FCC rules that Comcast discriminated against NFL Network

[miami_fan]

FCC rules that Comcast discriminated against NFL Network - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

WASHINGTON (TICKER) —The NFL got the upper hand in its long-standing feud with Comcast late Friday, as the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the league’s network should be carried on the cable giant’s popular expanded digital tier of service.

The FCC stated that Comcast discriminated against the NFL Network by only choosing to place the channel on its special sports package that customers had to pay extra for each month.

Comcast argued that it did not place the NFL Network on its expanded digital service because its did not want to charge millions of subscribers upwards of $1 a month for a station they may not want.

However, Comcast does include such fringe sports channels as Versus and the Golf Channel on its expanded digital service - networks that the cable giant owns.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Comcast has 24.6 million customers.

The FCC’s ruling will now go for a 60-day review in front of an administrative law judge, who may force Comcast to carry the NFL Network at a set price.

The NFL Network, which is in 42 million homes nationwide but mainly through satellite systems, filed a complaint against Comcast in May.

The dispute originated in 2006, when the NFL wrapped up a its long-term media rights deals with CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN and DirecTV. Comcast was one of the suitors for a deal, aiming to use a package to build up Versus.

Although Comcast reportedly offered $400 million for a package of eight late-season games, the NFL rejected the offer, opting to use the series of games to build its own network.

The NFL believes that Comcast’s decision to keep it off the cable giants’ extended digital service was retaliation for the lack of a deal, and that Comcast would only add the network if it gained a piece of the profits.

The FCC agreed with that point late Friday, stating that “the NFL has presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that Comcast indirectly and improperly demanded a financial interest in the NFL’s programming in exchange for carriage.”

[Greyroofoo]

I find myself becoming more libertarian because of this.

[Crapshoot]

Damnit - I don't want to have to pay extra for a network I will never watch.

[Passacaglia]

WASHINGTON (TICKER) —The NFL got the upper hand in its long-standing feud with Comcast late Friday, as the Federal Communications Commission ruled that the league’s network should be carried on the cable giant’s popular expanded digital tier of service.

In other news, the NFL Network tripled in price.

[ISiddiqui]

MLB (who'll begin its network next year), NFL and the NHL (both have their own networks) will be salivating over this ruling.

[Buccaneer]

We get the extended digital package with Comcast but we always had the NFL Network?

[Galaxy]

So, if you don't get another party to do what you want, you can have the government force them to? Nice.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So, if you don't get another party to do what you want, you can have the government force them to? Nice.

LOL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Completely insane ruling by the FCC ... which, all things considered, really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone (not the details of this ruling, just that the FCC makes some ruling that makes no sense).

[miami_fan]

I wonder if this means I will actually see the games this year. I have always gotten NFLN but the games were always blacked out. Of course I have Knology so it probably is not affected by this ruling.

BTW Knology, if you read this, feel free to put the NFLN on your special sports package and bring FSC back to the expanded digital package pls thx!

[Celeval]

I don't see how Comcast should have the obligation to put any individual channel anywhere it doesn't want to put it.

[Abe Sargent]

Absulutely agree. Bad call by FCC. Bad call.

[kcchief19]

As if you needed further evidence that the current administration apparently secretly hates the free market ...

I have yet to find anyone that has any in-depth analysis of the rationale and reasoning for the decision. It certainly seems bizarre that the FCC would essentially require a cable provider to carry a network on a certain tier unless they determined it was part of an agreement that Comcast reneged on.

Is this a decision intended to serve as a warning to cable providers against applying a different standard for their own networks versus third-party networks? Or was this a preemptive shot at ala carte pricing? There has to be a logical reason.

[JonInMiddleGA]

NFL Network Gets a Lift From Ruling - NYTimes.com

This explains it about as well as anything I've seen since Friday's ruling. The FCC decision basically sends the matter to an administrative law judge to decide. The complaint being heard by the FCC appears to have centered on whether Versus & The Golf Channel (owned by Comcast) were getting preferential treatment over NFL Network (which seems to be a no-no under Commission rules).

Whether that's the case is a different matter, as Comcast maintains that those two are charging significantly less than NFL Network's demand of $0.70 per subscriber.

[Mr. Olympia]

Will this apply to other cable companies, or just Comcast.

My little cable company "Bresnan" did the exact same thing last year. The NFL package was in the expanded digital package and then right before this years draft it was moved to the Sports package although Versus and Altitude stayed in the expanded package.


And, is anyone talking refund for people who were forced into buying the Sports package?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mr. Olympia

Will this apply to other cable companies, or just Comcast.

I would assume it's just Comcast since this particular challenge appears related to their ownership stake in two other networks.

And, is anyone talking refund for people who were forced into buying the Sports package?

I can't imagine there would be since no one was "forced" to do anything. Contrary to what a handful of people seem to believe, the NFL Network is not required for anyone's continued existence.

[astrosfan64]

The problem is that cable networks have a monopoly on the business. This is the reason why the FCC/courts need to get involved.

I only have 1 choice of cable provider for my area. I have sudden link where i live and it is impossible for me to get the NFL Network games. Satellite is not an option, because we would have to get tree's cut down and personally I'm not a big fan.

If they gave me a choice of the cable provider for my area, then it wouldn't be a bit deal. But, I don't have a choice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

The problem is that cable networks have a monopoly on the business. This is the reason why the FCC/courts need to get involved.

Local governments control which cable providers are allowed to do business in an area through the issuance of "franchises". It's a system that developed out of federal regulations (dating back to the late 80's I believe) but ultimately the feds don't control which providers do business in your area.

Satellite is not an option, because we would have to get tree's cut down and personally I'm not a big fan.

Umm ... doesn't that mean that satellite is an option, but that it's one you've chosen not to exercise?

[gstelmack]

Competition is revving up, with the phone companies finally getting more involved. It's going to be interesting to see how TWC adjusts in this area as AT&T UVerse moves in...

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

NFL Network Gets a Lift From Ruling - NYTimes.com

This explains it about as well as anything I've seen since Friday's ruling. The FCC decision basically sends the matter to an administrative law judge to decide. The complaint being heard by the FCC appears to have centered on whether Versus & The Golf Channel (owned by Comcast) were getting preferential treatment over NFL Network (which seems to be a no-no under Commission rules).

Whether that's the case is a different matter, as Comcast maintains that those two are charging significantly less than NFL Network's demand of $0.70 per subscriber.

I think it falls somewhere between completely insane and correct. I think 2 other fringe channels getting preferential treatment over NFLN is not right, but at the same time, I also think that NFLN's per subscriber demands are pretty high to be part of a basic package.

So, as a DirecTV subscriber, I give this a big ol' meh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I think 2 other fringe channels getting preferential treatment over NFLN is not right

The arcane rules & regs aside for a minute (because I believe they do prohibit it) what would be wrong with putting your own product in line ahead of someone else's that you have to pay for?

I mean, what makes more business sense -- moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket or giving that money to someone else (for a product that you aren't likely to be able to recover the cost on except through directly raising subscribers cable bills)?

edit to add: The reality is that on the system level, there are few places outside the top handful of markets that can even sell out existing inventory on the networks they have much less one that has a noticeable demand a few months a year. And since there's inventory available for existing NFL programming in most markets (such as the ESPN game), all the systems will be doing is shifting revenue from one network to another. The addition of the NFL Network isn't going to generate new ad revenue for them, and it seems highly unlikely that the addition would be a significant difference maker in number of subscribers, leaving directly charging existing customers to recover the cost as the only realistic option.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The arcane rules & regs aside for a minute (because I believe they do prohibit it) what would be wrong with putting your own product in line ahead of someone else's that you have to pay for?

I mean, what makes more business sense -- moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket or giving that money to someone else (for a product that you aren't likely to be able to recover the cost on except through directly raising subscribers cable bills)?

I don't see what the problem is, exactly. It's not as Comcast is "blocking out" the NFLN, but they just don't feel consumers should have to pay what the NFL is asking.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The arcane rules & regs aside for a minute (because I believe they do prohibit it) what would be wrong with putting your own product in line ahead of someone else's that you have to pay for?

I mean, what makes more business sense -- moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket or giving that money to someone else (for a product that you aren't likely to be able to recover the cost on except through directly raising subscribers cable bills)?

The goal should be to give consumers what they ask for, not what you think they should have (and by you, of course I mean the cable company). Versus and the Golf Channel over the NFL Network? I don't know, maybe the numbers bear that out. But on the face it seems like solely a business decision. And I know cable operators are held to a higher standard than that mostly, correct? It's an honest question, I do not know the ratings for these channels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

The goal should be to give consumers what they ask for, not what you think they should have (and by you, of course I mean the cable company).

Which begs the question: Are there actually enough people willing to pay for the NFLN to justify it? The answer to that one is pretty obvious, since that's what the NFL is crying about: customers being asked to pay for it.

Versus and the Golf Channel over the NFL Network? I don't know, maybe the numbers bear that out. But on the face it seems like solely a business decision. And I know cable operators are held to a higher standard than that mostly, correct?

Not all that much really. The rule in question here seems to concern not giving preferential treatment to networks you own at the expense of networks you don't. Given the silly amount NFLN is asking per subscriber I can't assume that's the case (looks like that's what a judge will be asked to determine). There's some must-carry rules involving broadcast stations that are outside of strictly business but those aren't really in play on this one.

It's an honest question, I do not know the ratings for these channels.

They're pretty well meh for any of them most of the time.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Local governments control which cable providers are allowed to do business in an area through the issuance of "franchises". It's a system that developed out of federal regulations (dating back to the late 80's I believe) but ultimately the feds don't control which providers do business in your area.



Umm ... doesn't that mean that satellite is an option, but that it's one you've chosen not to exercise?

Satellite is not the same as cable. Completely different technology and one that doesn't provide the same level of service when it comes to internet. To get the tree's cut down which aren't even on my property would be a "huge" undertaking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Satellite is not the same as cable.

Well duh.

Completely different technology and one that doesn't provide the same level of service when it comes to internet. To get the tree's cut down which aren't even on my property would be a "huge" undertaking.

I didn't say it was easy. But then again, is there some sort of divine right to cable that I've overlooked?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

get tree's cut down

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

the tree's cut down

Give me...."tree's cut down!"

[lordscarlet]

I don't understand when people say "I can't get satellite because the internet sucks." Why can't you get satellite and then use DSL or cable for internet? I'm not referring to people that don't have DSL or cable available, but you can get internet service separate from your satellite service.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

As if you needed further evidence that the current administration apparently secretly hates the free market ...

I have yet to find anyone that has any in-depth analysis of the rationale and reasoning for the decision. It certainly seems bizarre that the FCC would essentially require a cable provider to carry a network on a certain tier unless they determined it was part of an agreement that Comcast reneged on.

Is this a decision intended to serve as a warning to cable providers against applying a different standard for their own networks versus third-party networks? Or was this a preemptive shot at ala carte pricing? There has to be a logical reason.

A shot for or against ala carte pricing? Ala carte pricing would be the death of cable tv as we know it. No idea if that's a good or bad thing, tho.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

a la carte pricing would probably mean far more expensive cable. I can't imagine how much a network like USA Network or ESPN would have to charge it wasn't on a basic tier.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Give me...."tree's cut down!"

Find some new material.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Find some new material.

Write better.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

Find some new material.

I like the classics, personally.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I don't understand when people say "I can't get satellite because the internet sucks." Why can't you get satellite and then use DSL or cable for internet? I'm not referring to people that don't have DSL or cable available, but you can get internet service separate from your satellite service.

I did just that for a while. I had DirecTV, RoadRunner, and BellSouth phone service for a while. We then got TWC's phone service, and eventually moved to all-cable, but for a while I had a different provider for each service.

[RendeR]

Not to throw any more negativity into this thread, but the whole tree cutting thing is invalid. Trees don't block sattelite reception. microwave transmisions go right through them.

I asked the same thing before I got mine because there are tres in teh distance that could have affected my service, but its totally irrelevent. now if you had a building ot mountain in the way, you'd be screwed. Trees? umm, no.

[RendeR]

And just to look at this from another PoV...

NFL network has the riht to demand whatever it wishes for its network. NFL network has absolutely nothing to lose in doing so.

Comcast, IMHO has the right to refuse to carry it at that price.

Comcast has everything to lose by choosing not to, as subscribers leave them to go to services that do offer it.

The FCC ruling aside, Comcast is stupid to not carry it because in the long run they hurt themselves more in lost customer base than they'l ever recoup by caving in to the FCC and everything else after trying to fight it.

Bad business practice. They had to know they'd lose this. Seems downright stupid to have tried to carry on the fight.

Time warner handles the cable service in my area and they're simply awful. They can't even get contracts settled with local TV stations in a timely manner. They've lost thousands of customers because they failed to get the Buffalo Bills TV affiliate under contract.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Comcast has everything to lose by choosing not to, as subscribers leave them to go to services that do offer it.

The question is whether they lose more customers because of the few that might care about NFL Network enough to switch versus the number of customers they lose because of the perception of "great, yet another monthly rate increase"

Seems to me that the latter is likely to be a bigger number than the former.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The question is whether they lose more customers because of the few that might care about NFL Network enough to switch versus the number of customers they lose because of the perception of "great, yet another monthly rate increase"

Seems to me that the latter is likely to be a bigger number than the former.

I do always love the myopia of sports fans with regards to these things. They never see what you're talking about here. I swear, every hardcore sports fan I talk to thinks it's ok to have to pay $100 per month for cable, has to have every sports package down to the Big Sky Network, but could care less if every other station is dropped. Yet they're always bitching about how they have to pay too much for the Super Lacrosse League Channel.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

has to have every sports package down to the Big Sky Network

No disrespect intended to our non-BCS brethren but ... for some reason this made me LOL.

Thanks, laughs aren't all that easy to come by lately.

[sterlingice]

(Is there such an animal as the Big Sky Network? It has to be asked in this day and age)

SI

[cuervo72]

My wife went to NAU - we'd probably watch a Big Sky Network once in a while.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Not to throw any more negativity into this thread, but the whole tree cutting thing is invalid. Trees don't block sattelite reception. microwave transmisions go right through them.

I asked the same thing before I got mine because there are tres in teh distance that could have affected my service, but its totally irrelevent. now if you had a building ot mountain in the way, you'd be screwed. Trees? umm, no.

You are wrong.

Water absorbs microwave signals. Leaves are full of water. Therefore leaves absorb the satellite signal. This weakens the signal, and may or may not weaken it enough to interfere with your reception. So depending on the trees, some folks may receive through, some won't. Due to the difficulties, sat companies don't want to deal with the issues and service calls.

Example: http://web.mit.edu/mwpstr/www/foto/node6.html

One confusing thing for folks is that the sat signals are often coming down at a steeper angle than you think, so the trees may or may not really be blocking the sat itself.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A shot for or against ala carte pricing? Ala carte pricing would be the death of cable tv as we know it. No idea if that's a good or bad thing, tho.

SI

I think it's a shot against ala carte pricing. Essentially that is what Comcast has tried to do, placing NFLN on a separate tier as a draw to sell the upgrade. The FCC is saying no, you have to put it on the basic tier. That doesn't sound like the action of a supporter of ala carte.

I agree wholeheartedly about ala carte pricing killing cable TV as we know it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You are wrong.

Water absorbs microwave signals. Leaves are full of water. Therefore leaves absorb the satellite signal. This weakens the signal, and may or may not weaken it enough to interfere with your reception. So depending on the trees, some folks may receive through, some won't. Due to the difficulties, sat companies don't want to deal with the issues and service calls.

Example: http://web.mit.edu/mwpstr/www/foto/node6.html

One confusing thing for folks is that the sat signals are often coming down at a steeper angle than you think, so the trees may or may not really be blocking the sat itself.

If you have a FOREST between you and the satellite, you are certainly correct, but if yer talking a few trees? what, 2-3 deep? its not going to affect your service.

Now thinking further on that you would probably see some issues during winter if you get snow where you are. Snow is the main reason I'm moving my dish under the upstairs deck. One less thing to worry about =)