1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Ten Network

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Rich Griffis, Dec 29, 2007.

  1. Rich Griffis

    Rich Griffis Member

    OK, I am now officially ticked off. The Spartans tip-off against Wisconsin-Green Bay in about a half hour -- on my day off -- and I can watch the game because it is on the Big Ten Network and lousy Comcast still isn't carrying the channel.

    I called Comcast today and got the standard run around about how they are "in negotiations" to add the channel and the guy babbled on about how Comcast is looking out for its subscribers and not "forcing" another channel on us that only a minority of sports fans want.

    HEY COMCAST, HERE'S A TIP: In the Midwest, MOST sports fans want to watch Big Ten sports! If you are looking for a channel that is "forced" on me to cut, start with all the QVC, HSC, etc. shopping channels, and don't forget to grab Lifetime on your way out the door.

    End of rant (for now any way)

    Any way, I am now giving serious thought to switching to DirecTV, but I have two questions:
    1. Is the Big Ten Network worth it? I mean other than a few men's basketball games, is there anything worthwhile on the channel?
    2. If I drop Comcast, what is my best option for broadband internet service? (Note: I only use a cell phone, so I don't have a landline. Is that required for DSL service? Would I have to pay for a basic landline and then add DSL?)
     
  2. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    You don't need a land line for DSL, but your local phone company may require it. You also can get DSL through third-party vendors, not just the phone company.

    And I side with Comcast on BTN. They want the channel put on basic and won't accept for anything else. And they want something like $2 per month per subscriber, even in markets (hello, Boston) where the Big Ten is pretty irrelevant.
     
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Well, Rich, there's also football season to consider. I saw a lot of games this fall my neighbors didn't see.

    That being said, I've had DirecTV the 10 years I've lived in this house but I still don't blame cable.

    The channels you list that you don't care about aren't charging anywhere near what the Big Ten Network is trying to charge. The NFL Network tried the same thing and look at what they've been forced to do this weekend.
     
  4. Rich Griffis

    Rich Griffis Member

    From The Big Ten Network website:
    Q: So, how much does the network cost?
    A: About a dollar within the Big Ten's eight states, and about a dime everywhere else. Overall, the Big Ten Network's national average price to cable companies is about 30 cents. According to research by SNL Kagan, the Big Ten Network's in-market rate of under $1 is less expensive than 29 regional sports networks.

    Now I know both Comcast and the Big Ten Network and doing a bunch of spinning, trying to present their side in the best light, but those prices seem about the norm, at least compared to previous stories I have read before BTN was even thought of.

    Outside of Big Ten Country, I can see putting it on the Sports Tier (which is another ripoff, $6.99 for the NFL Network packaged with a bunch of crap nobody watches anyway), but tell me how this channel is any different than other regional sports channels? They are always on basic cable.
     
  5. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Regional sports networks often are owned (at least in part) or controlled by the cable company. See Comcast Sports Net's many operations. The $1-per-subscriber charge is kind of window dressing.
     
  6. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    As it says, $1 per sub in the midwest, 10 cents everywhere else. It's a nice way to bring the average price down so you can say it costs less than regional sports networks. Even the NFL only wants 70c, while normal basic cable channels like CNN and Fox News are down at 35c.
     
  7. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    It's hard to root for a winner in this fight -- Comcast and BTN are both greedy bastards
     
  8. JBHawkEye

    JBHawkEye Active Member

    Mediacom, our big cable provider, used the subscription price the Big Ten Network is charging as one of its reasons for not adding the channel to expanded basic. "People don't want to see their rates go up $1.10 per month," they said.

    Last month we were notified that the price of expanded basic was going up $3 per month. Without adding the Big Ten Network.
     
  9. Hank_Scorpio

    Hank_Scorpio Active Member

    That may be a good argument, except that in most of the country, QVC and the shopping channels will outsell BTN by far.
     
  10. markvid

    markvid Guest

    A few people I talked to at one of the Big Ten schools said that particular university's administration is looking for an out to the network and they are not alone. They realize it's a failure and are looking to ESPN to syndicate football and basketball again. The BTN should be gone after end of the men's hoops tourney.
     
  11. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Same thing is happening with theMTN out west.

    From Wikipedia:
    On June 1, 2007, the presidents of Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, unsatisfied with the current distribution, issued a joint press release that they "retained a sports broadcasting attorney to explore all possible options in improving the distribution of athletic broadcasts to their fans". [1]

    On June 5, 2007 the MWC Board "reaffirmed its unanimous support of the league's television model and its commitment to working collectively as a unified group", and its Directors unanimously voted to join BYU and Utah to retain the attorney they had hired.[2]

    In an interview with KUTV, President Michael K. Young of Utah stated that "Every [MWC member] knows...President Samuelson and I have been clear about this for the last year and a half that it is absolutely essential that we get on satellite to make our games available to our fans. Anything short of that is unacceptable." He then added that "We are passionately committed to our having our football games being on TV this year."[3]
     
  12. JBHawkEye

    JBHawkEye Active Member

    The smartest thing for the BTN to do now is get on the sports digital tiers of the Big Cable providers. Caving in to the big providers and making an effort to make this work would be better than dropping it after one year.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page