OT: No end in sight for NFL, cable stalemate

[jmt57]

Apparently the NFL Networks negotiations with Comcast are still going nowhere.

Several of the nation's cable operators keep insisting on making NFL Network available only on a pay-extra sports tier, but NFL Network president Steve Bornstein said this week the league never will accept that. (Comcast, which services much of South Florida, already moved it to a tier without the NFL's permission -- the matter is now in court. Cost for the tier locally is $5 per month, Comcast says.)

So is it time the NFL accepts a tier? Commissioner Roger Goodell said no, and Bornstein said, ``We'd shut it down before we ever did that kind of deal. We're all about mass distribution and wide availability of our product. and there's no reason we want to make this an elitist product.''

The NFL simulcast NFL Network's coverage of the Week 17 Patriots-Giants game on CBS and NBC, but ''I don't anticipate doing that again,'' Goodell said, adding there have been no talks with the major cable operators recently.

Seems to me that there's a whole lot more advertising money to be made by both the NFL and by Comcast (and Time-Warner) by placing the NFLN on a basic tier available to everybody than on a pay-extra tier. I may not be a CFO, but the real money is from the ad revenue generated by a larger audience and not from a subscription fee; that applies to a newspaper, magazine, website, - or yes, a cable company. In my opinion the NFLN should either lower the $.60 rate they want to charge, or give Comcast a few more 30-second spots on their shows and let them pocket that ad revenue. As an added bonus we not only all get the NFLN, but we don't have to pay extra for it.


A couple other comments of note:

• NBC Sports chairman **** Ebersol, on whether he has considered pursuing retired Brett Favre: ``I can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind. [But] Favre has made it abundantly clear he's not going to do anything this year. That gives me more time to decide if there's anything that works for us.''

• USA Network, Versus and Spike TV have expressed some interest in carrying a version of Inside the NFL, which was dropped by HBO. But the multimillion dollar cost for NFL Films highlights discouraged at least one potential suitor.

• ESPN announced Thursday that Tony Kornheiser will return for a third season in the Monday Night Football booth. Play-by-player Mike Tirico quibbled with former analyst Joe Theismann's claim that MNF is, essentially, Kornheiser's show.

''It's not Tony Night Football,'' Tirico said at the owners meetings. But, he said, ``You have to pay more attention with what you're doing with Tony because he's not qualified to get on there and talk about pulling guards.''

Tirico, who will host when ESPN carries first- and second-round Masters coverage for the first time next week, said, ''I'm the happiest person'' about the decision to continue reducing celebrity guests in the MNF booth. ``I'm a nuts-and-bolts football guy almost to a fault.''

 

[The Great Fork]

Does it seem to anyone else like executives think football is a "Rich Man" game? Everytime I turn around these ****ers are finding a new way to nickle and dime me, to take just a liiiiittle bit more of my money. It's not as if $5 a month is some incredible expense that people can't handle, but these things start to add up. They don't want people who love the game to watch, they want people who can afford to buy all their **** to watch.

Goodell saying no to this is the first thing he has done that I agree with. I still think he's a **** though, over this whole spygate thing.

 

[Gator Mike]

Goodell saying no to this is the first thing he has done that I agree with.

Except the whole thing is the NFL's creation.

They didn't HAVE to put the Saturday Night schedule on their own channel. They could have sold it to probably a dozen different channels. They CHOSE to take the risk and put the games on a network that did not have wide-scale carriage agreements with major cable companies.

 

[The Great Fork]

Except the whole thing is the NFL's creation.

They didn't HAVE to put the Saturday Night schedule on their own channel. They could have sold it to probably a dozen different channels. They CHOSE to take the risk and put the games on a network that did not have wide-scale carriage agreements with major cable companies.

You are right about that. I don't like the whole Thursday night game crap, but at least he's standing against NFL network being a pay channel. I don't think the NFL network is a bad thing despite them broadcasting a game on it; if it was free on comcast, like they want it, i would have had it before. Comcast are some bastards, eh?

 

[JoePats]

1) Will Specter carry out Spygate until there is a deal with Comcast?
2) the ESPN news is dreadful.

 

[Gator Mike]

1) Will Specter carry out Spygate until there is a deal with Comcast?

FWIW, if Spector's whole Spygate charade is solely about working out a deal with Comcast, then it's reprehensible.

If Spector IS legitimately concerned about the rising cost of television, and the effect of sports programming on people's cable/satellite bills - then some good might come out of it. Let's face it, the NFL taking their own marquis games off free TV and moving them exclusively to their own network is kind of shady.

I'd like to see a law preventing sports leagues from moving their own games exclusively to television stations that they own. And I'd also like to see a law that prohibits one television provider (cable/satellite/telco/etc) from signing an exclusive agreement with a sports league. There are taxpayers in Western Massachusetts who helped pay for the state-funded improvements to the areas around Gillette Stadium that can't watch the Patriots play on their TV because they can't get DirecTV. That's not right.

If something like THAT gets fixed from all this, then on some level, it'll be worth it.

 

[spacecrime]

Apparently the NFL Networks negotiations with Comcast are still going nowhere.



Seems to me that there's a whole lot more advertising money to be made by both the NFL and by Comcast (and Time-Warner) by placing the NFLN on a basic tier available to everybody than on a pay-extra tier. I may not be a CFO, but the real money is from the ad revenue generated by a larger audience and not from a subscription fee

Cable operators aren't stupid. If they were going to make more money with it on a basic plan it would be there. NFL Network wants a buck a month per subscriber, and having it on basic service means that cable companies pay an extra buck per subscriber. SInce most subscribers wouldn't care to have their rates increase a buck a month for the privelege, cable companies are fighting it.

NFL can lower their price to make it acceptable, or they can win in court. Cable companies would love to have the courts mandate they they provide all viewers with a service that costs a buck per subscriber because they would have a court order requiring them to do it and will easily pass the blame to the NFL and the courts. Knowing the cable companies they would charge and extra buck and a half for overhead costs.

This is all about money, and the way the NFLN and the cable companies win is for the cable companies to fight the case in court and lose.

It will be interesting.

 

[Patsfanaustin]

Well, all I can say is I moved to an apartment complex that would allow me to install a dish so I could get Direct TV and watch the NFL Network (and get the Sunday ticket). When I cancelled my subscription with Time Warner I told them exactly why I was doing it, and they didn't seem surprised at all.

 

[fnordcircle]

It's just not fair to people who do not want to watch the NFL Network to force them to pay an extra amount a month to have it in their basic tier. The NFL is trying to make this seem like they're fighting for the every man, but we all know that Comcast would pass the extra cost onto the consumers and most of them don't want the NFL Network at any price.

The cable companies aren't blameless in this either, though. A la carte packaging is the only fair type of cable packaging but the cable companies are protected by government regulations, I believe, which let them make up their absurd and horrendously expensive bundles.

All I watch is NFL Network, Cartoon Planet, Comedy Central, History Channel, HBO, Showtime and the regular network stations. Why am I paying $90 a month for all that?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

FWIW, if Spector's whole Spygate charade is solely about working out a deal with Comcast, then it's reprehensible.

If Spector IS legitimately concerned about the rising cost of television, and the effect of sports programming on people's cable/satellite bills - then some good might come out of it

If...if.

Let's look at the evidence and see. Is it more likely that Sen Spector has developed an altruistic passionate interest in working out a deal to reduce people's sports cable bills, or ask yourself if is it more likely that Sen Spector is pursuing the interests of one of his larger lobbyist contributors for their specific issue?

What do you think is happening here?