sebman2112
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,518
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with all of this. NFLN was never free on Comcast, they paid a vast sum for it and were passing every bit of that cost on to customers. The difference is that my mom, the retiree with no interest in sports talk, will no longer be subsidizing the exorbitant cost on behalf of football fans.
The NFL ought to think long and hard about the long-term implications of their trend toward exclusive, expensive broadcasts (like the exclusivity of the DirectTV deal). Remember when big boxing matches were an event? What kid ever gets to see boxing today? That sport's audience is aging fast. In my house, I'm a sports fan but my family watches very little tv overall. So we only pay $10/month for the minimum tier of cable, just for reception. I see every Pats game and key national NFL games and I'm happy as a clam. My kids get to see the Pats games too, so they get into the team, I take them to training camp, they have Patriots t-shirts. The Red Sox? They've never seen a Red Sox game. They're not on tv for us. Ergo, "Red Sox who"? Watch out, NFL. That could be you soon.
Yea, but I highly doubt comcast switching NFLN over to a package channel will lower peoples digital cable bill. If anything they'll either just take it off your digital package and charge you the same amount, or they'll add another channel in NFLN's place, that none of us care about. Oh, and they'll still charge you the same amount I used to have directv before I moved, then I signed up for comcast here becauese I wanted cable internet, and I cant get broadband. I already pay $13.95 per month for the digital package, and the channel I watch most on the digital package is NFLN, so I'm not going to pay them an additional $7.95 per month for the sports package.
So, it looks like I'll only be getting my ISP service through comcast, and I'll be switching back to directv or maybe Dish network.
Last edited: