Opinion
Big Niche Network
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
- The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
- The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
- Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
- Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The Big Ten Network came into existence last month, pledging a new era in televised collegiate sports. The network features live game broadcasts, a "Sportscenter"-style highlight show and assorted other programming, all focused on 11 Midwestern universities.
Few have seen it, however, because the network remained bogged down in negotiations with major cable companies in the Big Ten region, including the cable provider for the Madison area, Charter Communications.
We recently talked with representatives from both BTN and Charter to get a sense of where the negotiations stand. Following our conversations, it seems clear the greater share of the blame for the impasse rests squarely on the network—and that the onus is on them to move the negotiations forward.
This in part reflects a pure business reality. BTN has not reached a deal with any major cable provider. If this continues, the network's long-term viability will be called into serious question, as it won't be able to reach a substantial audience.
It also reflects the fact that the network has refused to acknowledge what it is: niche programming. Its live programming features leftover, non-marquee matchups in football and basketball along with broadcasts of other sports that, for better or worse, aren't very popular. Combined with the non-live programming, it's far from clear whether there was ever any considerable consumer demand for BTN's offerings, especially considering most football and basketball games were already televised.
Yet instead of asking for a modest per subscriber fee from cable providers, BTN is demanding $1.10 per person in the eight-state Big Ten region (and $.10 elsewhere). The $1.10 figure is higher than that charged by the vast majority of cable networks, including the NFL Network, which asks for $.75 per subscriber. Considering the NFL Network, devoted to the most popular sports league in the country, has failed for over a year to reach an agreement with Charter, it seems awfully hardheaded for BTN to expect a deal at $1.10.
Also troubling is BTN's stance that Charter should not raise subscriber rates to cover part of the inflated $1.10 asking price. Charter is a private company in business to make a profit, and the network's suggestion that the cable provider in essence owes it a public service is nothing but amusing. Charter is free to set its rates at whatever it determines is best for its business, and need not pay attention to the Big Ten Network's desires.
Of course, we are hesitant to defend Charter. There is credence to BTN's argument that Charter's attempt to relegate the network to a premium "sports tier" runs counter to the cable provider's treatment of most other networks, many of which are included in basic expanded service despite appealing to limited audiences.
Basketball season is right around the corner, and a substantial number of University of Wisconsin basketball games will not be seen on local cable, and Charter will probably feel more heat than now. Strange as it may seem, though, they're in the right on this one, and should sit still and wait for the Big Ten to budge.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
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
I have the DISH Network, and not only do I get BTN, but I also get up to 5 different simaltanious game feeds out of it (on "alternate channels") every Saturday. Sort of hot.
-Maggie Beth Vernon
Once sporting events are removed from network TV, they become obsolete. For example, how popular WAS boxing vs. how popular IS boxing.
As a big ten fan I find it hard to assign fault. It seems there has been little real negotiation between the two parties. I would like to see concrete proposals from both parties. This may lead to real negotiations and make It easier to decide who is at fault.
Both sides are to blame on this issue. Charter is also trying to follow the lead of Comcast which is planning a new network with SEC.- Conflict on interest. BTN has repeatedly stated that everything including the 1.10 per mo. is negotiable(except putting BTN on sports tier.) One would think a compromise could be reached between 1.10 and .10
Here's your comment,
"it's far from clear whether there was ever any considerable consumer demand for BTN's offerings,"
If this is the case, why are you even wasting print on this? Is there any demand for this article? Seems strange you're writing about something when there's no demand.
Who are your sources on this $1.10 figure? From what I've read, this is a total fabrication on the part of the cable companies. Even in an interview with the spokeman for Comcast Cable, he would not comment on the $1.10 figure.
Also, it's a fact that other smaller cable companies and satellite companies have added the network without increasing subscriber costs.
And why does Comcast include Versus and the Golf Channel (niche channels) in my "basic" cable package, and not on a sports tier? Is it because Comcast owns these channels?
For all those people that think both sides are to blame, I have 1 question... Why does there need to be a "Big 10 Network"? Stop blaming either side for fighting over how much to charge or what channel package it should be on, and start blaming the creators of the channel for making this an issue in the first place.