Lori Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 From SI's Peter King: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...work/index.html The NFL is about to solve one very, very large television headache, and get some momentum it hopes to carry over into negotiations for a new labor contract with the players. I'm told that after a few intense days of negotiations, the National Football League and Comcast -- bitter enemies in the brawl over placement of NFL Network in millions of America's cable homes -- were close Sunday evening to a deal that will end a nearly five-year battle over carriage of the NFL's TV channel on the nation's biggest cable giant. I don't want to dramatize the importance of the deal with Comcast, but it might save NFL Network's life. NFL Network had been carried on a pay sports tier for Comcast's 24-million subscribers, and the NFL for years has been arguing its channel should be on the regular digital cable package with the ESPNs and CNNs of the cable TV world. Now that is close to happening. The deal would mean that instead of paying about $7 per month for the channel and other pay-TV sports channels, Comcast subscribers will get NFL Network with its regular digital package -- and it will increase the number of TV homes the Network is seen in from about 35 million to close to 50 million. More importantly, it could well pave the way for the NFL to make deals with other cable companies similarly chapped at the league's demand for huge rights fees for a sports channel with only 24 hours of NFL regular-season game programming per year. How big is this? Well, some of my acquaintances who work for the Network feared that without wider distribution, some owners tired of the five-year fight for wider distribution of the Network would have soon moved to kill the channel in the current bad economy. Comcast and the NFL had been like Pete Rozelle and Al Davis, seemingly destined to never make peace, and some employees felt the channel would never get major traction as long as league insisted that NFL Network charge cable companies more to carry its product than CNN charged for its channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Thanks Lori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Great for those who want to watch NFL Network without having to pay full costs themselves but terrible for those who do not have any interest or want to pay increased cable cost which will be distributed to all subscribers. Personally it does not affect me since I do not have Comcast. It is already on digital tier with Cox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Great for those who want to watch NFL Network without having to pay full costs themselves but terrible for those who do not have any interest or want to pay increased cable cost which will be distributed to all subscribers. Personally it does not affect me since I do not have Comcast. It is already on digital tier with Cox. I'm sure there are PLENTY of channels that charge for carrage, that some people have no interest in watching, that are on basic cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 I'm sure there are PLENTY of channels that charge for carrage, that some people have no interest in watching, that are on basic cable. Most of them, actually. Glen, here's the thing. You will be paying for my NFL Network, and I will be paying for your Lifetime Network. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPetey Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Now get it done with Time Warner. I Time Warner does not have the NFL Network (paid or basic) by August, I'm switching to DirecTV. Heck, I might switch to DirecTV anyway, TW sux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Most of them, actually. Glen, here's the thing. You will be paying for my NFL Network, and I will be paying for your Lifetime Network. Deal? No Dian - why should I? I do not pay for Lifetime Network so why should I exchange a cost of zero for anything? You think I have a Florida education? Now if you could take cost of Fox News channel and I might make a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Now get it done with Time Warner. I Time Warner does not have the NFL Network (paid or basic) by August, I'm switching to DirecTV. Heck, I might switch to DirecTV anyway, TW sux. me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Typical NFL owners' greed. "Pay us more than everyone else, but don't raise fees or put our channel into a different tier." Unreal, but not unexpected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 No Dian - why should I? I do not pay for Lifetime Network so why should I exchange a cost of zero for anything? You think I have a Florida education? Now if you could take cost of Fox News channel and I might make a deal. Lifetime isn't on your basic level of cable? It is here. If it is on your cable level, you most certainly pay for it. How about Fox News? You get that? Well, everyone who has basic cable gets it, and pays for it, whether or not they use it. Nearly every channel you get, you pay for, as they all have carriage fees. So, you don't want to pay for the NFL Network, because you don't watch it. I don't want to pay for most any of the channels I get, because I don't watch them. But, customized lineups are not a reality. So, we all pay for the channels the Cable System decides to put on the basic levels. I'm guessing viewing to the NFL Network is higher than many other channels on your basic cable lineup. Why choose the NFL Network as the one that gets your outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Lifetime isn't on your basic level of cable? It is here. If it is on your cable level, you most certainly pay for it. How about Fox News? You get that? Well, everyone who has basic cable gets it, and pays for it, whether or not they use it. Nearly every channel you get, you pay for, as they all have carriage fees. So, you don't want to pay for the NFL Network, because you don't watch it. I don't want to pay for most any of the channels I get, because I don't watch them. But, customized lineups are not a reality. So, we all pay for the channels the Cable System decides to put on the basic levels. I'm guessing viewing to the NFL Network is higher than many other channels on your basic cable lineup. Why choose the NFL Network as the one that gets your outrage? Nope. Lifetime is on another level. The reason why the other channels are on basic and NFL Network is on another tier is because the others have more history with networks. Some of them are carried in agreement for another channel the cable network wants or as a set and cable network wants one and needs to get set to get that channel; others pay cable network to carry it like some of the shopping channels or are mandated by local government as part of the cable network getting rights to be cable provider. Now if they were to drop another station as part of agreement to put NFL Network on that might work except that NFL Network monthly fee to carry it is significantly higher according to new reports with it being the 5th highest cost; even if they got new subscribers (that is only reason why cable companies add the programming, new subscribers) it may cost them other subscribers who do not want to miss their old channel(s). Oh and I did not state I do not watch it. I have watched NFL Network on occasion. I was listing the pros and cons arguments not my opinion or whether it benefited me or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I'm sure there are PLENTY of channels that charge for carrage, that some people have no interest in watching, that are on basic cable. There are. I don't like paying for them, and I won't like paying for NFL Network either, if they ever do a deal with Time Warner. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. Besides that, I'm a casual football fan. I don't need the network, especially during the fall, when there's really good college football to watch in addition to or even instead of the NFL "product," and especially during the spring, when there's no football, and actually, generally. I'm pretty content with a selection of 4-5 games per weekend, and I don't need the NFL Network's chatterers in between games, since the league already is over-covered by just about every sports website and network out there. What remains to be said, really? So, nope, I don't want NFL Network on my basic cable in Buffalo. Sorry, folks, but I think you should buy it if you want it, just like everything else in the world. I also think the same of HGTV, Spike, MTV, The Golf Network, and whatever else. (Although Univision does have some nice lookin' women, even if I can't understand what they're saying.) Actually, I feel the same way about the channels I actually watch. If I paid for those, but not the others, I'd be fine. For you folks out there who don't like my favorite sport (hockey), I really don't think you should have to pay for MSG to be carried on basic. I know, that's not the way cable works, and I fully expect a lecture from The Dean on this (for the second time on this issue), but seriously, why should I have to subsidize someone else's viewing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story?id=090...mp;confirm=true PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK – Comcast Corporation and the National Football League announced today that they have reached a new, long-term agreement regarding carriage of NFL Network and complete settlement of all outstanding legal disputes. The carriage agreement consists of a broad array of video content, including the live (24/7) Network, video on demand for Comcast’s Digital Classic cable customers, and the ability to offer the NFL’s RedZone Channel when it is created. Under the terms of the agreement, Comcast will begin repositioning NFL Network from the Sports Entertainment Package to its Digital Classic level of service with a full launch by August 1, reaching nearly two-thirds of the company’s total digital customer base. In addition to NFL Network’s in-studio shows, commentary and live-game broadcasts, Comcast’s Digital Classic customers will now have access to a robust suite of NFL content On Demand, including game highlights, game replays, the “best” of NFL Films, players and coaches interviews, local team highlights, and other NFL programming whenever they want a piece of the action. Roger Goodell will hold a press conference at 12:30 to address the agreement, with a live feed available on NFL.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Didn't see this posted yet: Comcast and NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 There are. I don't like paying for them, and I won't like paying for NFL Network either, if they ever do a deal with Time Warner. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. Besides that, I'm a casual football fan. I don't need the network, especially during the fall, when there's really good college football to watch in addition to or even instead of the NFL "product," and especially during the spring, when there's no football, and actually, generally. I'm pretty content with a selection of 4-5 games per weekend, and I don't need the NFL Network's chatterers in between games, since the league already is over-covered by just about every sports website and network out there. What remains to be said, really? So, nope, I don't want NFL Network on my basic cable in Buffalo. Sorry, folks, but I think you should buy it if you want it, just like everything else in the world. I also think the same of HGTV, Spike, MTV, The Golf Network, and whatever else. (Although Univision does have some nice lookin' women, even if I can't understand what they're saying.) Actually, I feel the same way about the channels I actually watch. If I paid for those, but not the others, I'd be fine. For you folks out there who don't like my favorite sport (hockey), I really don't think you should have to pay for MSG to be carried on basic. I know, that's not the way cable works, and I fully expect a lecture from The Dean on this (for the second time on this issue), but seriously, why should I have to subsidize someone else's viewing? Well you could always just go OTA then you don't have to pay anything. If you like SOME channels on Cable or Sat, you also have to pay for others you don't & everyone is in the same boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well you could always just go OTA then you don't have to pay anything. If you like SOME channels on Cable or Sat, you also have to pay for others you don't & everyone is in the same boat. I know. I just don't want to add to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Better to get more channels than a la carte a ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Come on comcast. Get me the NHL network next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I know. I just don't want to add to it. Well for every person like you that doesn't want it, there are probably at least two that do. I would bet at least one of the two are subsidizing channels you like that they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 There are. I don't like paying for them, and I won't like paying for NFL Network either, if they ever do a deal with Time Warner. Multiple wrongs don't make a right. Besides that, I'm a casual football fan. I don't need the network, especially during the fall, when there's really good college football to watch in addition to or even instead of the NFL "product," and especially during the spring, when there's no football, and actually, generally. I'm pretty content with a selection of 4-5 games per weekend, and I don't need the NFL Network's chatterers in between games, since the league already is over-covered by just about every sports website and network out there. What remains to be said, really? So, nope, I don't want NFL Network on my basic cable in Buffalo. Sorry, folks, but I think you should buy it if you want it, just like everything else in the world. I also think the same of HGTV, Spike, MTV, The Golf Network, and whatever else. (Although Univision does have some nice lookin' women, even if I can't understand what they're saying.) Actually, I feel the same way about the channels I actually watch. If I paid for those, but not the others, I'd be fine. For you folks out there who don't like my favorite sport (hockey), I really don't think you should have to pay for MSG to be carried on basic. I know, that's not the way cable works, and I fully expect a lecture from The Dean on this (for the second time on this issue), but seriously, why should I have to subsidize someone else's viewing? While in principle buy what you want is the fairest, all the research I've seen shows you're going to pay the same amount for less channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts