The Big Ten Network stole my car

[PKBadger]

As great as my distaste is for cable companies, the fact that BTN happend to decrease their demans by 0.20 doesn't mean anything to me. Their demands are ridiculous and they have no basis in reality. Why would they think they should get a better deal than ESPN? They're a limited draw, with a couple meaningful FB and BB games a year. Gimmee a break.

 

I don't see how they are any more of a "limited draw" than FSN is, and they get to be on expanded basic. Not to mention the Speed Channel and Golf Channel (which happen to be owned by Comcast.....hmmm, funny how that works). Plus BTN offers multiple feeds and every game in high-definition.

The dish companies and all of these mom-and-pop cable companies in smaller towns in Wisconsin have been able to add BTN without jacking their rates up, so the price argument is ridiculous. It's basically a cash grab for Comcast/Charter/Time Warner....they want you to blow $10/month on a digital sports tier when you're only going to watch one channel that costs $0.90. Instant profit, right? Well, it sure looks to be going swimmingly for the cable companies....maybe when their Q4 earnings suck again they'll get the point.

The funny thing about negotiations is that you need to be willing to compromise...BTN has shown on several occasions that they will, cable has not.

[Fatter than Joey]

I remember a game vs. Miami back in those days, and we kicked an early field goal to make it 3-0. "We're beating Miami! We're beating Miami!" Final score.... 51-3.

 

I was in Section O for that game -- It was on Nat'l TV -- I remember chanting -- "We scored first" and "We covered the spread"

[adamb100]

Im a fan of aisle carte TV programming. Cheaper and provides more competetion...

 

http://www.wewantchoicewi.com/

[burniebrewer]

Earlier in this thread I mentioned the Rocky Rococo's on Mineral Point Rd. as a family friendly place to watch the game, and it was. I was there for a child's birthday party and that was the tamest football crowd (about 100 people) I've ever experienced. If you're not familiar with this location, the game is shown in an old movie theater and all of the rows of seats have a small ledge to set your food upon.

 

Not a bad setup if you're not going to party.

[RockCoCougars]

Burnie, I've been to the Rocky's you are describing, and that theater would be a great place to go if you wanted to watch a game, had to leave home, and had to drag the rugrats with. That's a great recommendation.

[logan82]

Lots of good ideas, but I don't know what will hold an energetic 2 year old for long. Also I work on a shift where I have to record anything on primetime that I want to watch. BTN took my games away and the money grubbing cable companies are not helping get them back.

[Jimbo]

My folks were in Indiana last month visiting and my dad said Comcast is the big player down there and he feels Time Warner and Charter are sitting back to see how Comcast and BTN come to terms.

That said, my whole take on this is I'm putting the blame on the universities. Everything was fine before, why change? The cable companies have no obligation to roll over for these guys.

 

[endaround]

As great as my distaste is for cable companies, the fact that BTN happend to decrease their demans by 0.20 doesn't mean anything to me. Their demands are ridiculous and they have no basis in reality. Why would they think they should get a better deal than ESPN? They're a limited draw, with a couple meaningful FB and BB games a year. Gimmee a break.

I don't see how they are any more of a "limited draw" than FSN is, and they get to be on expanded basic. Not to mention the Speed Channel and Golf Channel (which happen to be owned by Comcast.....hmmm, funny how that works). Plus BTN offers multiple feeds and every game in high-definition.

The dish companies and all of these mom-and-pop cable companies in smaller towns in Wisconsin have been able to add BTN without jacking their rates up, so the price argument is ridiculous. It's basically a cash grab for Comcast/Charter/Time Warner....they want you to blow $10/month on a digital sports tier when you're only going to watch one channel that costs $0.90. Instant profit, right? Well, it sure looks to be going swimmingly for the cable companies....maybe when their Q4 earnings suck again they'll get the point.

The funny thing about negotiations is that you need to be willing to compromise...BTN has shown on several occasions that they will, cable has not.

The BTN idea of compromise is to go from "Give me your money or I'll shoot you in teh head" to "Give me your money or I'll shoot you in the chest". Why should I pay more for a channel that has no business existing except to force me to pay more? Most channels are provided nearly free to cable companies. Those that aren't have huge ratings. A channel that only has interest for 6 Saturdays a year is not worth $1 a month.

 

[Team Canada]

Im a fan of aisle carte TV programming. Cheaper and provides more competetion...

 

http://www.wewantchoicewi.com/

 

You mean a la carte?

 

[RobertR]

The BTN idea of compromise is to go from "Give me your money or I'll shoot you in teh head" to "Give me your money or I'll shoot you in the chest". Why should I pay more for a channel that has no business existing except to force me to pay more? Most channels are provided nearly free to cable companies. Those that aren't have huge ratings. A channel that only has interest for 6 Saturdays a year is not worth $1 a month.

BTN has a little more going for it than that. Certainly it's a much better product than the NFL network. The problem is, what do they have that's really worthwhile from April through August? And, really, they only have one day of worthwhile programming a week in September and October.

 

Frankly, a pay per view option makes more sense than carrying it on the Basic tier.

 

Robert

[Fatter than Joey]

Certainly it's a much better product than the NFL network. The problem is, what do they have that's really worthwhile from April through August?

 

I think they are going to show a lot of classic Big Ten games -- now of course, it is debatable whether or not that is worthwhile -- however

if the NFL network showed classic games in their entirety (as opposed to NFL films recaps) I'd certainly watch that in the summer.

[PeaveyFury]

A channel that only has interest for 6 Saturdays a year is not worth $1 a month.

 

How about the 4 hockey games and 20 basketball games that will be missed as well?

[bjkrautk]

Im a fan of aisle carte TV programming. Cheaper and provides more competetion...

 

http://www.wewantchoicewi.com/

 

I went to that site with some interest. They mentioned a piece of legislation to open things up for competition....is that tied to the BTN / NFLN discussion in the legislature? Has anyone read the proposed legislation (I don't know the bill #)?

Really, I'm curious as to what the legislation would permit: is it just open competition, or does it also have some sort of mandate for an a la carte model?

 

In theory, I'd love the a la carte model (as those months of not paying for MSNBC will pile up over time). My concern is that, once Charter / Time Warner has to assign a per-channel expense for its stations, it would nearly as much (if not more) than their current cable tiers.

[DuWayne Steurer]

A channel that only has interest for 6 Saturdays a year is not worth $1 a month.

 

How about the 4 hockey games and 20 basketball games that will be missed as well?

 

What if a customer doesn't give a rip about basketball or hockey, just the football games?

 

[MJLiverock]

I have posted it elsewhere but my basic thoughts are that Big 10 belongs on the expanded basic tier for cable in Big 10 country. Charter is trying to force the majority of its subscribers to add the sports tier at $8 to $10 per subscriber so they can make more money not the Big 10 conference. Charter knows the network would be one of the most popular networks since sports are typically the highest rated shows on cable. They are extorting the customers for the $8 to $10 they want not the $1.00 the Big 10 wants.

Think of it this way, if Charter just adds the Big 10 network to expanded basci and bumps pricing by $1.25 with $1.00 going to Big Ten then they make an extra $250,000 a month on a million total expanded basic subscribers. Big Ten Network would pull in $1Million. Now if Charter gets the channel on the sports tier at $8/month per subscriber in the Big 10 country and they get 30% of the same market to subscribe they stand to make an extra $2.1MM. (30% of 1 million subs * ($8 sub -$1 to big 10). The Big 10 then gets 300,000 new subs at $1 or $300,000 compared to the $1 million on expanded basic or 30% of what they were going to make. Charter gets 10x what the expanded basic option brings in even with only a 30% penetration rate. The numbers skew even higher for Charter if more subs have to add the sports tier and proving the Big 10's point that the channel is desired by a large number of subs. So who is the greedy one here?

Fans need to face facts and that is running a major athletic department costs a lot of money. It is a keeping up with the Jones' situation with facilities, coaching staffs, etc. The football and basketball teams revenues pay for almost all of the other sports. Successfull football and basketball teams drive higher donor gifts. The donations, tickets, and TV money give the athletic department the money to compete with the big boys not tax dollars as some like to complain. Do people really want to go back to half full stadiums for football and basketball? We can go back and hire a no name coach, never improve team facilities and take less money for TV and see where that gets the teams in a few years. There is a reason coaches and such get paid a lot of money. I remember the Don Morton era and how much money the athletic department bled. Bad teams don't sell out 80,000 seat stadiums with gifting requirements and big TV contracts.

National exposure is not hurt by the B10 network either. Most of the Big 10 networks games are the ones that ABC and ESPN didn't pick so they were only going to be picked up by ESPN Regional Telecasts i..e only on in the markets directly involved. So the past weekend's game would only have been on in WI and OH if it was on ESPN regional. Instead it was available in California, Texas, Florida, etc. for those that wanted it. Remember the B10 is offered at a lower rate in areas outside the Midwest because those areas aren't as interested in the B10 teams.

Why did Charter just announce a price increase effective Dec. 1st? So much for the we don't want to increase prices to add the Big 10. I gues they just increase prices and offer nothing.

Stop playing the Fox owns DirecTV conspiracy card. Fox announced the agreement to swap its ownership of DirecTV to Liberty Media in exchange for Liberty's share of Fox News back in December of 2006. A full 7 or 8 months before the Big 10 network was even launched. They had no idea at the time that Charter, Comcast and Time Warner weren't going to play ball. If they knew the cable companies were just going to hand DirecTV subscribers they probably would have asked for more value from Liberty.

And in response to some earlier posts.
Big 10 is not asking for a better deal than ESPN. ESPN is somewhere between $2.50 and $3.25/sub depending on cable system's size.
The other channels are not free to the cable companies. Discovery is at least $0.60. Disney is up around $0.80 as is TNT, Fox News, USA, etc. Some channels are $0.10-$0.40 but they are the true niche channels like SoapNet, Food, Style, E! etc. Sports programming trounces these channels in ratings especially live events. $12/year is pretty reasonable for a sports network dedicated to covering the local sports scene. How many times have you heard people complain about the ESPN East Coast bias? I know I love watching the hour long pregame show covering just the Big 10 teams that is now available. Seriously, $12/year. I remember being able to buy games a la carte on PPV in college over 10 years ago and it was $7.99/game to pick a game that wasn't on the local ABC channel.

[logan82]

BTN has a little more going for it than that. Certainly it's a much better product than the NFL network. The problem is, what do they have that's really worthwhile from April through August? And, really, they only have one day of worthwhile programming a week in September and October.

 

Frankly, a pay per view option makes more sense than carrying it on the Basic tier.

 

Robert

They will be showing Olympic coverage next summer I believe. Everybody wants more olympic coverage. I was over at my dad's and he has BTN. They were showing a riviting game of women's field hockey on Saturday afternoon. To me it would make much more sense to do this outside of the Big Ten area for Alumni who moved out of state.

[patrickgpe]

i haven't chimed in on this yet, and i know there are a lot of badger fans on this site that care more about this then me, but I honestly don't. I wanted to watch the Badgers game saturday afternoon so i went to a local watering hole and watched the game, had a few beers, and had a good time. Its not like the games are completely not available, just not maybe in your home. I can see how basketball fans could be upset (especially since i see every marquette game except 1 is available on basic cable). Also whats to stop the Big East, Big 12, SEC, PAC 10, etc from creating their own networks and forcing people to pay for it nationwide.

 

Similarily for the NFL network, on Thursday nights i really don't care if i miss 2 teams not named the Packers going at it). When the Packers play they are available so i am not going to make a fuss about that. While the extra buck or 2 a month make me take a hit, I like that TW is taking a stand. I don't think its fair to expect a network that only shows a limited about of sports to be compensated as much as espn that has games on every night. Truth be told this is only a way for sports leagues to make more money. I hope that the other leagues do not join in too, and i could see that happening if TW doesn't hold its ground. Also i think if more people were complaining, more heat would be put on time warner, since there are other options with both networks. I just don't get a sense thats happening.

[Team Canada]

Why should every cable subscriber have to pay $1 more for a channel they may very well not want? If they put it in a basic tier, they should eat the cost.

[MarquesJohnson2000]

According to Don Walker's blog at jsonline, Time Warner is about to move NBA TV from a sports tier to a more widely available digital basic package... but has no plans to budge with regards to the NFL Network (or BTN, presumably).

 

http://blogs.jsonline.com/businessofsports/archive/2007/11/05/developments-on-btn-nfl-network-fight.aspx

[owbc]

Even though I am a huge Badgers fan, I side with Charter. The network is a ploy by the Big Ten to make money, and lots of it. All the games could have easily been shown on ESPN+ or other cable networks, but instead they decided to take them away and show what used to be free on a new, expensive network. Furthermore, there is a large segment of the population that doesn't want to pay more for cable, especially since it is for 3 football games and about 5 meaningful basketball games (almost all of the important games are still on ESPN). Therefore, only the dedicated Big Ten fans have interest in the network, which clearly designates it as a "sports package" channel, along with the NFL network.

 

If the rate was cheaper (maybe .50), it's a different story, which is why the BTN should give in.

[dadofandrew]

Almost all the UW basketball games are on BTN. I hope a settlement is reached by 1/1, or I'll be looking at satellite.

[whizkid]

I went to that site with some interest. They mentioned a piece of legislation to open things up for competition.

 

bj, the wewantchoice sites are a product of telecom companies, particularly AT&T. I don't know a lot about it but think it has to do with telecoms not having to provide local access or be regulated in any way regarding delivering TV over phone lines. If you google wewantchoice there are a bunch of blogs etc. with info.

[1992casey]

I've often wondered why DirecTV never seems to have a problem adding these channels, DISH almost never seems to have a problem, and cable companies almost always seem to have a problem.

 

Then again, the satellite services don't carry FSN-WI full-time. A la carte would fix this for customers who have a choice; it'd be financially feasible to subscribe to both cable and satellite without a lot of duplication.

 

By the way, Packer games on cable channels are telecast over the air in the Green Bay and Milwaukee markets, but not in the Madison, Eau Claire-La Crosse, Wausau, or Duluth-Superior markets. That's actually one market better than any other NFL city. Other teams are only telecast in the market in which they play; Milwaukee is granted the advantage of being a 'home' to the Packers.

[Invader3K]

As someone who doesn't follow college sports at all (just not that interested, really), I don't care if Charter ever adds BTN or not. I don't want to pay extra for it. I wish they'd add FSN-HD (or at least when the Brewers are in HD), but that's about my only beef with them at this point.

[jwill535]

what people dont realize is that as of right now there is no way cable companies can offer A-la-carte. Most if not all stations are tied into together. For example, for charter to add Discovery, Discovery requires that they add the Travel channel too. Basically in order for Charter to carry one channel they are required to carry the other. That is how you end up with 5 shopping channels, news channels etc. Alot of these channels are owned by the same company and they would never allow for those contracts to be broken because they are able to charge cable companies per subscriber, if you they went a-la-carte alot of those channels would go under.

 

Technology wise it would be very easy to do using the the cable boxes we have now, its the buisness side that wont let it happen.