, it could well pave the way for the NFL to make deals with other cable companies similarly chapped at the league's demand for huge rights fees for a sports channel with only 24 hours of NFL regular-season game programming per year.
So the word wars and lawsuits were all just foreplay. Yes, this is a Hollywood-style hate-kiss we have on our hands.
NFL closing in on deal with Comcast [Sports Illustrated]
(Photo:((april)))
Post a comment
Comments:
All this and Comcast still came up second in WCIA 2009???
What about Cablevision? that's a more important questions for me :P
Comcast only wanted to include the network in its cable packages if it could gouge customers for more money by elevating it to an extra-pay tier.
I'd rather this happen than being gouged by Comcast for including it in the basic digital package. And I'm the greatest football fan in the entire world..4 years running.
You know I actually sided with comcast on this one. I like football but not enough to buy the channel or have my rates raised to have it in a basic package. I watch football games at the sports bar anyway. O well.
Yeah both parties in this pink kitten fight are acting like a bunch of pansies.
I love watching football, but this was a real turn off. Makes me wonder why I put up with either companies bullshit.
I just keep telling myself that its for the players and teams, but if they can't be bothered to assist in this fight against the consumers of their product, why should we be bothered.
(Side bar: Hey players... get involved, don't you want to be seen on TV by your family while you play? That fat paycheck has to come with a little clout.)
Damn, that is still one hot scene from a great movie. Chronenburg does dirty sex better then anybody. He should do porn.
Why wouldnt NFL net be on a special sports tier? Most of their programming I'd classify with Golf Channel- only good if you're REALLY into the sport- here I wish Comcast had stuck to their guns.
To hell with all of them. Bring back the XFL!
Exactly. If I want this channel I'd be happy to pay for it. I don't want my rates to go up for a channel that has only a few hours worth of programming during the year. A la carte please!
Missing from all this discussions: the NFL's claims that "people want to watch the NFL Network." If this were actually true, they'd be getting enough eyeballs to be able to charge advertising rates sufficient to cover their costs. It's not like they have to pay exorbitant rights fees (ESPN) to broadcast sports events, so their costs cannot be similarly high. And if they are getting enough eyeballs to be able to charge high enough advertising rates, they'd not need cable companies to pay any fees at all to carry the network (which the cable companies could then easily promote as part of their basic package, thereby presumably gaining subscribers, which in turn would drive viewership higher, causing an increase in ad rates and profits, etc.).
The NFL network should be on a sports tier, considering its extremely high per subscriber cost of somewhere of around $0.75. This article has a list of the cost breakdown for many cable channels, and if you look through NFL network is second only to ESPN in subscriber costs.
I so wish I could have a non-sports cable package, as I hate them, and if you look at the list, combined, they are a significant portion of the overall subscriber costs per subscriber.
@Laughing-Man: Time for a-la-carte. Anything beyond the local stuff (required broadcast carriage and local access) should be either pay-by-channel or pay-by-genre.
@cristiana: What we need is (a law to require, in areas without free market competition*) cable channel a-la-carte, with options to select service by channel, by network (e.g. ESPN, NFL), or by genre (sports is one, news is one).
*a minimum of 6 providers is required for an area to be considered to have free market competition in cable.
ALL the stations I watch cost only 5.70. Makes me happy I dumped cable and satellite. I like football, but getting screwed just to watch grown men run around just is not worth it.
I have to commend how well the intro paragraph was done. Snarky, suggestive and irresistible. In fact, it was so snarky that I was sure that Chris wrote it.
Hat's off to Phil. And Chris (with love), I think you've got some competition for Most Snarky Consumerist Writer. Don't let him steal the crown from you, Chris, don't
Can't wait to see the return volley. Snark-ray set to "11"!
Wow, that article should be dealt with in an entirely separate posting on this site. Very informative to know just how much I'm getting ripped off by paying for channels I don't even watch.
So now 15 million people who don't want to watch the channel have to pay for it anyway. Thanks Comcast.
Seriously, fighting this fight was the one and only pro-Consumer thing Comcast was doing... they kept it up so long that it seemed like they really did, in this one tiny limited instance, want to do what was best for their customers. It's a shame they finally opted for business as usual.
I wonder if DirecTV's $3 rate jack-up the other month was a result of the NFL's channel package or just their regular jacking up of our rates? I am so close to chucking it all. Or at least going to a very basic sat package to get my local channels. That way I can then rent the NatGeo, History, & Discovery channels programs. Of course, that assumes they issue the shows on DVDs later on. I like some of their shows, but I cannot stomach the 4 minute commercial breaks around the 5- to 7-minute show blocks.
@DoctorMD: I added mine up and it comes to a whopping 20 cents for the 4 channels that I actually look at the schedule for. History, NatGeo, Discovery, & Travel. I didn't see Turner Classic Moves in the list, but I watch that too. The CNNs of the world are only viewed during channel surfing. I never watch any of the series on the TBS/BBCAs of the world as more and more of them are either 'reality' shows or they are not exactly 60 minutes or they are plastering the screen with permanent on-screen promos for new episodes of the show you're watching or promos for a premiere of a new show. Either way that on-screen text has to come off the screen before I will even consider watching their stuff. I was surfing this past weekend and saw what looked like a wall of text on the SOAPnet channel.
MLB Network got around this by giving the cable companies an equity stake in their channel. Ta-da, you get it without having to buy the sports package. Not to mention that it's much better than the NFL Network. 2 games a week, live look-ins at games in progress all night until the last game is done, funny analysts, historical baseball games complete with original commercials, movies, off-season coverage, and on and on. I love MLB Network.
NFL Network? Never turn it on except when it has a game. Which is like 24 hours a year. We bought the sports package for Fox Soccer Channel, not that, so unfortunately this won't allow us to cancel, but I think the NFL is dramatically overvaluing their network.
so, when are we getting a la carte cable programming so I can not pay for the NFL Network again since I will never, ever watch it?
go fuck yourself, Comcast.
@rpm773: yeah, that's the opposite of gouging. making me pay for it when I don't want it, that's gouging.
I'm pretty annoyed you're trying to play off the NFL as the good guy here. They are trying to take money from basic subscribers who may not want the content (like, oh, myself). The NFL shouldn't have its way, period.
Meh, I just can't seem to bring myself to actually give a damn about any of this...
Re: Photo
Spot the Canon shooter!
I'd like to lodge a complaint about that lewdly-illustrative first paragraph.
Upon reading it, I was assaulted with "steaming-hot, anger fueled liplock" mental images involving Comcast Frank and Refrigerator Perry.
Refund, please.
I would normally be with Comcast on this, but then they went and included the Big 10 network on basic cable, and in an allegedly 'unrelated' move, they raised basic cable rates a few bucks. I call shenanigans.
If you're going to put the big ten niche network on basic cable, you can put the NFL network on basic cable. I would much rather have the NFL network than the big 10 network.
NFL and Comcast execs meeting in the same place at the same time?
Damn. Where are all the mass murderers or Al Queda when you really need them?
When elephants are dancing, it is best for mice (you and me) to step aside.