Are you ready for some football?

If you’re served by a large cableco and don’t want to pay extra for a sports tier to see NFL Network’s Thursday and Saturday night games, it may not matter much.

The league awarded its NFL Network a series of late-season games last year hoping to raise the value of the valuable content asset and claiming to want the games accessible to all, in cable’s case, on its basic tier of service.

But big cable, claiming it didn’t want to charge all its customers for the NFL Network carriage fees, has put it on a higher tier, or in the case of Comcast, as part of a special digital sports tier.

The result for fans, one year after the impasse was reached? Customers who don’t have a higher tier or pay for a special sports package don’t get to see the games, unless they have Verizon’s FiOS, AT&T’s U-verse or service from a satellite provider.

Otherwise, the big screen becomes a black one at game time.

But don’t drop all your anger on cablecos. In fact, examine the agendas of both parties before assessing any blame at all.

The league wants the NFL Network to be a huge success. Cablecos want to make money on the asset too. It’s really all about the Benjamins, which leaves fans confused and angry at best.

And while the NFL would have all believe that big cable is the big bad guy in this situation, there are two sides to every story.

Cablecos say they need to charge extra for those wanting NFL Network because it’s not fair to charge all basic cable customers for a channel that only carries live games for a few months and content they say most aren’t interested in for the rest of the year.

I understand both arguments, but would far prefer to NOT be in the middle of them.

I hate to play worst-case-scenario, but if this situation continues, remember that the final NFL Network game this year (currently-undefeated Patriots vs. Giants), could be showcasing a team set to break the undefeated season record held by the 1972 Dolphins, essentially making it must-see TV.

It will be shown in the Boston and New York TV markets on local TV, but if things remain the same, and you’re a cable customer who doesn’t ante up, you’ll need a real (non-cable) B plan for viewing the contest.

Both sides are, and have been, sticking to their guns. Which means one thing: the fans aren’t the only losers.

User Comments !

I am not a sports fan, and I do not want to pay higher cable/satellite fees to carry sports.  Those that want high-cost sports programming should pay for it.

Posted by: Scott Neader | November 29 2007 12:10:34

Bob, thanks for bringing attention to this subject. You have to look back at ESPN2 exclusively televising UNC/Duke basketball back in 1998 for additional carriage.  How many subs do they have today? 90M+?  That's what the NFL Network is using for a template and so will the Big Ten Network (imagine Ohio State/Michigan football on BTN!) and other sports networks going forward.

Posted by: Jeremy | November 29 2007 12:48:14