I'm a fan of the NFL, but I'm not sure this a win for the NFL. Sure they raked in tons of advertising dollars, but overall they weakened their position with the cable companies when they went to the government and were slapped down as being anti-consumer. They had to simulcast this game after that stunt or they would have alienated some of their fans who could not receive the game. I believe the NFL network will have to work a little harder in 2008 to come to some type of agreement or the government may step in on their own next time.
I also have to side with Comcast and Time Warner on this deal. If you look at Comcast who has somewhere around 20 million basic subscribers the NFL network wants them to pay $0.70 per subscriber per month to carry 8 football games. That will cost Comcast $168 million over the course of the year. Does everyone really think that Comcast will just absorb this cost and not pass it on to their subscribers? I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of Comcast's subs would be fine with missing the game versus their bill going up again. Everyone screams whenever their cable rates go up, but those increases are typically driven by the increase in programming costs that the cable and satellite companies are asked to bear. This whole situation makes me wonder what the NFL would charge each subscriber for their channel if the industry moved towards an "a la carte" model.
If I want to watch the games I'll subscribe to the sports tier. I might only subscriber for a couple of months while the games are on, but at least I would have the choice. If the NFL network wants me to keep the network year round they will need to create some out of season programming that is compelling and not just show re-runs of past games.
The device is aimed at gamers and TV watchers, generating a 3D image with use of a pair of 0.7-inch OLED panels, which each display separate images, doing away with the ghost imagery that often comes along with 3D displays.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'm a fan of the NFL, but I'm not sure this a win for the NFL. Sure they raked in tons of advertising dollars, but overall they weakened their position with the cable companies when they went to the government and were slapped down as being anti-consumer. They had to simulcast this game after that stunt or they would have alienated some of their fans who could not receive the game. I believe the NFL network will have to work a little harder in 2008 to come to some type of agreement or the government may step in on their own next time.
I also have to side with Comcast and Time Warner on this deal. If you look at Comcast who has somewhere around 20 million basic subscribers the NFL network wants them to pay $0.70 per subscriber per month to carry 8 football games. That will cost Comcast $168 million over the course of the year. Does everyone really think that Comcast will just absorb this cost and not pass it on to their subscribers? I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of Comcast's subs would be fine with missing the game versus their bill going up again. Everyone screams whenever their cable rates go up, but those increases are typically driven by the increase in programming costs that the cable and satellite companies are asked to bear. This whole situation makes me wonder what the NFL would charge each subscriber for their channel if the industry moved towards an "a la carte" model.
If I want to watch the games I'll subscribe to the sports tier. I might only subscriber for a couple of months while the games are on, but at least I would have the choice. If the NFL network wants me to keep the network year round they will need to create some out of season programming that is compelling and not just show re-runs of past games.