OPINION & EDITORIAL
Situation Normal: Big Niche Network
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
- Big Niche Network (October 1, 2007)
- Legislature's approach to BTN indicative of policy stagnation (December 3, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
- Big Ten foible fault of network, not Charter (August 31, 2007)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The buildup to Saturday's football game between Wisconsin and Ohio State brought renewed attention to the Big Ten Network, the nascent cable channel that televised the Badgers-Buckeyes tilt.
First, two state legislators introduced what they call the Fair Access to Networks Bill, which would establish an arbitration process for resolving feuds between cable networks and providers. Neither of the two largest cable providers in Wisconsin — including Charter Communications, which services the Madison area — has reached agreements to show the Big Ten Network.
The University of Wisconsin, meanwhile, issued a letter to Badger fans singing the praises of the network and urging fans to speak out and support it. The letter, signed by Chancellor John Wiley, Athletic Director Barry Alvarez and Athletic Board Chair Walter Dickey, also devoted considerable space to accusing Charter of being an unwilling negotiator.
While the legislators likely introduced their bill for little more than a bit of publicity, the letter from Messrs. Wiley, Alvarez and Dickey seemed to be an earnest plea in support of a venture they believe in. In that respect, we can hardly fault them. Yet they need to step back and remember one thing: Charter is a private company. It will act — and has every right to act — in its own best interests. It is under no obligation to carry the Big Ten Network.
We recognize the Big Ten Network offers potential benefits to UW. As the trio of UW officials pointed out in their letter, the network can be a source of revenue and media exposure (though one may snicker when contemplating whether the UW Athletic Department was lacking in either). But the network does not have any right to an audience, and specifically no right to appear on a cable provider's basic expanded service, as it has insisted.
Why Big Ten and UW officials are so opposed to the idea of the network appearing on a cable provider's sports tier — where it would be available to any subscriber who wanted it — remains unanswered. That's likely because it would require them to admit that the Big Ten Network is a niche offering, one with a purview that never exceeds 11 Midwestern schools. Those who don't like sports — or those who like seeing more than the same few schools compete against each other (and usually not in premier matchups) — will find themselves less than thrilled with the network.
Messrs. Wiley, Alvarez and Dickey employed only one argument against placement on the sports tier in their letter: that a multitude of other channels are currently included on expanded basic service, and so why not the Big Ten Network too? It is a weak argument that could be used to justify the inclusion of any network under the sun.
The Big Ten Network needs to either drop its insistence on expanded basic placement or else sharply drop its per subscriber asking price to bring it more in line with other niche networks. It is not that Charter and other major cable providers "have chosen to not carry the Big Ten Network," as Messrs. Wiley, Alvarez and Dickey wrote in their letter, but that the Big Ten Network has failed to offer a product and a price that Charter and the others find worthwhile.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 7:59am):
Public interest monopolies such as the cable company, are in business to provide a service for the public for which they serve. These services, arguably, could instead be provided by the government or agency thereof but in our experiment in capitalism private industry is seen as a better alternative. Thus, when a public service monopoly denies it's users/customers a service of another private company it is right for the public to take issue with that policy decision. The wants and needs of the consumer far outway the profits of a public service monopoly.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 9:33am):
These writers are pretty stupid... "Why Big Ten and UW officials are so opposed to the idea of the network appearing on a cable provider's sports tier . . . remains unanswered." Exposure, dipshit!
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 9:34am):
If you've been watching the stock performance of Time Warner Cable or Charter or the growing momentum for the Cable Competition Bill, you'd conclude that time is on the Big Ten Network's side. The BTN has no obligation to make its network available to Charter or TWC in a way that is profitable for them to carry. The BTN has given these companies an ultimatum: (1) lose potentially a little by picking up our network or (2) lose potentially a lot in the form of lost subscribers and political momentum for competition by taking us on. I for one am taking a lot of pleasure in watching these monopolies choose the latter.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:03am):
please DO NOT take charter's side on this...both parties are equally at fault. and anyone in madison knows about charter's sterling reputation in customer service etc.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:16am):
Can't we all just give up the Hallmark channel and Lifetime and get BTN? I'd call that a fair trade.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:21am):
And to think people say the Badger Herald Editorial Board is run by a bunch of right-wing coasties.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:22am):
I did not think that any orginzation would be so heinous that I would sympathize with a cable company instead of with them, but somehow the Big Ten found a way for that to happen. I don't think that consumers want the Big Ten to win this fight; if this admitedly niche network succeeds at the price point they're demanding, an inevitable increase in rates for networks with broader appeal will inevitably follow.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:28am):
Why does this article remind me of a few years ago when the "Badger Herald Editorial Board" wrote an piece going on about how the fact that the smoking ban includes a ban on chewing tobacco somehow demonstrates that the ban is wrong-headed? My bet is you're on the wrong side of history again. I'm not sure what's more sad - the fact that there's a group of 18-22 year olds that actually think like this or the fact that they have their own soap box to spout this crap off.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 10:40am):
to 10:21:
I don't like charter either, but it looks like most of those "coasties" you refer to are from Wisconsin
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 12:26pm):
The Big Ten Network can die in a fire. I'll cancel my cable if it's added to my service. Vote with your money, kids.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 3:23pm):
The Hallmark channel and Lifetime charge the cable companies pennies compared to what the BTN is charging. I think that big bad Barry and the others need to remember that the UW is supported by the public and as such the public should be have the opportunity to watch the games on local access channels. I wonder what kind of kick back the BTN is offering Barry and friends for their support.
Anonymous (November 7, 2007 @ 11:55pm):
Note to the Badger Herald: The channel is NOT a niche channel IN BIG TEN COUNTRY.
The Big Ten only wants the channel on the expanded basic tier IN THE EIGHT BIG TEN STATES. The rest of the country can have it on the sports tier and the Big Ten won't care.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 7:40am):
Charter is a public, not private company, thus, they are at the mercy of their shareholders whims. This normally means a huge emphasis on profit; if something is not profitable, it's not worth doing no matter what. Paying a lot to a content producer for something that only a fraction of the audience will be interested in, while being forbidden from raising the costs to absorb that increase, does not make financial sense.
As with so many things, it comes down to money. If you have a product and charge too much for it, people will turn away. It's supply and demand; very simply economics.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 7:44am):
I live in Big Ten Country, and I look at BTN as a niche channel. I'm more of an NFL kinda guy and I honestly couldn't care less about college football. I'll watch it if there's a good game on, but how often will that happen on BTN?
BTN should just allow it to go in a sports tier (where it belongs) and be done with the bickering. They're the ones prolonging this - they are admittedly unbending on the channel's inclusion in the expanded lineup.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 7:47am):
This response is in regards to the anonymous moron who refers to the cable company as a public service. Last time I check cable tv was and still is a private service which you elect to have. Electricity, water and sewer would be considered pulbic. You couldn't very well deicide to use your backyard as a toilet since you are required to have sewer and so it's a public service, you have no choice but to have it. Cable tv is a luxury that many people who share your standpoint seem to think they are entitled to. You do not have to have cable an if you choose to then you must decide if what they charge and offer is something you want to pay for.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:09am):
Unlike a digital sports tier, there is only so much space available on basic and as passionately as you think people are to wanting BTN, you try taking away Lifetime and the world will stop turning.
BTN is a niche channel even in Big Ten states. It belongs on the sports tier just the NFL Network, Tennis & Golf. You want the specialty channels, then pay for it. I like some channels on digital, so I have to pay for it.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:18am):
Don't you all have something better to do than bicker about sub-standard football teams.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:26am):
The Big Ten and NFL Networks need to read this article carefully. Great story.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:27am):
News Flash: Not everyone watches college sports.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:39am):
Anyone care to put the blame on Alvarez et al for signing the contract to put the games on a channel no one gets in the first place? We pay state taxes to keep all the UW's running, and now we're forced to pay again no matter where this channel ends up. All the big games were shown on channels Charter already had available.
They would've had better exposure had they just left the rights available to the broadcasters.
I'm sure Grandma would rather not see a price increase to watch Lifetime just so the non-fixed-income people can sit their lazy rears on a sofa to watch a game they could've very well driven to.
But let's not blame a government entity... It's all Charter's fault, right? And if you still think it is, get a dish. Everyone must remember... we're not entitled to these networks. They take a lot of money (gasp, really?) to keep on a cable system. Cable is NOT a necessary public service. It's a luxury. And you do have choices.
Anyone heard of radio?
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:50am):
The BTN is most definitely a niche network. When ABC has a premier Badger game and gets outstanding ratings, only 1 in 5 people who have the opportunity to watch it are actually watching. The games on the BTN, for the foreseeable future will be the games that ABC and the group of ESPN channels do not want to carry. So they are the worst Big Ten matchups of the week and the other 4 out of 5 viewers should be expected to pay for that?
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 8:54am):
Bottom line, BTN wants on the expanded basic service because it means more money. If you are paid per customer there are obviously more customers on the that level of service verses the sport tier.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 9:07am):
Actually the Big Ten Network wants it's niche network in Basic and Expanded in ALL area's. They lowered their asking price every so slightly in the non big ten states. People that don't want a channel shouldn't have to pay for it.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 9:35am):
How in the world have we managed to survive without the BTN for the last few decades? Apparently now in 2007 the Big Ten has become such a force in college sports that they command a channel devoted completely to them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at such an arrogant move from the conference that includes the University of Michigan. Another point we should carefully consider is the precedent we're setting. If the Big Ten is worthy of their own network, the Pac-10, ACC, SEC, Big 12, and others will not be far behind. At that point, every USC fan living in Bangor, ME will demand that their local cable provider carry the Pac-10 channel. They'll be one of 2 people in the region interested in paying for it, and the Pac-10 will be demanding it get put on expanded basic. It's a tough pill to swallow Badger fans, but cable consumers in favor of this being added to expanded basic are the minority. Big Ten's claim the providers don't have to pass on the cost is fine, but are they saying the providers should just eat it? You'd think the Big Ten execs slept through Economics 101. Cable consumers are fed up enough having to pay for channels they don't watch. If the Big Ten wants in, it will be on the sports tier. The amount of customers lost in this battle won't affect the cable company bottom line. There just aren't enough of you willing to leave.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 9:45am):
Why do other states that aren't in the big 10 get the channel a $1.00 cheaper.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 9:47am):
It's very simple democracy principals. No one can be forced to buy what they don't want, so why does BTN expect Charter to make them? (oh yeah, money) Make it optional on the sports tier and let those of us who want it buy it. I'm glad to pay for it (and the NFL network) at my house. Just give me the chance by putting it on the sports tier! I'm realistic--I know if Charter conducted a vote on it, both BTN and NFL would be voted down by a landslide--so get them on the sports tier. I want those networks too-but not on because of dictator rule. Charter is doing the right thing on this.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 10:06am):
The Big Ten Network and NFL Network aren't asking a huge price- something like 60-70 cents/month/subscriber. The burden IS on Charter and Time Warner (which refuse to compromise in favor of ripping off the customer) to serve the consumer. If smaller municipalities can reach an agreement -like Mount Horeb did last week- and supply BTN and NFL, so can the big dogs. All of you "more of an NFL kinda guy"s who don't care about Big Ten games should think again about your NFL games.
The point here is to appoint an arbiter and reach a compromise so the consumers -you and I- come out on top.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 10:30am):
1st, Charter is NOT a monopoly. You do have options, you know that, right? And cable is not a public service. Anything considered "public service" is available over the air without a box from a cable or satellite company.
2nd How about we all write to the BTN and ask them to allow Time Warner and Charter to carry this channel in the Sports tier? If you really have to watch the BTN, I am sure you would not mind paying for that tier.
Would teh folks @ UW sports dept please tell us why they do not want BTN in the sports tier? Any one?
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 10:32am):
Creating of the BTN limited game access to viewers and is a simple product of greed. Anyone with rabbit ears on their TV used to be able to watch a Badger game throughout the year. Sorry grandpa...no Badgers for you!
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 11:03am):
I'm a transplant from San Diego CA and I dont watch the Big Ten, but I do have Charter cable. Why should I have to pay for a channel I don't intend to watch??
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 11:04am):
I think you need to look at the cable companies' actions as a whole. They refuse to offer not only BTN but also NFL Network - by claiming that not everyone wants those networks. Are you kidding me??? Football is arguably the most popular sport in the nation, and without a doubt, especially here in Wisconsin.
Football is not niche, get over it cable.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 11:39am):
All great comments so I won't reinterate what has already been said. But a new point.
Charter (and all cable companies) are moving their analog basic service channels to digital. Charter has already moved a handful of channels to the digital tier with more to follow. One analog channel uses up bandwidth that many digital channels can occupy.
Why would Charter want to suddenly throw a new channel on their analog basic service when they are trying to do just the opposite?
Surley the technical advisors at the BTN are aware of this aren't they?
In addition, many of the channels on the basic tier, with few exceptions, cost the cable companies very little - that's why they are where they are.
The BTN has situated itself exactly where they wanted and pointing the finger at the 'bad 'ol cable company'. Everyone hates the cable companies right? Some people walked right into this strong arm tactic with their eyes closed.
Alvarez and Wiley have a lot of nerve to blame Charter. An apology should be in order and they should stop putting the blame on Charter and put it on themselves for their own greed.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 12:18pm):
I will admit first of all that I do work for Charter Communications, but am not involved in the decision process when it comes to channel offerings.
With that being said, please understand that a "niche network" is defined by the general public's opinion within the market share it is offered to. What DOES make this a niche network is the fact that, believe it or not, not a great amount of people want to watch college football all of the time on a network. That's not me and I admit that. I do like to watch the Badgers and do whenever I can. What further qualifies this as a "niche" though is the fact that college football is not generally a point of interest year-round, even among true Badger fans. I/we do love our football during our fall and winter season but most of us move on to other seasonal sports interests.
On another note, I am a Wisconsin native and grew up with only 2 channels available in the rural area I am from. I did not have cable access and only had limited exposure to the networks in general. I remember always having FREE access to the majority of the Packer games (once in a while one was on MNF and we did not get ABC). Well, now I do not have access to NFL Network and while I will probably go to the local pub to watch the upcoming Packers/Cowboys game and the remaining Badger games, I don't like it and the reason is simple. When these games are broadcast on these channels it gives the channels more revenue. More channels = more revenue. Why do you think they have spaced out the games to Thursday night, Sunday night and the move to the cable/satellite only channel ESPN for MNF? Because it is good for people like me when I was young? I wore green and gold non-stop when I was a kid. What if I grew up now? I would have to pay fees to get access to these same games through some satellite service. Think about it. Stop blaming the messenger(s).
I am in favor of CHOICE. If you want a network like this, you should have the right to order it digitally. If BTN and NFL Network do not offer a competitive price to cable providers to put it into a general channel lineup, then that provider should have the right to still offer it to their customers, but on their terms and in a way that will not affect the great majority of people not interested in football in general OR those, like myself, not interested in it 365 days a year.
I am simply a Charter employee that is tired of having my company bashed for believing in something that is right for the majority of its customer base. If you're one of those people aren't you glad someone is stepping up to the plate?
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 12:20pm):
First, let me say cordially that those who dislike cable providers simply because they exist and dont give services away for free need to perhaps consider moving to a socialist country. Cable is not a monopoly, nor is it a public service- Yes its a publically traded company but no law requires that you buy it so quit the slams- Charter, Time Warner and others employ people in these communities, dontate huge sums of money and routingly kick back more than 5 % of the gross reciepts to local cities from franschise fee's. People need to get off them for wanting control of the product they offer. The Big Ten network does not insist on being included in the basic tier of channels anyplace other than in the mid west. It also charges pennies on the dollar in outer markets compared to what it wants to charge cable companies in the mid west. The very same Univerisities that live and die on public funding, that charge a small fortune for our children to attend have made a case to the public that not only should we all pay additionally to have this channel included in basic lineups-but also that its the evil cable companies who are at fault for not drving yet another dump truck full of cash up to the big ten school doors.
Will this result in lower tuition? (No) Will this result in lower ticket prices, hot dog prices or prevent regents and others asking for a public handout to rebuild the next stadium or facility on campus (no).
I love college athletics and football, thos who dont need not pay additionally so I can watch it...put it in a sports tier where it belongs, charge the same rate for the channel in the midwest as you do on the left coast and make your money on advertising revenue instead of soaking cable companies directly and eventually those customers of the companies as well.
TANSTAAFL There Aint No Such Thing As a Free Lunch!
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 12:37pm):
Can't we all just get along!
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 1:30pm):
This is well-written and a refreshing change from the knee-jerk antagonism typicaly voiced against a company this is in no way a monopoly and--as pointed out earlier above--is struggling to provide their service at a competitive rate vis-a-vis their competitors.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 2:01pm):
I saw a story about another of the big cable companies involved in the BTN dispute, Comcast, that is starting up it's own Oregon Sports Channel and will be charging in the neighborhood of $2+ a subscriber for it. BTN is only charging about $1 in Big Ten country and $.30 in the rest of the country. Comcast argument about it being expensive goes right out the window when they charge more than double for their own channel.
Next, more and more conferences are making deals with ESPN/ABC/CBS/NBC to carry their football games which means less B10 games on those channels. BTN was created to keep their games available on TV. Remember the Badger game last year that aired on ESPN360? People were pissed.
This is only going to get worse with the number of Badger Basketball games on BTN. I believe they will be showing 19 of them.
People saying this is niche channel... ok I agree, but I also would classify the majority of the channels on basic cable as niche channels... Disney is for kids... Fox Family is for kids... Lifetime isn't for me... shopping networks don't need to exist in my opinion... Food Networks. The list goes on and on. There are a lot of channels I get that I don't care about. Lets make a shopping tier, a cooking tier, a women's channels tier... this list can go on and on too.
Finally, granted I was rather young when this occurred, but back when ESPN started airing NFL games on Sunday night, people were pissed... now it is accepted as part of life. In 5 or 10 years, Big Ten games on BTN will be part of life.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 2:24pm):
I'm a huge football and Badger Fan. The ones who will benifit the most are the universities who we as taxpayers are already funding. I'm sure they will lower the tuitions and make sure ticket prices are more affordable (not). If the BTN is so sure that everyone wants this channel. It should not hurt them to allow the cable companys to put them on the sport tiers. They would have consumers lining up to sign up. The BTN should have to prove themselves first as a player in the buisness before the cable companies invest in them. I think both the cable companies and the BTN could be winners if they would just do what is right.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 2:45pm):
Packer Fans Beware. Whats next the NFC Central channel. This is the start of things to come.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 3:23pm):
I work for charter and the big ten is asking for 1.10 per subscriber which is the second highest price behind ESPN. For a new network that is not established, that is rediculous. They only want .15 cents or something like that for non big ten states. Charter is a publicly owned company. It is in the stock market. Thats why its not a private company. I want BTN and NFL Network as much as anyone but its not right what they are doing to us.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 10:52pm):
Why is the BTN taking hockey games off FSN? It's not the WCHA Network.
Anyway, as far as Barry's claim that smaller cable companies have reached aggreement to carry his network, they have. 20-100 customers = $20-$100. No big deal. Charter, 500,000 = a half million dollars every month. Someone has to pay for that.
Go to the sports tier where you belong and let the customers choose with their dollars.
Anonymous (November 8, 2007 @ 11:50pm):
Charter will place the BTN on the Sports Tier with fair pricing, but BTN won't accept that.
I don't watch sports, why should I pay for it?
Charter would place it on Expanded Basic - if the majority of customers ask for it - customers are not asking for it - and that is why Charter is not accepting it on that tier.
Also, price - BTN wants mega money for their channel.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 4:41am):
I too am a Charter Employee. I also have nothing whatsoever to do with contract negotiations. The opinions expressed here are my own and may not reflect those of my employer.
Charter is not a 'Public interest monopoly' as stated by a previous post. Charter is a publicly traded company that has a non exclusive contract with the City of Madison to provide cable tv service.
Personally, I don't care about sports. Football, Basketball, Hockey, whatever. But some people do. Adding and maintaining a network on a cable system takes money, Charter has to pay to carry the content. Like it or not, that means that Charters customers pay for content. It is simple really. You wonder why the price of Cable TV service goes up? Look at the networks carried. They all want money based on the number of subscribers that can view thier content. Want your cable rates to go down? Let the networks know that you don't want to pay that much for them.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 11:01am):
These non negotiations on the BTN side are being controlled by Fox Sports who don't give a damn about what is best for Big Ten fans, UW or Charter. All they want is to create something to be on the same level as ESPN and they are trying to price it as such. $1.10 per customer is ridiculous for a channnel that has been seen or will be watched by a small percentage of the country. You should also know that these rates the channels charge the cable companies have a standard yearly increase of 5 - 10% a year whether they are successfull or not. So starting at $1.10 per customer is like paying a premium price for an unproven product and creates a huge revenue stream for them when they already get millions for selling the other games to the big 3 networks. You need to remember that these games were all FREE to watch over the air either by rabbit ears or HD over the air or were included with most peoples cable a year ago. So who is taking these games away from us?!?! These so games are being held hostage by the BTN and Fox Sports in hopes that the fans and customers get out raged enough to take the anger out on the cable companies and hurt their profits enough to make them change their mind and give into this exploitation. It makes me sick that the UW can keep raising tuition rates and price many kids that want to go to college out of it but can turn around and try this kind of what I said before exploitation of its fans. One word comes to mind, GREED! If you think otherwise than your opinion of the cable companies is clouding your judgement, they are right in this situation and until everyone realizes it the same thing will happen again with other channels. Remember the NFL network, deja vu.
Anonymous (November 10, 2007 @ 8:52am):
Lets get rid of all the latino channels and have BTN. how many people actually watch those channels anyways. We can also get rid of the chrch channels, lifetime and hallmark. think of how cheaper the bill may be as well as giving room for BTN and maybe some other quality channels.
Anonymous (November 10, 2007 @ 5:56pm):
I dont see why people care so much. Stop complaining and switch to dish if your that unhappy about it. Nobody is holding you against your will at charter. They dont have contracts so your free to do what you want.
Now its ok to have an opinion if you want the BTN or not. But when people are constantly complaining about it, it really pisses me off. Thats like complaining that skittles dont have peanuts in them but m&m's do. Maybe if you would sit back and take a second to think about it, you would realize that your an idiot and there is a pretty good reason for these things.
So seriously, if you are that unhappy, shut up and switch companies.
Anonymous (November 11, 2007 @ 9:19am):
Basic economics - you can bet that those cable and satellite companies who are carrying the Big Ten and NFL networks on their expanded Basic channels with no increase in their rates (at this time-wait a year or so) are cutting that money from something else, repairs to their wiring, hiring new customer service reps or technicians, adding new HD channels, or the like. It's just like balancing your checkbook.
And as a cable customer who isn't interested in sports and wouldn't watch any of the BIg Ten offerings why should I be forced to pay for it? This has been how so many of these channels got on expanded basic in the first place - a form of blackmail! And why should cable customers in the Big Ten states pay more than non-Big Ten states anyways? We already support these programs through our tax dollars - so we're being penalized for it? Put it on the sports tier where those folks who are fans (more power to them!) can watch to their hearts content and leave the rest of us in peace.
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.
