Fox Sports 2

---

@TrackDay wrote:

My Xfinity support page shows FS2 as available now on the Digital Preferred package. Curiously enough FS1 is not available with that package. It is only available with Digital Premier, which of course does not have FS2 included. I'm calling Xfinity tomorrow to clarify but for right now seems strange.

 

BTW, I'm in Michigan.

---

Apologies for any confusion. I don't currently see Fox Sports 2 as an available channel on your lineup via our internal channel lineup tool. Fox Sports 2 is currently available in some locations.      

What about those of us that had Fuel TV are paying the highest amount known to man and are not getting FS2?  Tired of this!

---

@markdartj wrote:

---

@ComcastTeds wrote:

---

@l_turn9 wrote:

I'm thinking that since it looks like comcast will never give us FS2 and because of that, we're better off without having FS1 - when it comes to sports car racing at least.  (that's all I watch).  Last weekend, the annual 12 Hours at Sebring (Fl) was held.  True to form comcast aired approx. the 1st half of the race on FS1 then switched to FS2 which I don't  have.   This would be like showing the 1st 2 quarters of the Super Bowl then dropping the last 2!  I bet even obtuse comcast would listen to the uproar that would result!  I fear the sports car fans are just a too small group to get any rise out of comcast.  This forum obviously doesn't work.  I assume the only reason comcast created the forum was to give us a place to complain and they never had any intent of providing FS2.

---

Apologies. To clarify, the programming switch and programming on Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 is done by Fox without any input or direction from Comcast. Apologies that Fox chose to make that programming switch mid-race.  

 

Apologies, we don't have any additional news to provide now around Fox Sports 2 being added to additional Comcast areas.  

---

Ok, I have to jump in here.  On the last page (pg 30), ComcastZach says you are adding Fox Sports 2 in some areas, with the intention of adding it to all areas.  Now you say "we don't have any additional news around FS2 being added to additional Comcast areas).  So who is telling the truth here?  You or Zach?  You have 31 pages of unhappy customers, yet "there are no plans.....yadda yadda yadda"  Do you really care about your customers or is it just marketing drivel?  Your apologies ring very hollow, TED.  This can all go away in a heartbeat.  All Comcast has to do is agree to the terms Fox has set forward, in the same way we have to agree to the terms you put forward.  It is high time that Comcast starts listening to it's customers, rather than trying to squeeze every last nickel and dime for profit.

A gentleman from Michigan said on Facebook that you have added FS2 in his area, to the premium tier.  That flies in the face of everything you've said.  So once again, who is lying?  You,  your colleague Zach, or both of you?  Don't you get tired of having to apologize all the time?  Just fix the problem.

---

I believe what Zach was saying is that we have added Fox Sports 2 in areas where Fuel TV was previously offered. That is not new news. 

We are not currently in agreement with the terms that Fox has offered. Unfortunately, the issue and negotiations go a bit deeper than a single channel. 

---

@markdartj wrote:

So, answer me this, TED, If you are in compliance with the terms that Fox has offered you, why don't you tell us what the sticking points are?  In that way, you can harness all the unhappiness that your customers feel and we can put pressure on FOX.  Why all the opacity?  Give us information. The way your corporation is behaving is doing your customers, those who ultimately hire you to bring wanted services into our homes, a great disservice.  You are constantly telling us "It has to make sense for all the parties involved", yet I don't recall ever being asked what I would prefer.  Are we not your most important "party"? SIne qua non? We have made our preferences quite clear, yet COMCAST has chosen to ignore them.  Like I have told you before, if there were a choice of alternative service where I live, I would jump on it in a heartbeat.  So in order to watch what I want to watch, I have to pay you for hundreds of channels I will never see, much less spend time watching them. Nobody from COMCAST has ever asked me: "Would you still want FS2 if we had to raise your rates?"  In fact, you are the only party in this thread who has stated anything about rates going up.  Most of us wouldn't care about the rates going up as long as we are able to watch what we want.  In fact, I think we expect that as an inevitablility. So why is COMCAST alway ranked last in customer satisfaction?  BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.  Your whole "Comcast Cares" campaign is a joke.  Just more marketing drivel.

---

I imagine that there are a few "sticking points". I am not privy to them all and most companies don't negotiate contact terms publicly. Most all of this is based on economics.  

As mentioned before, we are not currently permitted to offer Fox Sports 2 as an a-la-carte channel or as a part of a sports package, as much as we and/or our customers might like us to do. We are not currently permitted to offer customers this channel as a single channel or as a part of a sports tier and charge accordingly for it.   

Most all cable networks are paid by the video provider based on the number of subscribers that have a channel in a level of service. Most cable networks want their channels to be available to as many customers as possible. More customers translates to more money per-subscriber per month to that cable network plus the potential for more advertising revenue and reach for that cable network.  

Our customers have told us that they would like their cable rates not to continue to rise and to remain at or close to their current level. Offering FS2 (and possibly other Fox operated channels) to a wide (or wider) level of service (examples: Digital Starter, Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, etc.) would cause the monthly per subscriber costs that we pay to go up considerably. The more customers that have FS2 equals more that we pay to Fox every month. These are costs that would be passed along directly to our customers. 

Costs and customer feedback have a lot to do with any programming decision.

We understand your (and others) passion and desire to have this channel. We don't currently have any announcements to make regarding this specific service.

As I mentioned, the negotiations for FS2 are not just about FS2. Fox owns and/or has an ownership stake in a few other sports, news and entertainment  channels. 

Some references:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Entertainment_Group#Cable_network_programming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YES_Network

There is a good overview on this general topic (the cost of sports TV)  in today's Wall Street Journal.

Thanks for your feedback, it has certainly been heard and shared.  

So, answer me this, TED, If you are in compliance with the terms that Fox has offered you, why don't you tell us what the sticking points are?  In that way, you can harness all the unhappiness that your customers feel and we can put pressure on FOX.  Why all the opacity?  Give us information. The way your corporation is behaving is doing your customers, those who ultimately hire you to bring wanted services into our homes, a great disservice.  You are constantly telling us "It has to make sense for all the parties involved", yet I don't recall ever being asked what I would prefer.  Are we not your most important "party"? SIne qua non? We have made our preferences quite clear, yet COMCAST has chosen to ignore them.  Like I have told you before, if there were a choice of alternative service where I live, I would jump on it in a heartbeat.  So in order to watch what I want to watch, I have to pay you for hundreds of channels I will never see, much less spend time watching them. Nobody from COMCAST has ever asked me: "Would you still want FS2 if we had to raise your rates?"  In fact, you are the only party in this thread who has stated anything about rates going up.  Most of us wouldn't care about the rates going up as long as we are able to watch what we want.  In fact, I think we expect that as an inevitablility. So why is COMCAST alway ranked last in customer satisfaction?  BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.  Your whole "Comcast Cares" campaign is a joke.  Just more marketing drivel.

---

@ComcastTeds wrote:

---

@markdartj wrote:

So, answer me this, TED, If you are in compliance with the terms that Fox has offered you, why don't you tell us what the sticking points are?  In that way, you can harness all the unhappiness that your customers feel and we can put pressure on FOX.  Why all the opacity?  Give us information. The way your corporation is behaving is doing your customers, those who ultimately hire you to bring wanted services into our homes, a great disservice.  You are constantly telling us "It has to make sense for all the parties involved", yet I don't recall ever being asked what I would prefer.  Are we not your most important "party"? SIne qua non? We have made our preferences quite clear, yet COMCAST has chosen to ignore them.  Like I have told you before, if there were a choice of alternative service where I live, I would jump on it in a heartbeat.  So in order to watch what I want to watch, I have to pay you for hundreds of channels I will never see, much less spend time watching them. Nobody from COMCAST has ever asked me: "Would you still want FS2 if we had to raise your rates?"  In fact, you are the only party in this thread who has stated anything about rates going up.  Most of us wouldn't care about the rates going up as long as we are able to watch what we want.  In fact, I think we expect that as an inevitablility. So why is COMCAST alway ranked last in customer satisfaction?  BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.  Your whole "Comcast Cares" campaign is a joke.  Just more marketing drivel.

---

 

Our customers have told us that they would like their cable rates not to continue to rise and to remain at or close to their current level. Offering FS2 (and possibly other Fox operated channels) to a wide (or wider) level of service (examples: Digital Starter, Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, etc.) would cause the monthly per subscriber costs that we pay to go up considerably. The more customers that have FS2 equals more that we pay to Fox every month. These are costs that would be passed along directly to our customers. 

 

---

But then you raise rates anyway without offering any additional services. You raised the broadcast TV fee and you raised the regional sports fee. I have a two year contract where I agreed to pay a certain amount per month for those two years, but comcast found a way to make me pay more anyway by increasing these "fees." If comcast were really so concerned about not raising rates, why didn't comcast refuse to increase those "fees"? I was never asked if I wanted to pay more for the broadcast TV fee. I would rather comcast not carry my local broadcast channels, as I could just buy an attena to get those channels, while saving money on my bill. But Comcast never considered that, because they don't actually care about their customers.

What is telling is Comcast has no problem raising those "fees" by several dollars but 28 cents per subscriber per month, which would actually add something to people's service (fs2), is apparently too much (28 cents per month would not "cause the monthly per subscriber costs that we pay to go up considerably"). Comcast also refuses to find any other way of carrying the channel. While Comcast allegedly cannot carry FS2 on the sports package, they could still raise the sports package price to cover the costs of carrying FS2 on a wide level of service. That would solve the purported problem of not raising rates on a wide level of service, and also allow Comcast to carry FS2. 

I am so sick and tired of your and Comcast's excuses, Ted. I am a month away from getting out of this terrible contract (that, as I said above, Comcast did not honor because it raised the price during the contract). 

"Our customers have told us that they would like their cable rates not to continue to rise and to remain at or close to their current level. Offering FS2 (and possibly other Fox operated channels) to a wide (or wider) level of service (examples: Digital Starter, Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, etc.) would cause the monthly per subscriber costs that we pay to go up considerably. The more customers that have FS2 equals more that we pay to Fox every month. These are costs that would be passed along directly to our customers.".....Comcast Teds.

Nobody ever asked me.  It is very convenient for you to cite "customers", but who, and when did you ask?  Why can't you do a comprehensive survey about what customers are really unhappy about, be it rates, channel availability, priorities, etc.  Every other business seems to have surveys attatched to them.  Why not you?  My guess is that Comcast really doesn't want the feedback of customers.  You would rather keep them in the dark.  You would rather not know the extent of the rot.  Give us more that just anecdotes pulled out of a hat.

     By the way, TED, you've mentioned there are other Fox channels in the hold up.  It seems to me, looking at the link to Wikipedea you included in your last reply, we ALREADY have those other channels.  The only one we don't have is FS2.  I am certain that if you decided to play hardball, you could go to FOX and say, OK....we'll just drop all the Fox channels and replace them from other sources (actually, no need to replace them, since very few of them have content I care to watch....once again, a survey would tell you that).  Sure, you would have a lot of unhappy customers who do watch those channels, but hey, you already have that and it doesn't seem to bother you (By you, I don't mean you personally of course, but as you are the spokesman for COMCAST, you it is).  IT IS TIME TO STOP STRINGING US ALONG.

     Channels come and go constantly without any input from us.  Whose brilliant idea was it to add "Al Jazeera"?  Seriously?  You can add "Al Jazeera but not Fox Sports 2?  The ones that get added are usually garbage filler channels, which you get at the cheapest rates, yet as the previous posted commented, you have no problem raising "fees".  I have saved all my correspondence with Comcast, and maybe the answer is to send it all to the FCC.  You run roughshod over your customers with the attitude that says to us: this is what we offer; be happy with it or sod off to another provider.  My partner broke her back when she was 18 during a skydiving accident.  Now, almost forty years on, she is disabled.  That means we don't get out much.  The television is our means of entertainment.  If it were just me, being so disgusted with the way COMCAST does business, I would just cut the cord.  We have no alternative provider where we live.  In our case, COMCAST is a monopoly just dictating the terms.  I have had a lot of correspondence with Tom Wheeler, especially when Comcast was trying to merge with Time Warner Cable.  I guess I'll have to send some more letters.

---

@markdartj wrote:

"Our customers have told us that they would like their cable rates not to continue to rise and to remain at or close to their current level. Offering FS2 (and possibly other Fox operated channels) to a wide (or wider) level of service (examples: Digital Starter, Digital Economy, Digital Preferred, etc.) would cause the monthly per subscriber costs that we pay to go up considerably. The more customers that have FS2 equals more that we pay to Fox every month. These are costs that would be passed along directly to our customers.".....Comcast Teds.

 

Nobody ever asked me.  It is very convenient for you to cite "customers", but who, and when did you ask?  Why can't you do a comprehensive survey about what customers are really unhappy about, be it rates, channel availability, priorities, etc.  Every other business seems to have surveys attatched to them.  Why not you?  My guess is that Comcast really doesn't want the feedback of customers.  You would rather keep them in the dark.  You would rather not know the extent of the rot.  Give us more that just anecdotes pulled out of a hat.

 

     By the way, TED, you've mentioned there are other Fox channels in the hold up.  It seems to me, looking at the link to Wikipedea you included in your last reply, we ALREADY have those other channels.  The only one we don't have is FS2.  I am certain that if you decided to play hardball, you could go to FOX and say, OK....we'll just drop all the Fox channels and replace them from other sources (actually, no need to replace them, since very few of them have content I care to watch....once again, a survey would tell you that).  Sure, you would have a lot of unhappy customers who do watch those channels, but hey, you already have that and it doesn't seem to bother you (By you, I don't mean you personally of course, but as you are the spokesman for COMCAST, you it is).  IT IS TIME TO STOP STRINGING US ALONG.

 

     Channels come and go constantly without any input from us.  Whose brilliant idea was it to add "Al Jazeera"?  Seriously?  You can add "Al Jazeera but not Fox Sports 2?  The ones that get added are usually garbage filler channels, which you get at the cheapest rates, yet as the previous posted commented, you have no problem raising "fees".  I have saved all my correspondence with Comcast, and maybe the answer is to send it all to the FCC.  You run roughshod over your customers with the attitude that says to us: this is what we offer; be happy with it or sod off to another provider.  My partner broke her back when she was 18 during a skydiving accident.  Now, almost forty years on, she is disabled.  That means we don't get out much.  The television is our means of entertainment.  If it were just me, being so disgusted with the way COMCAST does business, I would just cut the cord.  We have no alternative provider where we live.  In our case, COMCAST is a monopoly just dictating the terms.  I have had a lot of correspondence with Tom Wheeler, especially when Comcast was trying to merge with Time Warner Cable.  I guess I'll have to send some more letters.

---

We do representative customer surveys and customer research all the time, on many topics, including focus groups. We aren't able to reach out to all of our customers all of the time.  

The reality is that the other Fox-owned and operated channels are an important factor in the ongoing discussions and negotiations for FS2. 

Al Jazerra America has been covered a few times in these forums. Condensed version: Al Jazeera America was formerly Current. Comcast had a distribution contract with Current. Current was sold to Al Jazeera America and that existing contract carried over to the new ownership.

Some more background here on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV

Apologies that we aren't able to provide Fox Sports 2 to more customers at this time. 

Your comments and feedback have been shared.

 I am a customer in Chicago area who is exasperated with the continued lack of FS2 on my system.  This is a reason that I literally pray every day for Google Fiber to come to my area.  

So what I'm reading here is that there is no way to watch the FA Cup semi final today.

Comcast, you are a disaster and an absolute rip off. Thank God fios will be available in my region soon

Not the best option but it's on Spanish FOX (channel 679 in my area).

"We do representative customer surveys and customer research all the time, on many topics, including focus groups. We aren't able to reach out to all of our customers all of the time." - Comcast Teds.