Big Ten Network

[BuckeyeRyn]

Originally Posted by greyscarlet

While I'm not a big fan of the big businesses fighting it out while the people suffer, at this point it's your own fault if you don't get the games and you want them.
I just don't want to hear the inevitable whines of fans who don't have the game as anyone can sign up for DTV if they care enough.

Care enough? Of course!! I will even whine if I want... this is absurd. As BKB mentioned, our backyard, while large enough, doesn't have a good unobstructed view of the southern sky... we live in a part of town that has laws and regulations on what you are able to put in your front yard so... unless the neighbor is willing to cut down his mature walnut trees and the city lifts their ban on dishes in fronts yards our hands are tied.

[BuckeyeNation27]

whiners

[blufftonbuck]

Should people who don?t want the Big Ten Network have to pay for it?
Time Warner Cable wants to offer the Big Ten Network at a fair price to customers who are interested in the channel, and make it optional for customers who do not wish to pay extra for it.

I love this quote. Like I "want" the 3 CSPAN's or Lifetime Movies that I currently pay for on my basic.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by blufftonbuck

I love this quote. Like I "want" the 3 CSPAN's or Lifetime Movies that I currently pay for on my basic.

But, didn't you hear them? They want to give you a choice in the matter, isn't that worth paying for?

[matcar]

Originally Posted by greyscarlet

While I'm not a big fan of the big businesses fighting it out while the people suffer, at this point it's your own fault if you don't get the games and you want them.
I just don't want to hear the inevitable whines of fans who don't have the game as anyone can sign up for DTV if they care enough.

Just to be clear, there are hundreds of thousand of apartment dwellers that cannot get any satellite TV. So, your statement isn't exactly true. And as others have mentioned, there are myriad other reasons why DirecTV might not be a viable or desirable option.

But, for those that CAN get the service, can afford it, and have no other objections, you are correct that that they have an avenue.

[Dryden]

Originally Posted by blufftonbuck

I love this quote. Like I "want" the 3 CSPAN's or Lifetime Movies that I currently pay for on my basic.

I made the same remark last year when the Indiana game went to ESPNU. This isn't the Big Ten Networks fault, and its only partially Time Warner's fault. The blame really falls on all of us, for not speaking up and rejecting a bad business model when cable programming became the norm 25 years ago.

After the handful of standard OTA networks, everything else should be offered a la cart. If the individual per-network cost results in a higher fee passed to the end consumer, then I'm fine paying $1.00/per to pick the twenty or so channels I specifically want, as opposed to paying a flat near-$50.00 fee for 40 extra channels I don't want, all while having (with Time Warner) things like ESPNU, Classic, the Big Ten Network, and the NFL Network blocked.

The entire business model is BS, and it is going to get worse before it gets better. At some point, we -- the consumers -- need to go to Congress and/or the FCC or whoever else and ask for intervention, because all programming providers, whether they're cable companies or dish networks, hold a monopoly on these services and use that to strong-arm content providers and craft packages which purposefully limit our choices and force us to pay for 50% of the programming content that we'd probably consider garbage.

If cable channels were offered a la cart, I'd bet real money a full half of the networks fold like lawn chairs in a year after the consumers have a real voice in saying which channels are in demand, and which ones aren't.

The technological capability is there, as the HBOs and Showtimes and so on were a la cart from the dawn of the cable box.