The NFL Network is available as a premium tier channel on some cable systems, either as a standalone add on or as part of a sports package. It is completely unavailable in many places (including Charter cable in Worcester).
The NFL wants the network available as part of basic cable. The cable companies don’t want to forgo the fees for a specialty channel. Pretty simple, except when you add the historical nature of the Saturday’s game.
Kerry offers a carrot and threatens a big stick
…I will ask the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings on how the emergence of premium sports channels are impacting the consumer, and I will consider what legislative measures may be necessary to ensure that consumers are more than bystanders in this process.
Kerry’s letter can be seen on the Globe’s Reiss’s Pieces blog http://www.boston.com/sports/f…
Seems other officials are in the fray as well:
Rep. Joe Courtney and the Connecticut delegation: http://www.broadcastingcable.c…
Reps Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes of NH: http://www.wcax.com/Global/sto…
Sen Daniel Leahy (D-VT) http://www.burlingtonfreepress…
Sen Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT):
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/ne…
Gee, what could Congress do on an important issue?
I have to admit, announcements like this really rub me the wrong way. I almost blogged about it several days ago when I got the press release.
<
p>Is it annoying that the NFL channel isn’t on regular cable in most of the country? Sure. Does it warrant an angry letter and/or speech by a powerful US Senator? No. People will continue to complain and the NFL and Comcast will almost certainly work it out soon. In other words, there really isn’t a reason for a US Senator to get involved here. It’s not as if Kerry’s statement is going to hurry the process up.
<
p>Now, there’s a greater issue that Kerry COULD have made out of this – the fact that cable companies only offer “bundled” channels, so you have to pay for channels you may not necessary watch to get ones that you do. For example, I shouldn’t have to pay for A&E, Court TV, Fox News and a half of dozen other stations no one in my household ever watches, just so I can watch SciFi, Spike, Keith Olberman and Animal Planet (Meerkat Manor!).
<
p>Since consumers don’t have the option of just choosing a different cable company that would offer such a plan, the federal government has plenty of room to step in on this issue and regulate changes. There’s been legislation introduced at least at the state level in years past that would mandate cable companies offer a per-channel price in addition to bundled packages – and I think that not only would be a great idea, but it also warrants legislation to protect consumers. Such a policy would only serve to make cable cheaper, as companies would now have extra incentive to offer inexpensive, wide-sweeping bundles to keep people from only picking and choosing a couple stations at a few dollars a month, each. It shouldn’t cost Americans about a $100 dollars to have basic cable, the internet and a land-line phone – especially when it costs the French about $35.
<
p>All that said, the Senator isn’t using this opportunity to talk about any of these issues. Not only is a silly statement on an NFL game a waste of time, it’s also a wasted opportunity – which is far worse. Hopefully, the next statement on cable TV that the Senator makes will propose actual legislation for positive change, instead of playing the part of Don Quijote to Comcast’s Windmill on an issue that just has no relevance to the US Senate.
I’m not a big sports fan, so call me agnostic on this issue, but it seems Senator Kerry’s pressure (along with Sen. Leahy and Sen. Spector) led to the NFL to broadcast the game so everyone can watch it:
<
p>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…
<
p>
<
p>http://news.bostonherald.com/b…
<
p>
<
p>
or wherever the beautiful people are spending the winter holidays this year?
<
p>Maybe, if Sen. Kerry and his Congressional colleagues had bothered to read the de-regulatory bold and fine print in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they could have anticipated the premium tiering and oligopolistic behavior that have allowed rapacious media conglomerates like Comcast to gouge themselves on windfall profits from vulnerable cable, phone,and Internet consumers.
<
p>Of course, if most of our Senators and Representatives didn’t bother to read the full Patriot Act, then I suppose it is completely unrealistic for us to expect our elected representatives to read and understand the economic implications of something as technically and legally complex as the single most consequential piece of media legislation in over half a century.
So, given the favoritism it has had from the Feds in the past, it is only fair that it be subject to public pressure from our elected reps now.
<
p>Good move, Senator Kerry.
that are not NFL games. How is it a monopoly again?
…stop inserting his foot after opening his mouth. Who the f**k cares? Rent the DVDs.
You know what I’m sick of? Not being able to get sports on the rabbit ears any more. Lame.
<
p>Pretty soon, you’ll only be able to get Sportlers’ contests on pay-per-view.
<
p>And, you can do it complete with commercials. When I was going to OSU (that’s Ohio State, not Oregon) we could always tell when a game was being broadcast. Those games were an hour longer than usual to provide for commercial interruptions. Refs’ time outs, you know.
You know, I had a great time when I was in C-bus for games, but that does not mean that a lot of the fans are necessarily the greatest. Also, the only action in all of Columbus is near campus. The entire central area is dead. There’s nothing there. It’s almost a ghost town.
<
p>Also, they’re not exactly enhancing the Big Ten’s reputation right now. That’s the best they can put forward, and they’re getting blown out of championship games? Well, at least they’re getting there.
<
p>Boiler Up! WOO-WOO!! đŸ˜€ Well, they almost blew that one last night in a game that nobody really had an interest and that nothing good could have come out of, but they still pulled it out. Besides, it’s basketball season! đŸ˜€
…in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As part of our “student activity fees” we were required to pay, we were supplied with tickets to the home football games–it proved quite lucrative scalping them, particularly for the games against UMich.
I would never do such a thing! đŸ˜›
<
p>Aside from pointing out that you are dating yourself (you’re only slightly younger than my mother! :-D), I should note that Purdue did not, and probably still does not, have student activity fees listed within the tuition bill. Anyone who wants to attend sporting events, including students, have to pay for the tickets themselves. If you ask me, that brings in a better type of crowd, i.e., those who are actually interested in the game and will pay attention to the game, instead of going just to get drunk. Since the Big Ten does not allow booze sales, anyone who is blasted either does so beforehand (Breakfast Club!) or sneaks in flasks, or both.
<
p>I don’t think a student activity fee would work there because the university does not fund the athletic department at all; it is entirely self-sufficient and reliant on ticket/food stall sales and private donations from members of the John Purdue Club. A fee listed in the tuition bill would essentially change that.
Aside from pointing out that you are dating yourself
<
p>…I have made no secret here of my age. I have indicated that I was in high school in the mid 1960s, when you might have been barely a gleam in someone’s eye.
<
p>Aside from that, the “student activity fee” at OSU was also levied to support the student union complex and offices for the various university-recognized student organizations. I know nothing about the financing of such things at Purdue (assuming that such organizations existed), but I would almost be willing to bet that, even if there was not a separate line-item for such on your tuition bill, it was included in your bill somehow.
<
p>The “student activity fee” at OSU was a pittance–something like US$14/guarter. Kind of cheap for getting tickets that we would sometimes sell at many times the fee.
If you’ve been following this whole debacle, hard to start feeling any antipathy towards the cable companies. NFL has overreached here, especially for a 365 day channel that offers 8 unique live games a year (and that is the truth, unless you’re a complete get a lifer looking for exclusive NFL combine coverage or “behind the scenes at the draft” footage). If you feel that your secretary should be paying an extra buck or two a month on her cable bill for NFL Network to be on basic, fine. I don’t. If you want it, pay for it. But the NFL has enough money coming in right now, thank you.
Since I just commented on raj’s statement about tOSU, I figured I would chime in about the BTN. The Big Ten, frustrated at ESPN relegating a number of its important matchups to their secondary channels (ESPNU) or online coverage (ESPN360) in place of its regional over-the-air coverage, created its own network (a partnership with Fox headquartered in Chicago) in order to give coverage to the Big Ten events that ESPN has neglected. The Big Ten is looking for $1.10 per subscriber on an expanded basic tier within its footprint (eight states from Pennsylvania to Iowa) and a dime or so on a digital tier outside that area. Comcast in Chicago has balked at that asking price, so it has no coverage in an area where people want it, except for DirecTV and Dish Network.
<
p>The thing about this network is that it airs some American football and basketball games (even hockey games, although the Big Ten does not officially sponsor hockey!), but it also airs Big Ten championships in other “secondary” sports. Also, it is designed to promote the Big Ten institutions as a whole, and not just the athletic side.
<
p>Also, Comcast is interested in creating collegiate sports networks for other conferences, while asking for the same rates. Therefore, while they claim what you claim, it seems to me that the reason that they are staking this position is that they are not getting a cut from the development of the BTN. Also, Comcast puts networks it owns on its own expanded basic tiers, while those same networks are on digital tiers with other competing providers. An example of that is Vs., which Comcast has put on expanded basic, because it wants to use it to compete with ESPN, but the other providers have placed it on a digital tier.
<
p>If you feel that your secretary should be paying an extra buck or two a month on her cable bill for NFL Network to be on basic, fine. I don’t.
<
p>…but realize that part of your basiic or “expanded basic” cable fees go to companies liike Faux News, CNN, local broadcasters, etc.So you are indirectly paying them for the privilege of them pumping drivel and commercials into your home.
<
p>Get rabbit ears and drop cable.
Get rabbit ears and drop cable.
<
p>Tell me exactly how my rabbit ears are going to pick up any of this stuff to begin with?
<
p>Why? The real point is that the NFL is trying to muscle into the basic package for better advertising rates and for payment of all cable subscribers v. those who want to fork over for the channel. I have zero problem in the world with someone forking over money for something they want to watch (witness that earlier comment about some Big 10 channel – great, but push my don’t give a s*** button on that one – if you want it pay for it – don’t have everyone else pay for what is fringe programming). Do you really think Comcast et al is paying QVC and the like a buck to show their stuff?
This is somewhat of a simple matter. Remove the Anti-Trust Exemption utilized by the NFL and owners.
<
p>The NFL has become a monopoly removing more games from “free” TV each year. They and the owners enjoy tax avantages not even given to growing industries.
<
p>How much state money was given to Bob Kraft to build Gillette Stadium and Patriot Place?
<
p>Time to stop the non-sense.
Major League Baseball has an anti-trust exemption, the NFL doesn’t. Why do you think the USFL, XFL, and AFL all got started?
…the MLB anti-trust exception was the result of a rather silly US SupCt decision about a century ago, on the basis that MLB was not a business engaged in interestate commerce, but instead was a “game” (whatever that meant). I doubt very seriously that the Supremes would deliver the same ludicrous ruling today if a case were to be brought to court, but that is the precedent, and nobody has an economic interest in seeking to overturn it.
Gillette was built privately by Kraft (built with a Project Laboe Gareement in place I might add). Patriot Place is a private project as well. That doesn’t mean that state money hasn’t been used on highway improvements around the projects
I got a flat tire down a lonely road here in the Commonwealth.
Moments later, no less a personage than Senator John Kerry pulled up behind me on a ten speed bicycle whereupon he set to work changing my tire…once everything was fixed he gave me a business card to a local independent gas station that would fix my damaged tire quickly for a low fee.
I COULDN’T thank him for these manifold kindnesses because he neither BOUGHT ME FOUR NEW TIRES with his own limitless millions nor took TIME OUT OF HIS SCHEDULE to overthrow the international rubber trust whose rapacious policies saddle American consumers with crappy ass tires!
So I drove away, happy that I’d pointed out his flaws and failures to the Junior Senator from Massachusetts.
No way Kerry’s bike is a 10 speed. Big ring’s gotta be 3 gears, and the rear cassette probably has 7-10, so we’re looking at 21-30 gears.
<
p>Just sayin’.
…it is completely irrelevant. When I had a 10-speed in the US, I would use max 2-3 different combinations of gears. With my automatic-transmission bike in Germany, it switches settings automatically based on speed and force applied to the pedals. And there are three different combinations (normal, Sportler, manual)
I don’t remember the time line very well, but, if memory serves, Foxboro Stadium was indeed built with private money. It was subsequently renamed Gillette Stadium after Kraft sold the “naming rights.”
<
p>I’m not sure why any company would want “naming rights” but they can do what they want. And, as an aside, I don’t have a problem with the state providing “infrastructure improvments” for access and egress as long as everyone can use them. Which is and was the case with Foxboro Stadium.
Foxboro Stadium, now the site of the Gillette Stadium parking lot, was built in the 1960s. And naming rights aren’t a new thing, it was first called Sullivan Stadium after the then-owner of the Pats, then Shaefer stadium, after the beer.
Originally, the stadium was called CMGI Field, then CMGI went under during the dot-com bust. So Kraft went with the tried-and-true local company (CMGI was local, just not tried and true) that would not disappear. At least until P&G bought them out. đŸ˜‰
The Commonwealth chipped in for infrastructure improvements. That’s it. $70 million or so, but that’s their obligation anyway. It almost didn’t happen, because Tom Finneran didn’t want it, so Krafty Bob went to Hartford and played Connecticut for suckers. Besides, Connecticut isn’t really New England anyway. Technically, it is, but in reality, it is not. Too much New York influence.
From Mike Reiss
..is why pro football is America’s true national pasttime.
<
p>Major League Baseball would have stubbornly insisted on screwing over the fans if that’s how it could make money. There’s a lot to dislike about the NFL (ignoring doping, how it treats the players), but it ain’t stupid.
Snarks that football is a melding of the worst traits of American culture: violence and committee meetings.
http://www.boston.com/sports/f…
While I have reservations about my Senator doing this, specifically that its kinda a silly issue to harp on about, and having the government or at least one of its representatives make demands on a private enterprise bothers me, what bothers me more is the idiocy and lack of competition among cable providers and its just really cool to have this important moment for our local team forced upon the denizens of the entire country.
<
p>For those without cable three out of 10 networks (on avg) will be broadcasting the same glorious triumph of a little team from New England. Thats really awesome. Also the NFL Network commentators are a lot smarter than the CBS or NBC ones.