Big Ten Network

[Oh8ch]

if I was a young football player, I might even be persuaded by the popularity of this brand of football - as compared to the Big Ten's brand...

Great point that I hadn't considered. Even in the Midwest if kids see LSU more than they do OSU that has to hurt recruiting. One reason there are so many ND fans is that they have been on TV every Saturday for the past 100 years.

This is certainly an argument against the separate sports tier.

[kinch]

My worry is that they will work out a deal and you guys will be fine but it will suck or be unavailable for us out of region folks.

Oh well.

My wife prefers going out to watch the games anyway (she enjoys the revelry more than the analysis).

[blufftonbuck]

Originally Posted by Oh8ch

Received this email from TW this morning. I think it is a fair assessment of the situation:

I think they are both to blame and are both looking out for themselves. My only issue with TW is that they are using the niche programming argument. The problem I have is you could make that about all of their channels. I like history channel and like paying for it but my brother doesn't he likes TLC which I don't. All channels to some degree are niche programming and until you have ala carte pricing I don't think they can make this argument with the BTN. With that being said I also think BTN is being unreasonable also especially in light of the facts around BTN/Direct TV/and Fox.

[jenkinswoody]

Originally Posted by Oh8ch

I have come to the strong conclusion that there is a bad guy in all this and it is the BTN. It may be time for the fan base to quit whining to one another and start directing out efforts where it may make a difference.

I hate TW, but you are right. I like the idea of it being on basic cable, but think that it should be on the digital or sports tier. It's just not mainstream enough for most viewers to justify another basic rate hike.

Again, there are no innocents here......Are we still doing surveys? This would make a good survey question- "Whose to blame for us getting hosed?" or it could be phrased since both TW and the BTN are hosing us- who's winning. With the BTN using full page ads and having our coaches act as used car salesmen- I would have to go with the Cable Cos at this point. What do you think?

[CleveBucks]

Originally Posted by blufftonbuck

I think they are both to blame and are both looking out for themselves. My only issue with TW is that they are using the niche programming argument. The problem I have is you could make that about all of their channels. I like history channel and like paying for it but my brother doesn't he likes TLC which I don't. All channels to some degree are niche programming and until you have ala carte pricing I don't think they can make this argument with the BTN. With that being said I also think BTN is being unreasonable also especially in light of the facts around BTN/Direct TV/and Fox.

Bingo. EVERY channel is a niche channel. EVERY channel has a majority of customers paying for it but never watching it.

I've never seen the BTN publicly state they're asking $1.10 per month. On the contrary, they're publicly stating that the fee is negotiable. TW is lying to everybody's face there. The fact is, there's a price somewhere south of $1.00/month where TW makes money and the BTN makes money. Find that price and agree to it.

The main problem I have with the sports tier is that I need to first buy a digital package of 100 channels of pure crap in order to buy the sports package. Suddenly the BTN is costing me $20-30 more per month. Fact is, the cable companies see this as an easy way to convert more analog cable customers to digital, and more digital customers to the sports package. They stand to make huge sums of money on this, yet publicly they act like it will run them bankrupt.

[blufftonbuck]

Suddenly the BTN is costing me $20-30 more per month. Fact is, the cable companies see this as an easy way to convert more analog cable customers to digital

Exactly what we have found with TW is going from analog to digital (480i) has not made much of a difference in terms of picture quality but on the 6 or 7 channels that they broadcast in HD Digital (720 or 1080) are real nice quality but not worth add'l money.

[Oh8ch]

I've never seen the BTN publicly state they're asking $1.10 per month. On the contrary, they're publicly stating that the fee is negotiable. TW is lying to everybody's face there. The fact is, there's a price somewhere south of $1.00/month where TW makes money and the BTN makes money. Find that price and agree to it.

I have seen the $1.10 figure quoted numerous times and have yet to see anything in print (as you have) from BTN refuting that rate or suggesting a lower rate. If the BTN is not "asking" $1.10 (or is the real issue whether that are "demanding" rather than "asking") where is that number coming from?

If BTN is really flexible why has no other major player besides Direct TV come to an agreement?

Bingo. EVERY channel is a niche channel. EVERY channel has a majority of customers paying for it but never watching it.

True. But in general basic channels either have a broad base of interest or a low rate. Clearly OSU football has a huge base of interest. But we are talking about 4 football games and some number of basketball games over the course of the year. BTN will be billed every month for 12 months.

The original premium channels were the movie channels that wanted several dollars per month. After that came groupings of channels packaged in a way that the able companies could market them. That is just business and it is a function of level of interest and billing rates.

I would prefer to see BTN on basic for many reasons - including the recruiting aspects mentioned above. But I would welcome them on a premium package now to get off the dime confident that they would migrate to a basic level over time.

All that said I would be interested in reading a different side of the story from BTN if someone can point me to it. (No - not the dreaded search function!)


Then again, how do I know you are really CleveBucks and not some shill posting for Murdoch?

[Buckeye737]

Here's the only article that I've read where the B10 Network's exec Bob Thompson denies the $1.10 price...

BTN exec: '100 percent' sure Comcast deal won't get done on ChicagoSports.com


BTN exec: '100 percent' sure Comcast deal won't get done

By Teddy Greenstein
Tribune sports media reporter


Everyone expected negotiations with Comcast and the Big Ten Network to go down to the wire. Well, everyone was wrong.

Fox executive Bob Thompson said Thursday morning that he is "100 percent confident" that no deal will be struck with Comcast by Sept. 1, when the BTN will televise six football games.

"Having been through 15 of these (launches), I have a feel for the way things go," said Thompson, the president of Fox National Cable Sports Networks and a BTN board member. "There really has been no negotiation for a month."

Thompson said it's time for Big Ten fans who are Comcast subscribers to "make alternate plans" if they do not want to miss any games.

Comcast officials, who were not immediately available for comment, have balked at the BTN requirement that the network be placed on expanded basic cable. Comcast wants to put the network on its digital sports tier and doesn't want to meet the BTN's reported asking price of $1.10 per subscriber in the eight-state Big Ten region.

"We have never made a proposal to them at $1.10," Thompson said in a telephone interview. "It has always been less than that. Other than expanded basic in the footprint, everything else is negotiable. We have gone the extra mile to create opportunities for meaningful negotiation to happen.

"$1.10 is the sticker price for a car."

Thompson said he remains "optimistic" that deals can be worked out with other prominent Midwest cable providers Time Warner, Charter, Mediacom and RCN, plus Dish Network. So far DirecTV is the only s