This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yeah, I'm one of those donkeys who's paying an extra 2 bucks a month to get the NFL Network through Comcast. I'm perturbed because I was getting it for free, but the NFLN is well worth the 24 bucks a year. I'm anxious to see what happens. I know Verizon Fios has it in their basic package if anyone is interested.
I'm not really sure I get this. Doesn't the Country Music Network focus on Country? History Channel, history? Game Show Network, gameshows?I'm not saying IT SHOULD be on basic programming, but I'm not following your logic on this one.
Right. But the NFL Network doesn't focus on Football. It focuses on the NFL. Sure they show some combine and draft stuff. But they don't show a ton of college ball. They don't show high school football. They don't show Arena football. They don't show Canadian football. It's not a Football channel. It's the NFL Channel. And judging from some of the comments in the last thread I read here, they're quickly running out of material to fill a 24/7 programming schedule because they only show the NFL, for the most part. Change it to the Football Channel and I agree with you. But to use your example, I would disagree with a Price is Right Channel being on basic cable, as opposed to the Game Show Network which shows many different game shows. Do you see my point?
I do.
I just don't get behind the premise that a channel has to be more than about a singular subject like the NFL to be on the basic package. We now have the ability to have hundreds of channels. I wouldn't want to limit myself, or my basic package, of free channel even if they're not ones I watch. Now if you told me we as customers could only have 100 free/basic channels then I could see the logic. Short of that I'm behind the belief that the more I can get the more I want. I think the NFLN's point in this is trying to garner new fans. Having it on the pay service only serves though who are already interested in their product. Having it on basic could lure new fans thus growing their fan base. I know I'm not telling you anything you already don't know. I've followed your posts and know you're a very bright guy. I just wanted to illustrate that it's perhaps a little bit more complicated than channel selection.The cable companies don't care about the diversity of the programming on a channel. They are just wanting to get more people to pay for the premium packages, and making football fans do that to see NFLN was a great way to do it.I do.I just don't get behind the premise that a channel has to be more than about a singular subject like the NFL to be on the basic package. We now have the ability to have hundreds of channels. I wouldn't want to limit myself, or my basic package, of free channel even if they're not ones I watch. Now if you told me we as customers could only have 100 free/basic channels then I could see the logic. Short of that I'm behind the belief that the more I can get the more I want. I think the NFLN's point in this is trying to garner new fans. Having it on the pay service only serves though who are already interested in their product. Having it on basic could lure new fans thus growing their fan base. I know I'm not telling you anything you already don't know. I've followed your posts and know you're a very bright guy. I just wanted to illustrate that it's perhaps a little bit more complicated than channel selection.
Thanks. However I think the point about the limit to free/basic channels is that I personally do think it should be limited. I think they should have a limit on what channels are basic and that those channels should be very broad in scope of interest to the consumer. Then every thing else should be in tiers or packages. So I can buy a sports package and someone else can buy a women's issues package and someone can buy a home and garden package etc. Sort of like a modified ala carte. But the only way to get to my vision is if they stop putting narrow scope channels, like NFLN or NBATV or the 6th shopping channel, on basic. So I want cable to make a stand with such a high profile channel like NFLN and win the battle.I do.I just don't get behind the premise that a channel has to be more than about a singular subject like the NFL to be on the basic package. We now have the ability to have hundreds of channels. I wouldn't want to limit myself, or my basic package, of free channel even if they're not ones I watch. Now if you told me we as customers could only have 100 free/basic channels then I could see the logic. Short of that I'm behind the belief that the more I can get the more I want. I think the NFLN's point in this is trying to garner new fans. Having it on the pay service only serves though who are already interested in their product. Having it on basic could lure new fans thus growing their fan base. I know I'm not telling you anything you already don't know. I've followed your posts and know you're a very bright guy. I just wanted to illustrate that it's perhaps a little bit more complicated than channel selection.
Oh of course. It's all about money. But as I've said before: Why would I want 32 millionaires to win a battle over money when I own stock in the cable companies via index funds and that money can be helping my stock price or dividend?Maybe I'm selfish, but Jerry Jones has enough money.The cable companies don't care about the diversity of the programming on a channel. They are just wanting to get more people to pay for the premium packages, and making football fans do that to see NFLN was a great way to do it.I do.I just don't get behind the premise that a channel has to be more than about a singular subject like the NFL to be on the basic package. We now have the ability to have hundreds of channels. I wouldn't want to limit myself, or my basic package, of free channel even if they're not ones I watch. Now if you told me we as customers could only have 100 free/basic channels then I could see the logic. Short of that I'm behind the belief that the more I can get the more I want. I think the NFLN's point in this is trying to garner new fans. Having it on the pay service only serves though who are already interested in their product. Having it on basic could lure new fans thus growing their fan base. I know I'm not telling you anything you already don't know. I've followed your posts and know you're a very bright guy. I just wanted to illustrate that it's perhaps a little bit more complicated than channel selection.
The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.ConstruxBoy said:Oh of course. It's all about money. But as I've said before: Why would I want 32 millionaires to win a battle over money when I own stock in the cable companies via index funds and that money can be helping my stock price or dividend?Maybe I'm selfish, but Jerry Jones has enough money.KSkid said:The cable companies don't care about the diversity of the programming on a channel. They are just wanting to get more people to pay for the premium packages, and making football fans do that to see NFLN was a great way to do it.obxlegends said:I do.I just don't get behind the premise that a channel has to be more than about a singular subject like the NFL to be on the basic package. We now have the ability to have hundreds of channels. I wouldn't want to limit myself, or my basic package, of free channel even if they're not ones I watch. Now if you told me we as customers could only have 100 free/basic channels then I could see the logic. Short of that I'm behind the belief that the more I can get the more I want. I think the NFLN's point in this is trying to garner new fans. Having it on the pay service only serves though who are already interested in their product. Having it on basic could lure new fans thus growing their fan base. I know I'm not telling you anything you already don't know. I've followed your posts and know you're a very bright guy. I just wanted to illustrate that it's perhaps a little bit more complicated than channel selection.
Sure it does. Well, maybe not the millions of people who have no interest in paying for the NFL Network. If comcast is forced to put the NFL Network on its basic tier, the price of basic cable is going to go up by whatever amount the NFL network is charging Comcast.I don't see how the NFL has a case here. Comcast is making a business decision to charge its customers a certain amount for the NFL Network. If the NFL doesn't like that they're perfectly within their rights to not give Comcast access to the programming (which is what they've done so far). Why do we need to bring the courts into this?If WalMart decides it wants to sell Crest toothpaste for $3 a tube, Crest can't sue Walmart to make them charge only $2.75, and if they tried, they would be ridiculed. But since its the NFL, people side with them.The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.
Sure it does. Well, maybe not the millions of people who have no interest in paying for the NFL Network. If comcast is forced to put the NFL Network on its basic tier, the price of basic cable is going to go up by whatever amount the NFL network is charging Comcast.The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.
Nothing like having your cable rates go up in bad economic times for programming you don't want.
As I was reading through this thread, I was thinking "a la carte"... then I was thinking how that will not happen, but that a system like that which you propose would be doable. Then I read your post.
Sure it does. Well, maybe not the millions of people who have no interest in paying for the NFL Network. If comcast is forced to put the NFL Network on its basic tier, the price of basic cable is going to go up by whatever amount the NFL network is charging Comcast.I don't see how the NFL has a case here. Comcast is making a business decision to charge its customers a certain amount for the NFL Network. If the NFL doesn't like that they're perfectly within their rights to not give Comcast access to the programming (which is what they've done so far). Why do we need to bring the courts into this?If WalMart decides it wants to sell Crest toothpaste for $3 a tube, Crest can't sue Walmart to make them charge only $2.75, and if they tried, they would be ridiculed. But since its the NFL, people side with them.The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.
Haven't the cable companies stated multiple times that the reason they don't want to put NFLN on basic service is the prohibitive cost of NFLN? The price the NFL is charging for the service is too high for such a specialized channel. Worse...even as an avid NFL fan, the programming (outside of the actual 8 or so games they show) is so specialized that it makes no sense to force the cost of it down the throats of every consumer.The cable companies made a decision to force the consumers who want NFLN to bear the cost of it, instead of spreading it among all their consumers. How does that make them the bad guys? Then the NFL says they can't have the channell at all since it isn't in the basic package?The NFL has grown too big for their own britches in this regard....and they deserve a smackdown.
Absolutely.Sure it does. Well, maybe not the millions of people who have no interest in paying for the NFL Network. If comcast is forced to put the NFL Network on its basic tier, the price of basic cable is going to go up by whatever amount the NFL network is charging Comcast.I don't see how the NFL has a case here. Comcast is making a business decision to charge its customers a certain amount for the NFL Network. If the NFL doesn't like that they're perfectly within their rights to not give Comcast access to the programming (which is what they've done so far). Why do we need to bring the courts into this?If WalMart decides it wants to sell Crest toothpaste for $3 a tube, Crest can't sue Walmart to make them charge only $2.75, and if they tried, they would be ridiculed. But since its the NFL, people side with them.The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.
Cable needs a smackdown for crying about the cost to supply NFLN on basic - my WideOpenWest cable has it on basic cable and my cable bill is LESS than what I was paying for Comcast. AND I get Big10 network on basic cable... ('nother can of worms)NFL needs a smackdown for blacking out all the games even though NFLN is on the basic lineup. From what I read, the NFL was demanding additional fees for each game ON TOP of the fees to carry the channel.I am very close to killing my cable for good and getting DirecTV.Sure it does. Well, maybe not the millions of people who have no interest in paying for the NFL Network. If comcast is forced to put the NFL Network on its basic tier, the price of basic cable is going to go up by whatever amount the NFL network is charging Comcast.I don't see how the NFL has a case here. Comcast is making a business decision to charge its customers a certain amount for the NFL Network. If the NFL doesn't like that they're perfectly within their rights to not give Comcast access to the programming (which is what they've done so far). Why do we need to bring the courts into this?If WalMart decides it wants to sell Crest toothpaste for $3 a tube, Crest can't sue Walmart to make them charge only $2.75, and if they tried, they would be ridiculed. But since its the NFL, people side with them.The NFLN on basic cable makes us all winners.
