Big Ten Network
- Thread starter FKy.Guy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 651
- Views 90K
- Status
Assuming the $1.10 and $0.10 figures are accurate, it is wrong to say that subscribers within the Big Ten footprint will be contributing $1.10 and those outside will contribute $0.10. That is the price DISH would pay to BTN. However, subscription rates will not vary by region; everyone pays the same price.
I don't know the exact numbers, but I've seen a figure thrown around that 25% of satellite and cable subscribers live within the eight state Big Ten footprint. If that is the case, then DISH would pay $1.10 each for 25% of its total subscribers (those within the footprint) and $0.10 each for the other 75%.
On average, for every four subscribers, DISH would be required to pay a total of $1.40 (1 subscriber @ $1.10 plus 3 @ $0.10). At that rate, the actual cost per subscriber, nationwide, is $0.35.
Make sense?
I don't know the exact numbers, but I've seen a figure thrown around that 25% of satellite and cable subscribers live within the eight state Big Ten footprint. If that is the case, then DISH would pay $1.10 each for 25% of its total subscribers (those within the footprint) and $0.10 each for the other 75%.
On average, for every four subscribers, DISH would be required to pay a total of $1.40 (1 subscriber @ $1.10 plus 3 @ $0.10). At that rate, the actual cost per subscriber, nationwide, is $0.35.
Make sense?
I couldn't agree more. We never watch 85% of the video channels, or any of the music channels for that matter, just because there are 3 or 4 must have channels in AT250. Personally, I hate paying for channels like Sci-Fi, SpikeTV, FX, MTV, etc., which is why we should al a carte them all...or at be allowed to subscribe to "grouped" programming packages: if you don't like sports - you don't subscribe to a sports pack; if you hate science fiction - they don't pay for it.
Until then...I want my Big Ten Network added to, at least, the AT250. DirecTV recognized the need to add BTN to its Choice programming package, so it's only a matter of time before it is added to AT100 so everyone can enjoy this premier national college sports channel.
Mark Silverman Answers:
But I think there's two key things here that a lot of people misunderstand. The NFL Network asked for 75 cents a home for 90 million homes. We're asking about a buck for 18 million homes (in the Big Ten's eight states) and about a dime in 72 million homes (outside of those states). Our price is about 30 cents compared to the NFL Network's 75 cents on a 90-million home basis. That's number one. And then number two, we have the 400 events and we're going to have probably 70 Penn State games across different sports, including over 20 football and basketball games. And the NFL Network had eight games (last season) — eight regular-season games and their exhibition.
Now go over to another thread and badger people who are excited about getting new HD channels on E*. Oh wait, you are not under the delusion that all of those new HD channels are costing E* (and ultimately the consumer) zero, are you? So I am sure you will be welcomed over on those threads as you grind your ax about paying for niche programming that you never watch.
Looks like the buck (or in this case the $1.10) stops here...Because we pay for other channels we don't want does not make it right...This is classic example of why a la carte is the way to go..
"We're asking"..Thats the part that bugs me..Big Ten fans are asking, no, demanding the rest of us pay up for Iowa vs Iowa State volleyball matches so some people can watch a few lack luster "go mow the lawn" football games..I have a novel idea.....Buy a ticket to the game and go if it is that important.
I don't pay for HD channels...I don't have them..I get my locals off air..That's enough for now.
I am not going anywhere. This is an issue worth battling. So far peole on this side are winning..E* is refusing to put the cost of this niche channel upon their subs..Good for them and good for us..As far as I am concerned this and other channels like it can go pay per view..This way everybody is happy. Big Ten fans get their games and such and the rest of us are relieved of subsidizing them..So there's your answer..Pay per view...
Oh yeah.....Your NFL network comparison is specious..The NFL is king....NFL Network is very popular and well worth the price..It's worth it because so many want it..Now to be fair this another example why a la carte is necessary..I am sure there are plenty of E* subs who are not football fans..So be it. I am willing to pay my full fair share for the channel..No problem leading by example.
Some day if the FCC keeps pushing the point, ala carte will be the rule of the day. I like the idea of programming packs that you add up to get what you want and none of what you don't. News, Sports, Variety,Womens , Childrens, Music, Movies, HD etc. Then we could all save money on what we like and not have to subsidize what we don't. The more you buy the more you "save" would be the way they bundle it. The less you buy the more it will cost per programming pack than if you buy and bundle more . IF the Fcc head has his way, total ala carte will be the rule of the day. I liked the way the big C-band companies used to work too. They had each channel by a price or you could buy in bundled packs like we do today for a total price. The best of both worlds. I really don't know why there is so much Resistance to a change that gives everyone more options. Except maybe the sports fans who would have to pay for their sports channels by themselves at there real price.
Well then, you might be interested in this tidbit from a blog:
Another factor: the FCC is increasingly interested in ala-carte pricing for cable. Naturally, the cable industry viciously hates this idea. But placing the sports networks in their own tier looks suspicious:
"We believe it is a 'slippery slope' to keep asking/putting certain 'expensive programming' on tiers, while telling the government that mandated a la carte programming is bad for the cable industry," Greenfield wrote. And, he said, cable operators seem willing to place sports networks they own on basic tiers, such as the new Comcast Sportsnet Northwest ion the Oregon area.
Maybe this battle will lead to true alacarte programming in the future?
Another factor: the FCC is increasingly interested in ala-carte pricing for cable. Naturally, the cable industry viciously hates this idea. But placing the sports networks in their own tier looks suspicious:
"We believe it is a 'slippery slope' to keep asking/putting certain 'expensive programming' on tiers, while telling the government that mandated a la carte programming is bad for the cable industry," Greenfield wrote. And, he said, cable operators seem willing to place sports networks they own on basic tiers, such as the new Comcast Sportsnet Northwest ion the Oregon area.
Maybe this battle will lead to true alacarte programming in the future?
And back to reality. A la carte isn't going to happen. Programmers and providers aren't going to let it happen.
Use some common sense when considering "a la carte" people. If a channel wants 75c today for a "guaranteed" number of viewers, they'll want MORE for an assuredly lesser number of viewers. We'll be paying $1.50, $2.00, or more *per* channel. Remember, the FCC can push a la carte but they can't dictate what price the networks charge.
Just like everyone else, there's a small # of channels out of AT250 that we watch primarily but it sure is nice to be able to channel surf and run across a show on a channel we don't watch very often. Sorry, I've no interest in "a la carte" in the near future.
Just like everyone else, there's a small # of channels out of AT250 that we watch primarily but it sure is nice to be able to channel surf and run across a show on a channel we don't watch very often. Sorry, I've no interest in "a la carte" in the near future.
Okay, I understand your alacarte argument, and it is clearly a strong one. But the NFL network comparison specious? Are you honestly suggesting that in the Big Ten region, that a network that covers 2/3s of conference basketball games LIVE will not be more popular than a network that has only 8 live regular season sporting events a year? Outside of the region, yes, the NFL network will probably be more popular, but the pricing would reflect that (60 cents or so a customer difference).
I think that most of us want alacarte pricing (Hall's exception noted,
). I am entirely willing to pay extra for my sports programming (I have purchased Gameplan for years to accomplish just that). I wish that the BTN would agree to put it on a sports tier. But it is also not "fair" that I have to pay for all of the channels that sports fans get forced on us as well. You want to draw the line here with the BTN, and that's fine. But then let's push our legislators to get rid of tier programming altogether, so that I don't have to continue to pay for all of the childrens programming that never gets watched in my household either.
Last edited:
If they don't add it I'll be happy. If they do, I will just block it so I don't have to see it and then make sure I bring this thread back up next January/February when all the whining and bitching starts about everyone's rates going up!
Hopefully you will have to block it! Could care less if the prices go up as long as I get BTN.
This was posted on our local board, HDTV Columbus, Ohio Forum Home. It was sent to local TWC customers.
Dear Time Warner Cable Customer,
Ohio State will soon kick off its football season, and we know many of you will be looking for the opening games. The first two OSU games are scheduled to be carried by the Big Ten Network, a new cable channel that isn’t available on Time Warner Cable yet.
We wanted to let you know that we are negotiating with the Big Ten Network and we have reserved a channel for it in our line-up. We want to reach an agreement that is fair to both you and the Big Ten Network.
The Big Ten Network will be carrying football and basketball games previously made available to local broadcasters, along with NCAA-sponsored sports, and 660 hours of non-sports programming from the 11 Big Ten schools.
Here’s where we stand on bringing you this programming:
* Time Warner Cable would like to make Big Ten Network programming available to our customers who want it. We know that some of the games are important to a segment of our customers.
* Because this programming is so highly priced, we want to make it available as part of a separate sports package to those who want it – without increasing the cost for everyone. The Big Ten Network will not allow us to deliver the network on these terms because it insists that all customers – including those uninterested in its programming – must pay.
* The Big Ten Network has said publicly that it wants $1.10 per customer per month for cable companies to bring you Big Ten Network programming in Ohio. At this rate, the Big Ten Network stands to make $237 million each year from cable customers in the Big Ten states alone. Outside the eight-state Big Ten region, Big Ten fans are being asked to pay far less for the same programming – only 10 cents per month per customer. That means an avid Ohio State fan who happens to live in West Virginia pays only $.10 per month while those of us living in Ohio are being asked to pay $1.10 per month. It’s just not fair.
* Only one major video provider has reached an agreement with Big Ten Network, a company that also owns 49% of the Big Ten Network.
* At this point, Big Ten Network has announced about half of the football games that they will air in the upcoming season. Of those games, not one involves a Big Ten Conference match-up involving Ohio State. In addition, at most, fans of one university will miss a few football games that ABC and ESPN do not consider key match-ups.
* These games used to be available on broadcast or other more widely distributed networks, but the Big Ten withdrew them in order to try to make more money not only from its fans – but from cable customers who are not fans or even interested in sports. These games were available last year locally without the Big Ten seeking an additional fee from viewers. This year, the Big Ten Conference wants fans to pay not only for access to these local games, but other games that hold little or no local interest.
We sincerely hope this situation can be resolved quickly so that our customers who want to see Ohio State games will be able to view them. In the meantime, you’ll still be able to see the majority of Ohio State’s games on channels you already receive such as ABC, ESPN and ESPN2.
For more information, and updates on the negotiations, please check our Web site: Time Warner Cable.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Fraas
President
Time Warner Cable Mid-Ohio Division
Dear Time Warner Cable Customer,
Ohio State will soon kick off its football season, and we know many of you will be looking for the opening games. The first two OSU games are scheduled to be carried by the Big Ten Network, a new cable channel that isn’t available on Time Warner Cable yet.
We wanted to let you know that we are negotiating with the Big Ten Network and we have reserved a channel for it in our line-up. We want to reach an agreement that is fair to both you and the Big Ten Network.
The Big Ten Network will be carrying football and basketball games previously made available to local broadcasters, along with NCAA-sponsored sports, and 660 hours of non-sports programming from the 11 Big Ten schools.
Here’s where we stand on bringing you this programming:
* Time Warner Cable would like to make Big Ten Network programming available to our customers who want it. We know that some of the games are important to a segment of our customers.
* Because this programming is so highly priced, we want to make it available as part of a separate sports package to those who want it – without increasing the cost for everyone. The Big Ten Network will not allow us to deliver the network on these terms because it insists that all customers – including those uninterested in its programming – must pay.
* The Big Ten Network has said publicly that it wants $1.10 per customer per month for cable companies to bring you Big Ten Network programming in Ohio. At this rate, the Big Ten Network stands to make $237 million each year from cable customers in the Big Ten states alone. Outside the eight-state Big Ten region, Big Ten fans are being asked to pay far less for the same programming – only 10 cents per month per customer. That means an avid Ohio State fan who happens to live in West Virginia pays only $.10 per month while those of us living in Ohio are being asked to pay $1.10 per month. It’s just not fair.
* Only one major video provider has reached an agreement with Big Ten Network, a company that also owns 49% of the Big Ten Network.
* At this point, Big Ten Network has announced about half of the football games that they will air in the upcoming season. Of those games, not one involves a Big Ten Conference match-up involving Ohio State. In addition, at most, fans of one university will miss a few football games that ABC and ESPN do not consider key match-ups.
* These games used to be available on broadcast or other more widely distributed networks, but the Big Ten withdrew them in order to try to make more money not only from its fans – but from cable customers who are not fans or even interested in sports. These games were available last year locally without the Big Ten seeking an additional fee from viewers. This year, the Big Ten Conference wants fans to pay not only for access to these local games, but other games that hold little or no local interest.
We sincerely hope this situation can be resolved quickly so that our customers who want to see Ohio State games will be able to view them. In the meantime, you’ll still be able to see the majority of Ohio State’s games on channels you already receive such as ABC, ESPN and ESPN2.
For more information, and updates on the negotiations, please check our Web site: Time Warner Cable.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Fraas
President
Time Warner Cable Mid-Ohio Division
Thanks Posty
Well, looks like the ball is in the BTN's court regarding deals with the big guys. Sounds like TW, Comcast and E* are all a firm NO on basic tier placement.
Smells like another NFL Network situation. Are we going to have to wait until the FCC steps in before we'll see this on E*?
Well, looks like the ball is in the BTN's court regarding deals with the big guys. Sounds like TW, Comcast and E* are all a firm NO on basic tier placement.
Smells like another NFL Network situation. Are we going to have to wait until the FCC steps in before we'll see this on E*?
THE major sticking point is not price, it is that BTN wants to be in the basic tier and therefore receive revenues from every subscriber on the entire system, whether it is TW, Comcast or Dish.
They want special treatment for their sports channel.
I hope they DO NOT get it or we will see college sports disappear from the public viewing arena.
They want special treatment for their sports channel.
I hope they DO NOT get it or we will see college sports disappear from the public viewing arena.
I agree, I don't have a problem paying $1.10 more a month for the BTN-HD so, in my opinion, they can put this channel on the HIGHER tier of channels if that is what it takes for them to make money and to make E* happy at the same time.
.
.
- Status
