Comcast is full of B.S.

[pheenix11]

If cable companies really care about people paying for channels they don't want then why don't they make every channel a la carte? They can take the 100 BS channels I don't want and shove them.

Sports programming costs money because its one of the few things that gets ratings. Cable wants to pay $.70 for the NFL Network and then turn around and charge you $5-$10 for it on another tier. The NFL says FU, you can't do that, it belongs on the basic tier.

Cable companies don't have any problem charging me for 150 channels of crap that they pay next to nothing for. They see the NFL Network as an opportunity to gouge people and are pissed the NFL is not letting them do just that.

 

[Phokus]

For the vast majority of people, nobody cares about NFL network.

For football fans, you might have a 3 hour game on that network that you're interested in. 99.9999999999999999% of the rest of the time, there's nothing worth watching on NFL network.

The NFL is insane if they think they can charge so much for programming.

 

[Gator Mike]

Believe it or not, I can really see Comcast's point in all of this.

The NFL pulled games on broadcast TV and put them on their own network. They then raised the price of said network by 700% and demanded Standard Tier coverage.

The Big Ten network did roughly the same thing.

What's next?

The NBA pulls playoff games off ABC, puts them on NBA TV, raises the price to $5/month per subscriber, and demands Standard tier coverage?

The Stanley Cup playoffs exclusively on the NHL Network?

The Super Bowl to Pay Per View for $49.99/buy? (...have you seen how much UFC and WWE make on PPV)

 

[pheenix11]

The problem is that the cable market is not a free one. Slowly competition has been creeping in but it has mostly been a monopoly. When Verizon Fios is available in my area I am dropping my cable company so hard their heads will spin. If enough sports fans do the same, we'll see how quickly they change their tune. Because when you get down to it besides a few shows on the Big 4 Broadcast Networks and Sports coverage most of the crap on TV is just that, CRAP. 150 channels of crap that no one watches.

The cable company wants to put the NFL Network on a sports tier? Thats fine, but put everything else on a tier too. When I order CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, ESPN, Fox News, The History Channel and the NFL Network maybe they will get the idea.

Think about it, how many non sports channels do you actually watch. Then ask why you are paying all that money for those channels.

My cable company is such a POS that they have this thing called the HD Pak. You get HDnet, Universal HD and a couple other BS channels that no one really cares about. The broadcast channels in HD are part of the standard tier. But what do they add to this HD Pak to get you to subscribe to it? ESPN & ESPN 2 in HD. The standard versions of those channels are part of the standard tier, but for some reason they HD versions you have to pay another $6 a month for.

 

[weswelker#83]

I like football, but if the NFLN is demanding $10 a year per customer, it belongs on a sport package and not basic cable.

The entire world is not football fans, either NFLN should lower the price that of the cooking network or the golf station or be a tiered product like ESPN full court.

Why do i have to pay to watch Food network or QVC or Mtv on Basic ?

The system is simply weird (dumb)

 

[alamo]

so, if i get this straight, warner isnt allowed by the NFL to have the NFLN on the basic channels

No, NFLN is *demanding* Warner have it on basic. Warner doesn't want to, so they don't carry it at all. They would be happy to be allowed to carry it on an extra-cost Sports tier where they could pay NFLN $.80 a month and charge the customer $5 a month.

Comcast is the only company allowed to put it on a sports tier, a right they had to go to court to win.

You forget one little detail. The league does want NFLN on basic cable, but they also want to charge at least double the highest amount charged by any other channel that's on basic.

Wrong... the NFL wants a lot, but not nearly as much as you say, less than other basic cable channels. I can't think of the last time I watched TNT, which is more expensive. Here's a list.

COST PER SUBSCRIBER HOUSEHOLD (per month)

Leading non-sports channels
TNT: 91 cents
Disney Channel: 83 cents
USA Network: 51 cents
CNN: 46 cents
TBS: 44 cents
Nickelodeon: 43 cents
FX: 36 cents

Leading sports channels
ESPN: $3.26
Fox Sports Net: $1.92
NFL Network: 80 cents
Fox College Sports: 63 cents
NHL Network: 51 cents
ESPN2: 46 cents
NBA TV: 36 cents

 

[pheenix11]

TNT: 91 cents
Disney Channel: 83 cents
USA Network: 51 cents
CNN: 46 cents
TBS: 44 cents
Nickelodeon: 43 cents
FX: 36 cents


Are you kidding me? The cable company can have ALL these channels back, give me the NFL Network and we'll call it even. I don't think I've ever watched TNT.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

No, NFLN is *demanding* Warner have it on basic. Warner doesn't want to, so they don't carry it at all. They would be happy to be allowed to carry it on an extra-cost Sports tier where they could pay NFLN $.80 a month and charge the customer $5 a month.

Comcast is the only company allowed to put it on a sports tier, a right they had to go to court to win.



Wrong... the NFL wants a lot, but not nearly as much as you say, less than other basic cable channels. I can't think of the last time I watched TNT, which is more expensive. Here's a list.

TNT is not on basic, it is on expanded. And although you might not like TNT it has much broader appeal than than a station that has a grand total of 30 hours of relevant programming a year.

 

[pheenix11]

TNT is not on basic, it is on expanded. And although you might not like TNT it has much broader appeal than than a station that has a grand total of 30 hours of relevant programming a year.

Quick, name one program on TNT

And don't cheat.

 

[Gator Mike]

TNT: 91 cents
Disney Channel: 83 cents
USA Network: 51 cents
CNN: 46 cents
TBS: 44 cents
Nickelodeon: 43 cents
FX: 36 cents


Are you kidding me? The cable company can have ALL these channels back, give me the NFL Network and we'll call it even. I don't think I've ever watched TNT.

If cable ever went a la carte, I'd immediately buy all the stock I could in as many cable companies as I could, because their profits would probably double.

NESN used to be a la carte, and it was $10/month. What makes you think that a channel like ESPN wouldn't charge $20/month? I read an article by the president of BET where he said that if TV providers went a la carte and every Black family in America signed up, he'd still have to raise rates 1200% to break even. And how many channels would go under because they couldn't attract enough subscribers. For instance, I don't watch Discovery a lot, but there are a couple of shows I like. I'm just not sure I'd pay say $5/month to watch them.

A la carte is great in theory. In practice, it would probably work for a few people, but I think it would cost the vast majority of TV viewers a LOT more - especially sports fans.

Oh, and "The Closer" is on TNT. My wife loves that show.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Quick, name one program on TNT

And don't cheat.

Law and order. And they have good movies.

 

[alamo]

TNT is not on basic, it is on expanded. And although you might not like TNT it has much broader appeal than than a station that has a grand total of 30 hours of relevant programming a year.

"Basic" is being used to mean the lowest level tier which has a selection of various cable channels, most often the one with ESPN on it. TNT fits that definition for both Comcast and Verizon.

I think because many cable companies are already fully allocated for analog channels, "Digital Basic", also counts as "basic".

And saying NFLN has only "30 hours of relevant programming a year" indicates you are not really a hardcore football fan or you don't have NFLN and just want to make yourself feel better. By your definition the only sports programming that is "relevent" is an actual game, which is ridiculous.

 

[Deus Irae]

"Basic" is being used to mean the lowest level tier which has a selection of various cable channels, most often the one with ESPN on it. TNT fits that definition for both Comcast and Verizon.

I think because many cable companies are already fully allocated for analog channels, "Digital Basic", also counts as "basic".

And saying NFLN has only "30 hours of relevant programming a year" indicates you are not really a hardcore football fan or you don't have NFLN and just want to make yourself feel better. By your definition the only sports programming that is "relevent" is an actual game, which is ridiculous.

How is it ridiculous? If you take away the live games, there's nothing worthwhile that an avid fan couldn't get a superior version of on another channel. NFLN isn't for fans, it's for the obsessed (again, other than the live games). Now, there's nothing wrong with niche programming, but not having the "bassmaster" channel wouldn't mean you weren't a hardcore fishing fan, not having the NBA channel doesn't mean that you're not a hardcore basketball fan, and not having NFLN network doesn't mean that you're not a hardcore football fan.

All it means is that you don't think you'll get fair value for your dollar, nothing more. And, given the quality of the NFLN shows that I've seen, I'd say that's a very valid argument.

 

[Keegs]

Comcast should change their name to "suckCast"

 

[alamo]

How is it ridiculous? If you take away the live games, there's nothing worthwhile that an avid fan couldn't get a superior version of on another channel. NFLN isn't for fans, it's for the obsessed (again, other than the live games). Now, there's nothing wrong with niche programming, but not having the "bassmaster" channel wouldn't mean you weren't a hardcore fishing fan, not having the NBA channel doesn't mean that you're not a hardcore basketball fan, and not having NFLN network doesn't mean that you're not a hardcore football fan.

All it means is that you don't think you'll get fair value for your dollar, nothing more. And, given the quality of the NFLN shows that I've seen, I'd say that's a very valid argument.

A lot of people, myself included, think NFLN does a good job. The only other place to get equivalent NFL coverage is ESPN, and ESPN is by no means clearly superior. Both channels have their good points and bad points.

But in terms of saying the only "relevent" programming on NFLN is actual games, you and Hoodie are significantly redefining "relevent" to try to make your argument stronger. NFLN is more relevant to the pro football fan than any other channel, all of it except the college football they have branched out into. It is especially relevant to a hardcore fan. That doesn't mean you can't decide to forego it for whatever reason (cost, don't like the personalities, etc), but to pretend that their daily programming isn't of interest to an avid NFL fan is indeed ridiculous.

 

[Deus Irae]

A lot of people, myself included, think NFLN does a good job. The only other place to get equivalent NFL coverage is ESPN, and ESPN is by no means clearly superior. Both channels have their good points and bad points.

ESPN may have its issues, but NFLN is not even in the same universe. And that's being said by someone who wishes there were stations out there to rival ESPN. ESPN's production values rival the big networks. NFLN? Not so much.

But in terms of saying the only "relevent" programming on NFLN is actual games, you and Hoodie are significantly redefining "relevent" to try to make your argument stronger.

Not at all. All that matters in football is who's going to win and who's going to win it all, along with the (sometimes) relevant question of 'why?'. Everything else is just window dressing. The opinion of Merrill Hoge, Bill Parcells, Bryant Gumbel etc... can be fun to hear, but they are still irrelevant in the final analysis.

NFLN is more relevant to the pro football fan than any other channel, all of it except the college football they have branched out into.

Nonsense. The two channels on your dial (free TV) that run games every Sunday are far more relevant to the pro football fan than NFLN, as is ESPN. You're doing nothing but attempting to redefine relevant into something it does not mean.

It is especially relevant to a hardcore fan. That doesn't mean you can't decide to forego it for whatever reason (cost, don't like the personalities, etc), but to pretend that their daily programming isn't of interest to an avid NFL fan is indeed ridiculous.

This is a straw man. Neither TheGodInAGreyHoodie nor I claimed there was no interest in the station in the quotes you responded to. You made an incorrect assertion about "hardcore" fans that I was responding to, nothing more. Just as NBATV, Playboy, and other niche stations have their market, there are those who will enjoy NFLN. However, it's still a niche market, and those of us who don't think it's a worthwhile investment are no less the "hardcore" fans for thinking that way.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Yeah, I just signed up for the Comcast sports package. It's a few bucks a month -- BUT IT'S ONLY FOR ONE MONTH! I will cancel it immediately after the Giants game.

People need to stop blaming Comcast. The issue is with the NFL primarily. They are trying to bootstrap the development of the NFL Channel by using their monopoly power.

the problem here is that both the NFL and Comcast are basically monopolies.
I am not disputing you, but in the fight between NFL and Comcast, its hard to find a sympathetic character, if you ask me.

 

[pheenix11]

I'd like to get the NFL Network because sometimes I am in the mood for football and all ESPN has on is college basketball, rodeo or NASCAR.

Most cable channels are niche, the problem is the cable companies have decided that if the cost is cheap they will serve that niche. If the cost is high and they can't turn around and gougle people with another tier then they won't.

They can stick the Disney channel, Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Oxygen and TNT up their ass. Why should I have to subsidize obnoxious brats and fat housewives but they won't subsidize me watching football? Thats BS

 

[Deus Irae]

I'd like to get the NFL Network because sometimes I am in the mood for football and all ESPN has on is college basketball, rodeo or NASCAR.

Most cable channels are niche, the problem is the cable companies have decided that if the cost is cheap they will serve that niche. If the cost is high and they can't turn around and gougle people with another tier then they won't.

They can stick the Disney channel, Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Oxygen and TNT up their ass. Why should I have to subsidize obnoxious brats and fat housewives but they won't subsidize me watching football? Thats BS

Prior to the Patriots games this season, what was the #1 show in the history of cable television? It was that High School Musical thing from Disney. Also, what channels have the highest number of viewers on a daily basis? Take a look and you'll find the Disney channel very high on that list.

As you noted, most cable channels are niche. The solution for those crying about NFLN not being available on their systems is to stop patronizing that particular operator if they feel the error is egregious enough. Direct TV is an alternative if they feel they absolutely must have their NFLN. I personally wish that there was a bit more of a "group" breakdown for cable (I.E. The feminist package of We, Oxygen, Lifetime, etc... the kids package of Disney, Nickelodeon, etc...), but cable wasn't set up that way and the government won't force them into it because it would result in the loss of many channels that wouldn't survive under such a system.


Face it, we're stuck with that Johansen woman telling us all about sex from Canada.

 

[pheenix11]

Prior to the Patriots games this season, what was the #1 show in the history of cable television? It was that High School Musical thing from Disney. Also, what channels have the highest number of viewers on a daily basis? Take a look and you'll find the Disney channel very high on that list.

As you noted, most cable channels are niche. The solution for those crying about NFLN not being available on their systems is to stop patronizing that particular operator if they feel the error is egregious enough. Direct TV is an alternative if they feel they absolutely must have their NFLN. I personally wish that there was a bit more of a "group" breakdown for cable (I.E. The feminist package of We, Oxygen, Lifetime, etc... the kids package of Disney, Nickelodeon, etc...), but cable wasn't set up that way and the government won't force them into it because it would result in the loss of many channels that wouldn't survive under such a system.


Face it, we're stuck with that Johansen woman telling us all about sex from Canada.

Yup, as soon as Verizon Fios is available in my area I am switching. They have the NFL Network on their basic tier. My parents are about 8 miles away and they can get it so hopefully it will not be too long.

Unfortunately I don't think it will be by Dec 29th so I have to go the local sports bar.

Directv is always an option but all the BS about whether you need a landline or not just turns me off. I'm trying to move forward with technology, not backwards. Many people have said you don't "really" need a landline and Directv will not directly say as much but they hint at it. I hate shadiness like that.

The big problem is that there is not enough competition. That is finally changing a little.