Mega Companies, "Consumer Choice" and Money

As of midnight tonight I probably won’t get the NFL Network through Comcast when their current agreement expires. I don’t care mind you; but, it’s a cause celebre on the local sports talk radio outlets.

The behemoths Comcast and the NFL are pissing at each other, the former telling us that this is a matter of consumer choice, the latter telling us that it is a matter of consumer choice. It’s a matter of money.

Comcast carries the network on one of its premium tiers and pays the NFl a large amount for a smaller number of subscribers. The NFL wants the network carried as part of the basic package and wants to be paid a nice amount per more heads. Guess which way gets the NFL more money?

Of course, there is consumer choice involved either way the channel is offered. Even though I don’t want the channel, I get it, and pay for it, because I want some of the other channels in the tier. If it became part of the basic package at more cost to Comcast, I’d still get it, eventually at some incremental cost as Comcast would be paying more. What do you want to bet that if it moves to the basic package that Comcast won’t lower the price of the tier it is on now?

I’d really like to see a la carte cable pricing. I get some 250 channels almost none of which I watch. But I have to get that many channels because the tier system spreads the channels I want out over the tiers. I doubt that a la carte would reduce my cost though given my viewing, it should; but, it would be a truer test of the viability of the various channels. I’d love to see what channels fall by the wayside after a year of living on their own merits.

Here in Georgia it is illegal for a liquor distributor to “tie” products. In other words if you distribute the popular Kettle One vodka, you can’t make a bar, restaurant or liquor store buy a case of some unpopular brand in order to be able to buy the Kettle One.

So why can Comcast tier its channels, making me buy the NFL Channel to get the Golf Channel?