OPINION & EDITORIAL
Entitlement Town
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:
- Still miffed (May 7, 2008)
- A lacking response (May 6, 2008)
- The block is hot (May 2, 2008)
- Madison's Downtown: The Musical (May 1, 2008)
- The real 'State of the ASM' (April 29, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Big Niche Network (October 1, 2007)
- Situation Normal: Big Niche Network (November 7, 2007)
- Legislature's approach to BTN indicative of policy stagnation (December 3, 2007)
- Big Ten foible fault of network, not Charter (August 31, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
Share This:
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Many area Packers fans were unable to watch last week’s showdown with the Dallas Cowboys — and not just because they couldn’t bear to see Terrell Owens running free time and again through the Green Bay secondary.
The game was broadcast on the NFL Network, which local cable provider Charter Communications does not carry. A similar situation occurred during several Wisconsin Badger football games this fall, and now again during Badger basketball season, because Charter also lacks an agreement to show the Big Ten Network.
In an attempt to facilitate agreements between the networks and cable providers, Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, and Rep. Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, introduced the Fair Access to Networks (FAN) bill last week. The legislation would allow a network to seek arbitration if it is unable to come to an agreement with a cable provider to carry its programming.
This surely makes for good publicity, and no legislators are ever going to lose their seats because they tried to help the people of Wisconsin see the Packers and Badgers. “We are simply establishing a fair way to end these disputes so that our constituents are no longer shut out of programming they should have access to,” Ms. Rhoades said innocently enough in a release.
Ms. Rhoades has it wrong. While access to live coverage of sporting events on television is nice — and certainly something many of us have enjoyed over the years — nobody is entitled to see their favorite teams compete on television. Cable providers and programming content creators are both private companies, and if they can’t reach agreements with each other, nobody’s rights have been breached.
This does not mean consumers have no recourse. Fans can switch to satellite providers that do carry their favorite networks, or they can venture to bars or elsewhere when they cannot see a game at home on television.
The state simply has no business in these negotiations. Should a cereal maker be able to compel arbitration if a supermarket refuses to carry its product at a certain price? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what the FAN bill tries to do — only in the realm of cable television.
Like Mr. Hansen and Ms. Rhoades, we hope Charter can reach agreements with the NFL and Big Ten networks. But the terms should be amenable to both sides, and not the result of any arbiter’s decision.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 7:21pm):
This column is based upon some faulty presumptions, all of which lead to this strange conclusion.
1: Legally speaking, cable companies have unlimited space upon which to broadcast. They have different communications laws specifically for them because of this unique feature.
Grocery stores, and newspapers alike, do not have unlimited space, making compulsion for them to carry products or ideas and advertisements simply infeasible from a public policy and market standpoint.
This compulsion at any rate is relatively small and Charter isn't even being asked to swallow the cost. Charter will inevitably pass the cost down to the consumers anyway, which has been estimated at $7.00 a year if the figures are correct. That's not unreasonable especially in light of all the uproar caused.
2. This article also falsely claims that the market, namely allowing others to buy satellite packages and go to bars, will solve the problem.
The issue is, in part, that there isn't perfect competition for this market theory to work. Cable companies run unchallenged in markets across the country - this isn't anything new.
But where this argument really falls apart is the assumption that these alternatives are readily available. First, cable and satellite are relatively costly endeavors that can dissuade the average Packers, Bears, or Vikings fan from seeing their favorite team. But more damningly is that satellite is not available everywhere, despite that being its mantra.
This newspaper's population base is primarily students living in Apartment buildings. Not all of them allow satellites to be put up on a moment's notice. Cable is a very different story.
And, better still, not everyone is 21 nor do they entirely desire to go to bars and local establishments to watch football games. That is asking quite a bit of the average football fan.
3. This editorial also makes the very faulty presumption that arbitration is unfair. Not necessarily so - if anything arbitration is the overwhelmingly strong new trend of American legal theory and at times can be more fair than litigation.
Arbitrators are supposed to be fair, are governed by a national organization (if you're using the AAA), and provide a simple, but binding, solution to the problem.
This really is the quick way out - two sides are standing their ground and cable companies fail to feel any of the ill effects of their choice because the market isn't functioning properly.
But, I suppose, I shouldn't be surprised. Afterall this is the Badger Herald Ed Board, who have recommended Wiscmail become Gmail and equated Ashok Kumar to Hugo Chavez.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 11:17pm):
Ashok is like Chavez, dude.
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.
