Fox Sports 2

ComcastTeds-

Just found out today that FS2 is available in SD on Channel 737 in Manayunk (a NW area of Philly) - but of course it's not on any of the suburban systems.

Any news on if this will ever roll out to the areas around Philly?

ComcastTeds, You said: "Generally, new networks want to be added to a very widely distributed level of service for the potential of the most eyeballs (ratings) and advertising revenue. That means that the costs are then spread across all of our customers, not just to those who want to pay individually for that specific service or a Sports Package."

So, what I'm reading is that,since Fox Sports2 is available in some markets, I in fact already Pay for Fox Sports 2? I am paying for a channel that I want, but do not and can not get?

Maybe they should call Fox Sports 2  Al Jazzera Fox Sports 2 and Comcast will put it on!!

---

@PSUMattDE wrote:

ComcastTeds-

Just found out today that FS2 is available in SD on Channel 737 in Manayunk (a NW area of Philly) - but of course it's not on any of the suburban systems.

 

Any news on if this will ever roll out to the areas around Philly?

---

The Manayunk-Roxborough area of Philadelphia was a Time Warner owned and managed cable system that was acquired by Comcast in the early 2000's.

Generally, the pre-acquisition programming agreement may allow for honoring the existing programming contracts for channels that were already on the cable system at the time of acquisition until such contract terms would expire or possibly subsequently be renewed.

This is likely the case in the situation that you reference above. 

As started earlier, we don't have any news to announce about additional distribution of Fox Sports 2 at this time.  Thanks for your interest.

---

@RealSpyGirl wrote:

ComcastTeds, You said: "Generally, new networks want to be added to a very widely distributed level of service for the potential of the most eyeballs (ratings) and advertising revenue. That means that the costs are then spread across all of our customers, not just to those who want to pay individually for that specific service or a Sports Package."

 

So, what I'm reading is that,since Fox Sports2 is available in some markets, I in fact already Pay for Fox Sports 2? I am paying for a channel that I want, but do not and can not get?

---

Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Let me try again:

"The costs are spread across all of the customers that have that channel in their level of service, not just to those who want to pay individually for that specific service or via a separate Sports Package."

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. 

---

@markdartj wrote:
RSG, you raise a valid point- our rates have gone up regularly over the years, yet COMCASTis losing diversity in its program lineup. As far as sports go, they cannot claim to have the most sports when one sees a page of nothing but College basketball scheduled. So to you, COMCAST TEDS, your position is untenable. We are already paying for FOX SPORTS 2, so let us watch it for crying out loud! Then all of this angst, anger and dissatisfaction goes away and you can get on with your meetings behind closed doors.

---

If you don't have Fox Sports 2 in your channel lineup, then you are not paying for Fox Sports 2. 

---

@duffey3700 wrote:

Comcast Ted, are you saying that when and if we start getting Fox Sports 2 then we will be paying an extra fee to receive it?

---

I was responding directly to the question above my response. 

For background - Fox Sports 2 (like most cable networks) charge a per subscriber fee per month to the video provider based on how many customers receive the channel.

Those new costs are usually passed along to our customers who receive that channel.

If you are on a cable system that already offers Fox Sports 2 on the channel lineup, then the cost of that network would be included in your monthly bundled cable invoice for video services. 

The larger issue (condensed version) is that sports programming is typically much more expensive than your usual cable network. That is just a fact; lots of factors contribute to that.

Most video providers would actually like to only provide some of the more costly sports networks on a Sports Package so that people that want those sports channels would bear the costs and that not all customers would have to pay for that service. 

Conversely, the cable networks would rather be seen by as many eyeballs as possible for advertising revenue, reach and ratings. 

The above is usually what the negotiations focus on.    

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

Some good background for all on the sports rights TV landscape and costs (from August 2013) from Variety at the link below:

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/sports-fans-to-spend-more-money-to-watch-favorite-teams-1200577215/#

Some folks may not care about all of that that background, but others may be interested.

Comcast Ted, are you saying that when and if we start getting Fox Sports 2 then we will be paying an extra fee to receive it?

*Delete* Comcast/Xfinity does in fact carry fox sports 2 in my area. 

Below shows us the nascar broadcasting comcast subsciber's are NOT able to view just from the next week. Any pace FS2 appears = You're Screwed.

Month...Date..... Day...... Start Time Program/Race.................................... Race Site....... Network Approx.GreenFlag

---

@markdartj wrote:
I read the Variety article, and basically what I got from it is that sports programming in general are the only thing keeping providers afloat. So it makes sense to me that you provide more sports programming, instead of trying to blackball a network because suddenly you're afraid you'll have to raise our rates. That rings very hollow, since, as I've said earlier, you raise our rates all the time. What needs to be done is get rid of all the chaff in your programming and use your apparently limited resources to satisfy your customers. How many shopping networks do we need? Why do we need ESPNHD and ESPN2HD on four channels instead of just two? It's a safe bet to assume that more people would want FOX SPOTS 2 than Al-Jazeera. Do you understand what I'm saying? You are wasting resources.
You refuted your own statement that costs for new networks are borne by everyone subscribing to COMCAST, not just those who have the sports and entertainment package. Also you have not addressed the fact that if Comcast is so pressed for money, that any network added will have to be paid for by the customers, YET- you seem to have bucket loads of cash to buy out your competitors in order to become a monopoly. Shouldn't be a problem for you, since the head of the FCC Tom Wheeler, was formerly head of the number one lobby for the cable industry. No conflict of interest there? And where is all that money coming from? My guess is that ultimately we are paying for that endeavour.
Something else I gleaned from the article in Variety, is that for years you had a profit margin of around 75%, and that now your margin is shrinking "to a more reasonable size".
So then, I put it to you again: since you are always raising our rates anyway, and those with the "sports and entertainment" package will be the ones bering the cost , not everyone else; I see no valid reason for not providing your loyal customers, your "most preferred customers" (COMCAST'S words, not mine) with what they want. You need to sell sports programming to remain relevant, so do it! Then all this ugliness doesn't get drawn out for another six months; it goes away. I am sick and tired of getting nothing but apologies because without action, they're just insincere. It's just one channel for god's sake. LET US WATCH IT! We are not giving up like obedient sheep.

---

Ok, a lot going on above.

No network is being blackballed. Negotiations are ongoing. Our programming teams meet with networks all the time to work on deals and contracts that make the most sense for our customers and our business.   

It takes two parties to negotiate and come to an equitable agreement for carriage of any cable network.

Below is a quote from Mediacomm (a peer cable company), from early 2013 that I think helps illustrate the situation. 

“Contrary to accusations by industry critics, cable companies are reluctant to raise video subscriber rates because when we do, we lose customers. Mediacom does not make more money when we raise

video prices, since we remit virtually every penny of the increase on to the content owners. Over the last three years, the increase in our programming costs was more than double the increase in video revenues, even after taking our subscriber rate increases and equipment charges into account.”

I was concerned about your statement that Comcast “raise(s) rates all the time”. I reviewed your last year of cable statements and I see one month (June) where your account rolled out of a discounted promotional rate into the normal rate for our bundled video services. I also saw a slight increase in January on your bundled video services. I’m not sure that qualifies as “all the time”.

Shopping Networks usually have a revenue share with the video provider. Believe it or not, these shopping channels actually help offset your monthly video rates.

Having any channel mirrored on another display channel takes up no (zero) additional bandwidth – it is done as a courtesy to provide our customers with an easy way to locate some channels.

We don’t currently have an agreement to add Fox Sports 2 to any Sports Package, as much as we might want to.

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. 

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