NEWS
Cable proposal upsets Charter
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alexandra Rogers:
- AIDS battle progressing (May 10, 2007)
- Students slam city bar ban (May 3, 2007)
- Neighbors discuss ownership options (April 27, 2007)
- Business mogul donates millions (April 26, 2007)
- Students to help 'cleanup' hunger (April 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Legislator calling for TV arbitration (October 31, 2007)
- Charter, Big Ten Network block off big game (October 30, 2007)
- UW urges fans to ask for BTN (November 5, 2007)
- Big Ten Network, local cable provider unable to ink deal (August 6, 2007)
- Prices, BTN bring few complaints (November 2, 2007)
by Alexandra Rogers
Friday, November 2, 2007
Many fans throughout Wisconsin will not be able to cheer on the Badgers as they play Ohio State University this Saturday because the game will only be aired on the Big Ten Network, a company currently unaffiliated with Charter Communications.
Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, and Rep. Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson announced Tuesday they will try to make games, like the one this Saturday, more accessible to fans with the Fair Access to Networks Bill.
“In my wildest dreams I never thought that a game [with] the importance of the Wisconsin-Ohio State game would not be available on the big networks,” Hansen said. “The only way you’re going to get to see it is to go to the local pub.”
The bipartisan team is drafting legislation that would create a process to settle negotiations and between cable companies and sports networks. According to Hansen, the bill would provide a third-party arbitrator to help two companies, such as Charter and the Big Ten Network, come to an agreement.
According to Hansen, current law does not expressly prohibit this type of legislation, and the bill, still in the drafting stage, seems to have plenty of potential.
“We feel we have a strong case here,” Hansen said. “We have had a lot of response from people who want to be on the bill, and the bill isn’t even out there yet.”
Charter Communications does not carry the Big Ten Network as any part of its programming, and the two companies have yet to come to an agreement on which customers the Big Ten Network should be available to.
According to Charter Communications director John Miller, Charter has not agreed to carry the Big Ten Network as part of its basic cable package because it would mean raising all customer costs to include a channel that not all customers desire.
“Customers that aren’t sports fans have the ability to pass,” Miller said. “We think that’s a fair and reasonable position to have.”
Charter offers its customers special interest tiers at an extra cost, according to Miller, and has offered to include the network in the sports category.
Elizabeth Conlisk, Big Ten Network vice president of communications, said the Big Ten Network is demanding inclusion in the widely offered basic cable package because the service should be available at no additional cost to customers.
“We think if you live in the state of Wisconsin, you should be able to see the Big Ten Network as part of your basic service,” Conlisk said.
Miller said the new legislation isn’t the right solution to the issue. Private businesses, he added, want as little government involvement as possible, and federal laws might prohibit the government from getting too involved in programming and pricing.
Miller added legislation in a different direction would be a more suitable solution.
“I think the greater issue … is for legislation to look at leagues that now are starting their own networks,” Miller said. “That to me has long-range, long-term implications that I don’t think have the best interests of the viewer in mind.”
Conlisk said the network hasn’t seen the legislation and is therefore unable to comment further.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 7:44am):
Dear Charter and Big Ten Network,
The Big 10 schools (except for Northwestern) are PUBLIC universities paid for by TAX revenue. Either we watch our football teams on broadcast or regular cable, OR WE CUT OFF FUNDING TO ALL BIG TEN SPORTS PROGRAMS!
Obviously, the Big Ten sports can find funding outside of tax revenue and have moved into the professional sports realm. I certainly hope you're paying your athletes what they deserve.
Write to your state representatives!
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 8:31am):
I wish I could pick and choose most of my channels on Charter. I would get rid of 90% of what I have now, yet still I pay for that! Charter is so full of crap about not passing on costs to non-sports fans in the name of fairness. I could do without the 17 religious prayer channels it keeps adding, but I will subsidize those who need this programming.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 9:15am):
The UW athletic department already does not rely on tax dollars, dolt.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 9:21am):
As taxpayers, I say we take a vote to decide whether the Badgers or any other Big 10 team can use our facilities (including Camp Randall). We could also take a vote to decide whether the Big 10 Network cameras are allowed into our stadium.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 9:58am):
Do some research, tax dollars to not pay for college sports programs. Sports program revenue does. Why can't we offer legislation so let customers chose exactly which channels they want. Cable companies offer on the basic tier and make us pay plenty of channels I believe NO ONE wants. Why can't we have and pay for only the channels we want to see.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 11:08am):
"According to Charter Communications director John Miller, Charter has not agreed to carry the Big Ten Network as part of its basic cable package because it would mean raising all customer costs to include a channel that not all customers desire."
Charter - you just announced you were raising prices anyway. And still, no inclusion of NFL Network and BTN. I don't desire about half of the channels you offer. Yet I will still have to pay your increased prices
Thanks a million.
BTW, this will really give us college students even more reason go to the bars.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 11:20am):
Great comment. This is the real issue. Not forcing the cable company to carry the Big Ten Network.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 12:31pm):
I agree...Charter's BIG reason for not adding BTN is to not raise prices. Well in the past year prices have gone up (twice with this newest increase in December) and if you don't have digital cable, you've LOST numerous channels. Doesn't quite seem logical to me...bottom line, Charter sucks!
a l (November 2, 2007 @ 12:59pm):
Wouldn't it be horrible to include a channel that not all customers desired?
27 Speed Channel
28 Versus
29 Lifetime
30 Spike TV
35 Oxygen
36 Hallmark Channel
37 Soap Net
38 Food Network
39 HGTV/Home and Garden Television
54 E!
55 fx
56 Court TV
66 Jewelry Television by ACN
67 Shop NBC
68 VH-1
69 MTV
70 MTV2
71 BET
72 CMT
74 Style
80 GSN (Game Show)
That's so odd...I don't actually want these channels... Could anyone else live without them?
Give us BTN and NFL!
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 2:29pm):
"The UW athletic department already does not rely on tax dollars, dolt."
Oh, they [UW athletic department] own Camp Randall and pay Bielema's salary? Thanks for the insight, I obviously don't think my wild ideas through. I'm glad your superior intelligence could set me straight.
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 3:30pm):
Wow, you guys really have nothing to do in your state but get fatter and eat more cheese. If you don't like what charter is doing, switch to dish or directv! The fact that the state legislature is getting involved shows how pathetic WI is. Wow is all I can say. Congratulations, the rest of America is laughing at you!!
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 5:51pm):
The real issue is the price that BTN wants to charge carriers - The cost sports networks charge the carriers is exhorbant in comparison to other networks. It's my understanding that NFL Network and BTN are trying to charge more than MTV, History Channel, A&E, and Spike combined. I'm willing to bet MTV has higher viewer numbers than NFL Network and BTN will, especially NFL Network, which is only a few games...
Anonymous (November 2, 2007 @ 7:18pm):
3:30, I'm not going to pay a dime extra for bullshit cable or direct TV programming. They're lucky I pay what I pay now. Only an idiot lets bullies push them around; this game should be on broadcast TV.
We're laughing right back at ya, stud. It's kind of neat seeing chumps like you take it in the ass.
Anonymous (November 3, 2007 @ 7:24pm):
"Oh, they [UW athletic department] own Camp Randall and pay Bielema's salary?"
Mostly true.
Anonymous (November 5, 2007 @ 1:55pm):
Everyone got off the topic here.
First the BTN wants it in the basic so it's free to Charter's customers. But it's not free to Charter. If they are being paid by consumer this is huge imediate dollars for BTN. BTN refuses to be added to the sport tier though (a little greed here). I do agree with most that it would be nice to get rid of some of the junk channels but I agree with Charter to not increase the basic price.
If they did that everytime a new channel popped up we would be paying $300 a month for the basic tier. The basic tier is too expensive. The consumer wants a choice per channel which would be great. At least have more difinitive tiers. Charter's other headache is the providers have an all or nothing options. Example: In order to get ESPN on their network, they must also take ESPN2, ESPNNews and ESPN Classic. That's the catch, want more money just add another channel and force your customers to take it.
Only people who can cure this is congress.
1. Make it illegal for suppliers to bundle.
2. Give consumers a choice per channel by a certain year.
Right now the FCC is bogged down managing the switch to digital.
Got to look at the whole picture!
Anonymous (November 16, 2007 @ 11:31pm):
It boils down to one thing Charter cable Sucks. For being one of the giants. I dom't understand why the small cable companys in Wisc. carry NFL and BTN channel. I guess Chater can't afford it. Oh well they just plainly suck and don't give a crap about anything but the all mighty dollar. Miller needs a new yaht.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
