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.