http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/ Engadget Comments for ESPN and NFL Network, working on a deal http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
Now instead of one network trying to lever more networks onto your cable bill, we have two working together to do so.

A La Carte will require cable channels to be worthwhile on their own, instead of being places on the system via deals by channels that are worth having.]]>Jun 21st 2008 6:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
Is the current system fair to the guys who just want a couple channels and pay for 40+? Maybe not, but they could always choose free, over the air broadcasts instead. The fact is your cable bill helps pay for a wide range of channels that maybe you want, and maybe you don't. A la Carte will remove good programming from TV, Believing that it wiill just migrate into other channels and condense seems a little too hopeful to me. There's always a chance as more shows move to the Internet, it may find a new home there, but that's also going to be a bust if ISP's follow through with putting caps on usage every month, like the've already started.

Our courant TV services are certainly not perfect, but I'd rather help pay so that a few people can watch shows they really enjoy, then just try to pay for the channels I want and watch them start to fade away as subscriptions drop. Just my opinion.]]>Jun 22nd 2008 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
It just doesn't work. :(]]>Jun 21st 2008 7:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
The current system doesn't work either. I'm paying for 4 ESPNs, NFL and NBA networks, and I don't watch any of them. I'm paying for Animal Planet, the Military Channel (actually, I think that's gone now) and plenty of more crap. Who is to say this isn't costing me $40/mo?

As to the idea that small-market channels would be expensive, they'd only be as expensive as the market would bear. If they try to charge $40/month, they'll have zero subscribers. So they are greatly incented to charge less.

In short, as much as you may like Rescue Me or The Shield, it's not up to me to subsidize the cost of producing them for you.]]>Jun 21st 2008 7:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
It sounds great in theory, but just won't work in practice.

(at least you didn't complain about the shopping channels like a lot of people do -- those channels actually have to pay the cable/sat companies to be shown)]]>Jun 21st 2008 9:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
So instead of 300 channels running their shows 5 times a week I'll have 60 channels running each show once. As a PVR owner, repeats are of limited value to me, whereas freeing up bandwidth for better image quality or more channels (once the existing 60 become truly full) has more value. And my provider can save money by not having to pay to carry a lot of channels that don't have much content on them anyway.

DISH stands up to these networks, threatening to drop them if they don't prove their worth. They're the only ones. The other providers give into these content providers, leading to far too many channels with far too little content on each one.]]>Jun 21st 2008 11:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/Jun 21st 2008 8:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
And the way I remember it, the pats were the last one to have the ball with time left on the clock and failed to get it done.

For the record I'm a Bucs fan.]]>Jun 21st 2008 8:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
Dude, quit your bitching, cancel your service if you don't want to pay for it. ]]>Jun 21st 2008 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
You don't agree. Great, state your opinion. But just because we don't agree doesn't mean my opinion is invalid.]]>Jun 21st 2008 11:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/Jun 22nd 2008 12:06AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
There's no good reason for content to exist on its own. If there isn't enough demand to pay for it, then there's no particular reason it should be produced. So why lament its loss (along with the loss of having to pay for it)?]]>Jun 22nd 2008 1:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/21/espn-and-nfl-network-working-on-a-deal/
Oh wait, we have monopolies.]]>Jun 22nd 2008 12:00AM