Welcome to PatsFans.com

OT: No end in sight for NFL, cable stalemate

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by jmt57, Apr 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,262
    Likes Received:
    114
    Ratings:
    +359 / 0 / -1

    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; 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:

  2. The Great Fork

    The Great Fork Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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 dick though, over this whole spygate thing.
  3. Gator Mike

    Gator Mike Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -1

    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.
  4. The Great Fork

    The Great Fork Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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?
  5. JoePats

    JoePats Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

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

    Gator Mike Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -1

    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.
  7. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    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.
  8. Patsfanaustin

    Patsfanaustin Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2008
  9. fnordcircle

    fnordcircle ( o Y o ) PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,590
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +311 / 8 / -14

    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?
  10. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,456
    Likes Received:
    519
    Ratings:
    +1,298 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    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?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>