Big Ten Network

[jeffwtux]

What E* needs to remind the BTN about is, that in Big Ten COuntry, us fans will pay that extra price for the channel, so they BOTH need to think of the FANS first.

"Extra price" means ala carte. Diehard fans are a small sliver of a minority. This channel will be $1.10/month for 12 months and only has programming for 7 months.

 

[CubsWin]

Charlie knows what he's doing.

Continuing to alienate sports fans?

 

[jeffwtux]

I didn't list all of the channels I don't watch, just a few. If I had, I can assure you that it would total way over $1.10 per month.

Yeah, and that would be a lot of channels. This is just one. A non-sportsfan alweady has to pay like $3/month for ESPN+$1.50-$2/month for the RSN to not watch it. This is their business model: MASSIVELY OVERPAY for sports TV carriage rights then make up for it by passing that cost onto people who don't have a choice but to take the channel.

You cleary AREN'T CAPITALIST. You clearly are REPUBLICAN
This is PURE POLITICS.
What the BTN is doing getting me so seething with intense anger just thinking about it.

 

[jeffwtux]

Continuing to alienate sports fans?

Sportsfans are BY FAR the most CODDLED AND BABIED CONSUMERS in world history.

 

[oswald]

Just a quick correction--at least 3 times this fall, BTN will have 2nd choice after ABC--BEFORE EPSN NETWORKS-- on what game they will provide as their "marquee" matchup. It will not always be "3rd rate" or "Third tier" games. I imagine the same will be true in Basketball.

Let the bickering commence...

 

[BigTimMN]

Once Michigan & OSU get there first games allocated to B10 network, then the real uproar will commense. It will happen by the middle of October.

 

[buckeye927]

Big Ten Network close to deal with Dish Network

According to an article in this morning's Detroit Free Press the Big Ten Network is close to completing a deal with Dish Network.

Big Ten Network visits U-M

 

[Poke]

Yeah I think the Big Ten will get on as many TV Providers as they can if they want their Network to work.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Try more like 30 cents/month (the out-of-region quotes I've been seeing for BTN).

Nope, my 10 cents per sub in out-of-region areas is correct. The BTN confirmed it at a press conference recently. And it has been confirmed in multiple newspaper articles, like this one:

BIG TEN VS. COMCAST: Dingell jumps into cable TV showdown

 

[Tom Bombadil]

According to an article in this morning's Detroit Free Press the Big Ten Network is close to completing a deal with Dish Network.

That's encouraging ... although long-time E* subs know that "close to a deal" with E* can still mean it is 3 years away.

 

[db2]

According to an article in this morning's Detroit Free Press the Big Ten Network is close to completing a deal with Dish Network.

Thanks for the info buckeye. Unfortunately I'm going to remain a pessimist on this one. I have a hunch that Silverman is telling everyone that they're "close to a deal with Dish Network," in hopes of persuading other carriers to cave in. I hope I'm wrong.

If I saw the appeal to the FCC dropped then I would starting thinking that a deal might be close. As Bombadil pointed out, a deal is never done with Dish until end users see it live. Heck they could sign a contract, announce it and uplink the channel and I would still be skeptical.

 

[gopherscot]

Sportsfans are BY FAR the most CODDLED AND BABIED CONSUMERS in world history.

Jeff .... do us all a favor and take something to calm yourself down. Stop with the name calling. We all get your point and most of us could care less how you feel!

Cheers!

 

[Posty-McPOst]

Sporty .... I do understand what your point is .... but it comes down to needs. Many of us are frustrated by Dish not getting what many of us want. AT & T, Direct TV, and some cable companies seem to think the 1.10 is worthwhile. Now it is in our court .... accept that we may not get this channel or switch to Direct TV. I prefer Dish but I and many of my friends will be changing if it is not added to some level at Dish Network.

You AND your friends? That's very scientific. I'm sure Dish understands there are potential loses. That doesn't make it bad business. Every time a new channel pops up there will be people who want to have that content. Otherwise the channel probably wouldn't exist in the first place. Dish is always going to have to weigh the wants of the few against the cost to the whole.

I think we will see the channel added before the start of the season. Per a post from flyingsquirrel on the HD forum the big 10 states would get the channel in AT 150. Other states would get the channel in the multi-sport package. With 13 millions subs that's a huge difference in the total cost, easily 7 figures a year. Sure it costs them money when people switch but it will cost them money to satisfy those people if they don't fight it out a bit. Are they in business to lose money making bad deals?

Last season OSU had one football game on ESPNU. Local cable doesn't offer that channel. My friends didn't switch providers, they just watched at my house. And this was in football mad Columbus during a great season. Not everyone who is passionate about sports will care enough to switch.

As for AT&T and Directv....well Directv owns 49% of the channel. AT&T has almost no subscribers so it's not the same at all. Some cable cos don't include any in Columbus which is one of the 2 major markets with big 10 teams and probably the most important. In fact our local TWC has a whole page just to explain the situation (Time Warner Cable: Big 10 Network). Can we stop oversimplifying this and pretending Dish doesn't want to satisfy it's customers? Lots of providers are having problems with BTN and it's pretty much BTN's fault.


Also, Sporty? Maybe you are thinking of my sister, Posty Spice. She's the pale, internet-addicted one.

 

[gopherscot]

Lucky us ... Posty has joined the conversation again!

 

[riffjim4069]

Well, it looks like my StarChoice subscription (Detroit locals) will be useless this football season with Michigan playing three games on the BTN. I am still holding-out hope for a deal between D* and BTN.

 

[Posty-McPOst]

Lucky us ... Posty has joined the conversation again!

It took me a while because I was blinded by your insight.

 

[gopherscot]

That's encouraging ... although long-time E* subs know that "close to a deal" with E* can still mean it is 3 years away.

It is good news .... although I am cautiously optimistic!

 

[gopherscot]

It took me a while because I was blinded by your insight.

Posty is testy!

 

[Posty-McPOst]

Posty is testy!

Why are you posting to call me out? That's really poor form.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I think we will see the channel added before the start of the season. Per a post from flyingsquirrel on the HD forum the big 10 states would get the channel in AT 150. Other states would get the channel in the multi-sport package. With 13 millions subs that's a huge difference in the total cost, easily 7 figures a year.

That's an interesting twist.

Let's see, if 25% of the nation's population is in the B10 region, and assuming that E*'s subs are distributed proportionally ...

3.25M times $13.20/year = $42.9M

Then if 10-11% of E*s other subs get the multi-sport package, that's about 1M.

1.0M times $1.20/year = $1.2M

Otherwise it would have been

9.75M times $1.20/year = $11.7M

So it would appear that E* will save around $10.5M/yr. However it could be less than that if the BTN didn't give E* a 10 cents/month deal for inclusion in the sports tier. If they said it would be 25 cents/month in the sports tier, then that would add another $1.8M to the cost.

There's also a chance that they could have gotten a bit of a discount within the Big Ten region, as the BTN has been saying the only thing that is non-negotiable is inclusion in the basic tier, implying that price wasn't absolutely fixed.

So all in all, there's a good chance that this is a deal in the $40M range, and if so, then the BTN got about 80% of what they were seeking.

If the inclusion of the BTN in the multi-sports tier helps E* to sell it to more subs, then they will offset some of those expenses with new revenue.