Opinion
Big Ten foible fault of network, not Charter
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Count down to Keith Olbermann's irrelevant exit (November 12, 2008)
- Health plan losing steam (October 29, 2008)
- ACORN unintentionally fraudulent (October 16, 2008)
- Biden versus Palin: debate to watch (October 2, 2008)
- Anti-Palin talk emboldens GOP (September 18, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
In terms of public reputation, Charter Communications has long found itself in a less-than-lofty position. Ask a Charter subscriber for a horror story based on his or her dealings with the company, and you'll probably get one. Maybe a monthly bill listed an incorrect amount, or the Internet reception was sketchy, or the service technician showed up late, made a mess and failed to install the equipment properly. These aren't isolated incidents — lots of people have such tales. Given Charter's track record, it would be easy — and perhaps natural — to blame the cable provider for its current impasse with the fledgling Big Ten Network. People already hate the company, so Charter doesn't really stand to lose anything by not letting customers see a few college football and basketball games, right?
Such a theory would seem to make sense. But it would be incorrect. That's because, in the case of the BTN discussions, Charter is looking out for its customers' best interests.
If your head didn't just explode, allow me to explain. Until this year, you could watch the vast majority of Badger football and men's basketball games on television. They appeared on various stations —ESPN, ABC, CBS, etc. — available on Charter's standard expanded basic service. Occasionally a game wouldn't be televised, but it was almost always an early, low-profile, non-conference game.
This year, a sizable number of Badger football and basketball games will not be available on Charter's standard lineup, not because of any action on Charter's part, but because of the Big Ten Conference's decision to put the games on its new network.
Like other cable channels, BTN does not offer its programming for free. The network is seeking to charge cable providers $1.10 per subscriber per month in the eight-state Big Ten region. The charge per subscriber in other states would be $0.10. By comparison, the NFL Network, also mired in negotiations with Charter, is asking for $0.75 per subscriber, according to the New York Times. CNN charges $0.44. ESPN, being the most expensive cable network, charges $2.91.
Cable providers usually pass the cost of channels onto subscribers in their monthly bills, but BTN insists Charter offer the new network as part of the extended basic package at no additional cost to subscribers. The network innocently tries to exonerate itself by stating on its website: "The decision whether to raise rates is made by your provider, not by the Big Ten or the Big Ten Network… [Cable providers] do not have to pass the asking price to the consumer." Somewhere, Gov. Jim Doyle, he of the "tax oil companies but don't let them pass it on to customers" plan, is smiling.
Charter has responded by offering to put BTN on its premium "sports tier," which is available at an additional charge for subscribers who want it. This way, customers who do not wish to receive BTN do not have to pay for it.
Whether BTN deserves to be on a special tier or on the basic cable offering depends in part on how universally appealing the programming is. To get a sense of that, let's look at what BTN says it will show, as stated on its website:
- 39 football games per season: This is good, except you won't see Ohio State vs. Michigan-type matchups. Those will still be on ABC. Instead, hello Akron vs. Indiana.
- 140 regular-season men’s basketball games: A more substantial offering, with some good games. Then again, most good games were already on TV before BTN existed.
- 55 regular-season women’s basketball games: There's a limited audience for women's basketball. BTN has pledged to devote equal time to men's and women's sports, which is noble, but neglects the fact that demand for the two is nowhere near the same.
- Big Ten championship events: Everyone who wants to see these games probably already attends them in person.
- Archived Big Ten events, including bowl games: Relive the spectacle of Minnesota vs. North Carolina State in the 2000 MicronPC.com Bowl.
- 170 Olympic sporting events: Again, the audience is very limited.
- Coaches’ shows: You've asked for it, Wisconsinites, and now you've got it: the Joe Tiller show!
- 660 hours of campus programming: This might be cool, or it might be video of a janitor sweeping Penn State lecture halls.
Cynicism aside, BTN seems to be a niche offering. I'm sure some of the side programming is truly worthwhile and enjoyable, but is there enough of it to make a truly viable network? Consider me skeptical at this point.
Many would note that expanded basic cable lineups are already packed with networks devoted to highly specific audiences. They're right. I would love to jettison Lifetime, Oxygen, etc. to a special women's tier and not have to pay for them anymore. You could do the same with a men's tier of Spike TV, Vs., etc. Letting subscribers have more of a choice cannot be a bad thing. If enough customers want to watch a certain network, it'll survive. Other networks won't make it, because demand simply isn't high enough. I would love to see a cable provider take a "tier" approach to all its channels.
It may turn out that BTN is great, with quality programming that appeals to a large audience. But we don't know that yet. And as a new network, not to mention one that has yet to reach an agreement with any major cable provider, BTN does not have much leverage. If it doesn't budge from its inflated demands, it risks being seen by extremely few people this fall. Advertisers, I'm sure, will be impressed by that.
Let's end with a question: If Wisconsin plays The Citadel and no one sees it on TV, did the game really happen? The answer, as anyone at the stadium can tell you, is "yes." If you weren't among those who were there, don't get too mad at Charter, as guilty as the company may have been in the past. This time, the Big Ten deserves most of the blame.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
disaGREED.
Couldn’t agree more. This Masse guy really seems to understand economics and how, as a business decision, what BTN is demanding is unreasonable. Also, I live in St Louis where we all have and hate Charter so I know exactly what he means when he says this is one of the very few times he has anything defensive to say about that trainwreck of a company.
To the first anon poster, the GREED in this case is on the side of the Big 10 network. I have no problem with cable companies wanting to place this network on the Sports tier of programming. Its the choice of paying $1.10 per subscriber for every expanded basic subscriber or paying $1.10 per subscriber for all the people that pay for the sports tier.
That way customers have a choice. Believe it or not, not everyone is a sports fan. Why should Gertrude down the street have to pay $1.10 a month for the network when the last time she cared about a football game the players were still wearing leather helmets?
My provider, Comcast, is in the same type of negotiations with the BTN. I support them as well.
Both are at fault. Both are trying to make the biggest buck they can and neither side should be faulted for that. However, look at the cable company, they complain about how not everyone wants to watch Big Ten co-ed basket weaving, so why should they pay for it? Well, I never liked the type of music they have on MTV, and those Women’s networks? I have no use for them either, yet I pay for them. If the cable companies are going to use this weak arguement, then they should have tiers for almost every type of programming and not only have 2 or 3 package options, all of which include QVC.
@4:44
you are sheep. The cable companies are more at fault in this fiasco. You must be republicans. You believe every PR campiagn you’ve heard
I’d like to agree with the author, but I can’t because I couldn’t watch the goddamn badger game on tv at home last weekend. On the channel that had either “ND vs GT” or Wisconsin I was treated with the fighting Irish.
FAIL.
Unaceptable programming choice for the Wisconsin area. Its not like we’re the same local area serice.
So get Dish. They have BTN right now.
You have the power of choice. Use it.
The author is right about this. In the case of both the BTN and NFL network, the ones with the unreasonable expectations are the networks. Each give you a few months of sports events, and then fill the rest of the year with useless programming and sporting event re-runs. I’m sorry to break the bad news to sports fans, but when it comes to viewer demographics as a whole, those interested in sports are the minority, albeit a very vocal one. The majority of subscribers that are already fed up with the amount of sports that is crammed down their throats on expanded basic will not stand for more of this programming landed on expanded basic and running up their bills. These networks need to agree to go on the sports tier, where fans who want the channels have the option of paying for them. If the option of adding these channels to expanded basic was put to vote, the sports fans will end up on the short end every time.
Seems odd that both dish and directv can agree to carry the channel without affecting pricing too much. If charter added the channel to extended basic they would raise their rates across the board by $5.00 :)
Why is noone questioning the very idea of a “Big Ten Network” How can you possibly fill a 24 hour network with a few regional games during football season and a few regional games during basketball season. All this is doing is diluting a already over saturated market and adding cost for no reason. How much more coverage will games get that they aren’t already getting? I say boycott the Big Ten Network and any service that holds it.