NFLN files FCC complaint against Comcast

[pats1]

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10815544/rss

NFL Network files FCC complaint against Comcast as planned

May 6, 2008
CBSSports.com wire reports

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] NEW YORK -- NFL Network filed its complaint Tuesday with the Federal Communications Commission against cable TV giant Comcast. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] The network announced April 17 that it had served Comcast with the required notice of its intent to file a complaint. NFL Network is accusing the nation's largest cable operator of discriminatory and anticompetitive treatment in violation of the Cable Act of 1992. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] The two sides have been feuding over Comcast's decision to place NFL Network on a premium sports tier that customers must pay extra to receive. NFL Network contends in the complaint that Comcast is engaging in discriminatory and anticompetitive conduct because it includes less-popular national sports channels it owns, Versus and Golf Channel, on a basic tier. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007-2008, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved[/FONT]

 

[Gator Mike]

I don't blame the NFL for trying, but they've got a snowball's chance in hell of winning this, IMHO.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't blame the NFL for trying, but they've got a snowball's chance in hell of winning this, IMHO.

Plus it's a bit hypocritical of NFLN. Like they are helping ESPN to compete with them by providing ESPN with the same opportunities they get from the NFL.

yuk yuk

Two big corporate giants with more money than your or I can imagine, argueing over who gets to make trillions and who will be stuck with only billions. Wah wah wah.

 

[castlelong1]

So does Levy get a big Payday defending Comcast or would that be too transparent?

 

[jmt57]

Would love to see the details of this suit eventually made public - though I doubt that will ever happen - for so many reasons.

For one, as a consumer, I have a lot of questions about cable prices. Why are so many areas still with only one choice? How is it that not one cable provider anywhere has decided to offer an a la carte service, for example, where the subscriber only pays for the channels they want - instead of being force fed their choice of two or three tiers of channels? In the areas that do have multiple choices, why are the prices and offers nearly identical? And how is it that a medium (television) that was able to survive solely on the major revenue stream for so long - commercials - now have to rely on charging customers a healthy monthly fee from now till the end of time? What happened to the concept of the airwaves being free and belonging to the public? The service providers have costs but also get opportunities to cover those costs via ad-supported networks; cable TV channels make available a certian amount of time for local commercials.

The other side of the interest in this is of course the Specter-Comcast connection. How interesting it would be to see internal memos and e-mails in regard to Comcast taking the offensive in their tactics with the NFL made public. Before you scoff and say they would never give that up, understand that after Enron and WorldCom, regulatory compliance laws went in to effect that force companies to maintain these type of records, and also show the measures they have taken that prevent "paper-shredding" from taking place if they are investigated. Many fans have felt that Comcast took a hardball stance against the NFL by going after the Pats with Spygate, through Specter, Matt Walsh and his legal team, and possibly even their business partner espn - who has their own reasons to see a competitor (nfln) not succeed.

 

[spacecrime]

Many fans have felt that Comcast took a hardball stance against the NFL by going after the Pats with Spygate, through Specter, Matt Walsh and his legal team, and possibly even their business partner espn - who has their own reasons to see a competitor (nfln) not succeed.

Oh, Geez, so now Comcast is behind the spygate media blitz.

Have you ignored the fact that Spector is a life-long Eagles fan, and that his probing was whether the Pats taped anything before the Eagles-Pats superbowl? Spector is a fan abusing his position in the government.

Can you explain how the Pats losing a first round pick will result in the NFLN not succeeding?

 

[SpiderFox53]

I don't blame the NFL for trying, but they've got a snowball's chance in hell of winning this, IMHO.

Actually this particular complaint has a very good chance of succeeding. One of comcasts complaints is that they don't want to charge all of thier customers money for a limited audience channel. Yet they do that exact thing with both versus and the golf channel. It won't make Comcast put NFLN on basic but it might make them move versus and golf to the sports pack.

 

[shmessy]

So does Levy get a big Payday defending Comcast or would that be too transparent?

Don't be silly.

Everyone knows that Senator Specter gets the big Comcast money.

 

[shmessy]

Oh, Geez, so now Comcast is behind the spygate media blitz.

Have you ignored the fact that Spector is a life-long Eagles fan, and that his probing was whether the Pats taped anything before the Eagles-Pats superbowl? Spector is a fan abusing his position in the government.

Can you explain how the Pats losing a first round pick will result in the NFLN not succeeding?

The original Spygate in September had nothing to do with Comcast. However, the pre-SB timed demolition flare up was ALL about Comcast and its paid lobbyist, Arlen Specter.

Being an Eagles fan is part of it. And he wants the public to believe that it is the only motivation. Some fell for it.

However, you are obviously ignoring the $500,000+ paid to Specter from Comcast and Comcast's Law Firm over the past couple of years. Comcast is also the largest corporation in his constituency. Funny how the Specter offensive came AFTER the NFLN trumped Comcast regarding the week 19 Pats-Giants game (giving the telecast to non-cable CBS and NBC and freezing out cable ESPN - - that was not a mere coincidence).

It's both the fan angle AND also the money angle. If you think the fan angle is the only (or even the majority) motivation in this political power play, then I have a bridge over the Iowa Ocean to sell you.

 

[flasox27]

Isn't Kraft a member of the NFL committee that is responsible for the NFLN and other TV contracts and its just a coincidence that Spector is out to get the Pats.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Actually this particular complaint has a very good chance of succeeding. One of comcasts complaints is that they don't want to charge all of thier customers money for a limited audience channel. Yet they do that exact thing with both versus and the golf channel. It won't make Comcast put NFLN on basic but it might make them move versus and golf to the sports pack.

This is like hood suing you local grocery store because they put Ben and Jerry's in the front freezer and the cheapy ice cream in the back freezer.

Comcast doesn't have to carry the NFLN, (or golf channel or HBO) at all. The golf channel costs a lot less than the NFLN. Generally cable companies will look at two things cost of the channel and how expensive. If the channel is expense and has niche it will go into a tiered package. But if it has a niche and is dirt cheap they will toss it into a bundle so they can claim the bundle has a thousand channels.

Finally the golf channel actually carries golf tournaments. Not just shows that talk about golf, coverage of golf try outs (combine) or a golf draft. But actual golf. The NFLN on the other hand offers very little in the way of actual live football games. Many customers who want NFLN want it for the Thursday night games and thats it.

 

[PatsDeb]

Would love to see the details of this suit eventually made public - though I doubt that will ever happen - for so many reasons.

For one, as a consumer, I have a lot of questions about cable prices. Why are so many areas still with only one choice? How is it that not one cable provider anywhere has decided to offer an a la carte service, for example, where the subscriber only pays for the channels they want - instead of being force fed their choice of two or three tiers of channels? In the areas that do have multiple choices, why are the prices and offers nearly identical? And how is it that a medium (television) that was able to survive solely on the major revenue stream for so long - commercials - now have to rely on charging customers a healthy monthly fee from now till the end of time? What happened to the concept of the airwaves being free and belonging to the public? The service providers have costs but also get opportunities to cover those costs via ad-supported networks; cable TV channels make available a certian amount of time for local commercials.

The other side of the interest in this is of course the Specter-Comcast connection. How interesting it would be to see internal memos and e-mails in regard to Comcast taking the offensive in their tactics with the NFL made public. Before you scoff and say they would never give that up, understand that after Enron and WorldCom, regulatory compliance laws went in to effect that force companies to maintain these type of records, and also show the measures they have taken that prevent "paper-shredding" from taking place if they are investigated. Many fans have felt that Comcast took a hardball stance against the NFL by going after the Pats with Spygate, through Specter, Matt Walsh and his legal team, and possibly even their business partner espn - who has their own reasons to see a competitor (nfln) not succeed.

Unless they have been able to seal the file (not sure if they could, but there may be trade secrets or some ridiculous thing cited), the file will be public in the federal court. In addition, many federal district courts are now "electronic," meaning all cases are filed, and the docket is maintained, on the internet. So, for a small fee, you can obtain a login and password and be able to view any document filed in a federal district court case. In case you wanted to go to the trouble, you may be able to get the details of the suit from the comfort of your own home.

 

[The Hurricane]

Cable Companies like Comcast keep the golf channel in the regular cable package because it costs about a penny per subscriber, if that. For Comcast to include NFL network in the regular package it would cost a dollar or more per subscriber. The NFL network is charging an unheard of amount to show their channel and that is why Comcast stuck them in the sports package. I hate Comcast for a million different reasons but this is not one of them. As popular as the NFL is, we are still a minority among total subscribers. Plus it is really a seasonal channel. They try hard to keep it entertaining year round, and succeed to some extent, but im sure viewership drops significantly after the draft and up through the start of the preseason. The price does not.

You could seriously go down the list to make your argument:
channels for ****ty sports
womens channels
shop at home channels

ALL of these are only included because they cost virtually nothing to include. The ONLY reason why NFLN is not included is because their asking price is about 10x too high

 

[SpiderFox53]

This is like hood suing you local grocery store because they put Ben and Jerry's in the front freezer and the cheapy ice cream in the back freezer.

That's apples and oranges. There aren't any laws about where a store displays thier merchandise (at least none that apply to ice cream), there are laws about whether or not cable channels can be placed on premium tiers when there are similar channels that aren't placed on those tiers. The cost to the subscriber has nothing to do with it.

Comcast doesn't have to carry the NFLN, (or golf channel or HBO) at all. The golf channel costs a lot less than the NFLN. Generally cable companies will look at two things cost of the channel and how expensive. If the channel is expense and has niche it will go into a tiered package. But if it has a niche and is dirt cheap they will toss it into a bundle so they can claim the bundle has a thousand channels.

All of that is correct, but irrelevent to the complaint used.

 

[T-Bone]

I had the NFLN prior to Comcast putting it on different tier, I did not even know that I could no longer access it until I read the fuss about it. I never watched it when I had it and the few times I tuned in, it was boring.

NFL was stupid to raise the price for such a limited service. And the NFL is also stupid for not allowing NFL ticket to go to cable instead of Direct TV. Not only could cable price it down, but they and the NFL would make tons more money than what Direct TV is giving them.

I also think that if cable allowed customers to pick what channels they want and just pay for that, overall they would make more money. How many folk are going to pay for tiers where they are only interested in one channel?

 

[castlelong1]

This is like hood suing you local grocery store because they put Ben and Jerry's in the front freezer and the cheapy ice cream in the back freezer.

Comcast doesn't have to carry the NFLN, (or golf channel or HBO) at all. The golf channel costs a lot less than the NFLN. Generally cable companies will look at two things cost of the channel and how expensive. If the channel is expense and has niche it will go into a tiered package. But if it has a niche and is dirt cheap they will toss it into a bundle so they can claim the bundle has a thousand channels.

Finally the golf channel actually carries golf tournaments. Not just shows that talk about golf, coverage of golf try outs (combine) or a golf draft. But actual golf. The NFLN on the other hand offers very little in the way of actual live football games. Many customers who want NFLN want it for the Thursday night games and thats it.

Is the grocery store a monopoly?

Sorry, but your example is so flawed it is funny.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Is the grocery store a monopoly?

No, but the NFL is. Cable companies are actually less of a monopoly than the NFL, because of internet, dish, directv, etc.

The fact is the NFLN is demanding a lot more money per subscriber than the golf channel, food network etc.

 

[Gator Mike]

Comcast doesn't have to carry the NFLN, (or golf channel or HBO) at all. The golf channel costs a lot less than the NFLN. Generally cable companies will look at two things cost of the channel and how expensive. If the channel is expense and has niche it will go into a tiered package. But if it has a niche and is dirt cheap they will toss it into a bundle so they can claim the bundle has a thousand channels.

Exactly right. More people watch Turner Classic Movies than the NFL Network on a nightly basis. TCM is also tiered on Comcast - in the exact same package, I believe. More people watch HBO than the NFL Network, but HBO isn't on Standard Cable, either. If HBO charged less than a dollar a month, they probably would be. But they priced themselves out of the Standard Tier.

The NFL Network has done the same thing... only they don't like the fact that they priced themselves out of the Standard Tier, and wants the courts to basically guarantee them a profit.

I've said this before - why should any cable company do anything the NFL wants? The NFL has screwed cable for years by making Sunday Ticket exclusive to one of their competitors. Wouldn't the majority of people who are most likely to watch the NFL Network already with DirecTV?

 

[jmt57]

It seems like there's more than just price in this debate. ESPN is $2.96 while the NFLN is $0.60 and ESPN2 is $0.33. ESPN is certainly more popular than NFLN, but using the price criteria, shouldn't they be on the second tier - especialy if you group them with ESPN2, ESPNN, ESPNU and ESPNC? Maybe it's in part due to ESPN being owned by Disney, and there's a whole lot of back room local ABC deals, or Disney/ABC deals going on? Just a thought . .

 

[Gator Mike]

It seems like there's more than just price in this debate. ESPN is $2.96 while the NFLN is $0.60 and ESPN2 is $0.33. ESPN is certainly more popular than NFLN, but using the price criteria, shouldn't they be on the second tier - especialy if you group them with ESPN2, ESPNN, ESPNU and ESPNC? Maybe it's in part due to ESPN being owned by Disney, and there's a whole lot of back room local ABC deals, or Disney/ABC deals going on? Just a thought . .

You're right. Clearly there's more than just price to consider.

But consider this. At $.70/per subscriber per month, NFLN would be one of the 5-10 most expensive channels on the Standard Tier. Anyone think it would have the kinds of ratings to back that up?