Forcing cable providers to provide the Big Ten Network makes about as much sense as passing legislation that mandates McDonald's carry the Whopper. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what the state Legislature is considering. The Legislature's recent efforts concerning the Big Ten Network — the Fair Access to Networks Bill, the recent audit demanded of the BTN's contract with the UW Athletic Department — have indicated a willingness to force the hand of both the BTN and cable providers.
If you want a Whopper, go to Burger King. If you want the inanity that is the Big Ten Network, get DirecTV or DISH Network.
Further, if you want BTN on Charter, get DirecTV or DISH.
The Big Ten Network, dubbed "Big Niche Network" by our very own editorial board, has caused Wisconsin residents and Badger fans in particular quite a headache.
Perhaps you've noted the abject exclusivity of the Big Ten Network. Perhaps you've been horrifically surprised to discover your beloved Badger games are being banefully withheld from you. Perhaps you hold out hope that by some blessed act of providence, college athletics will return to normal and the cable subscription layman will be able to view Badger games freely.
Allow me, as a child who grew up bereft of even the most basic of cable subscriptions, to inform you of a reality
few are willing to admit: It's going to be a long winter for those hoping to view Badger Athletics on basic cable.
The exclusivity of the Big Ten Network has been decried in this publication and others, and the furor from Wisconsin residents has been sufficient to force the hand of the state Legislature. The Legislature, in deference to disgruntled constituents, is working on legislation that would somehow force the BTN and cable providers like Charter to reach an agreement on providing the BTN to its cable subscribers.
Unfortunately for Wisconsin residents, such a move would likely result in increased rates for all cable subscribers, even those who have no interest in the silliness that is the Big Ten Network. For those completely uninterested in our university's sports programs, such a rate increase would prove unacceptable. Paying more for a network that provides viewers with sports they may not care about for half of the year, and programming no one will watch for the rest of it, holds little appeal for a majority of the state.
Charter, whose reputation and customer service are about the only things worse than the outlook of its stock and shares, would be amiss to provide the network on basic cable. As BTN's programming offers little for a majority of the year to a majority of the state, a rate increase that is justified only by the inclusion of the BTN would do little for Charter's bottom line, and may cause defections among its customers.
The Legislature, by showing a propensity to force cable providers like Charter and BTN into a deal, is putting itself in a position of mandating a cable subscription fee increase on consumers. I can think of two people who would be happy with such an outcome: Athletic Director Barry Alvarez and Chancellor John Wiley.
Messrs. Alvarez and Wiley have called upon students to support the network, and would love to see students direct their Badger sports-deprived anger at Charter. And of course they would: The network is bringing the university more than $6 million in revenues to be used for the Athletic Department, campus libraries and need-based scholarships. A deal with Charter would doubtlessly provide the network and the university with even more revenue.
The Athletic Department would have you believe that it is Charter's obstinacy that is precluding you from viewing big Badger games, when in fact it was their indulgence that caused the exclusion in the first place. Charter would point to the risk of losing customers as a result of BTN's contractual demands. The Legislature, meanwhile, is at odds with both, and anxious to pass legislation that would result in more money coming out of cable subscribers' pockets.
Me? I say get satellite and enjoy the game.
The answer to the BTN problem — barring the dissolution of the network itself — is to let the market speak for itself. Badger games are a commodity. The argument that a public university is unable to provide such a commodity is ill-founded; one might as well argue against selling tickets to a basketball game. As such, if consumers, Messrs. Alvarez and Wiley and the state Legislature want Wisconsin residents to view the games on Charter, then watch them on satellite. With time, such a tactic will force Charter to provide the network at a rate attractive to its subscribers. Charter, poor customer service notwithstanding, cannot ignore the demands of the market any more than it can ignore its own bottom line. In the meantime, viewers get all the BTN they could want.
And before you know it, McDonald's may begin to serve the Whopper.
Gerald Cox ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics.
