NY Times: Not Everyone Wants Channel That’s All Big Ten, All the Time

[Caveat Emperor]

Are you telling me that Golf TV, GSN, Discovery Health, Fit TV, SoapNet, and some of those other channels are on there because of their broad appeal?

Of course they aren't, but I'm betting that none of those channels charges the cable operator (who, in turn, charges you on your bill) nearly the amount of money that the B11 Network is asking for. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 of those channels cost the cable operator $0.00 per sub, with the network hoping to make the money up by charging advertisers higher rates due to increased market penetration.

As far as broad appeal goes, I'd be shocked if TWC and Comcast were in these negotiations without some notion of what customer demand was for these channels. I'm guessing they keep their finger on the pulse fairly closely -- either by monitoring e-mail and call volume from people asking for the channel, attrition rates to DTV and DISH since the network started, and perhaps customer surveys assessing demand for these channels. If there was really a massive outrage and customer revolt occurring, they'd have done the deal by now. Maybe it is a *slight* overstatement to say that demand for B11 content is huge just because you happen to live in a state that features a B11 school.

SeeinRed has this perfectly pegged -- if you're siding with B11 on this one, you're basically saying that they're right and every cable subscriber, regardless of their particular interests, should be forced to pay an additional $1.30 on their cable bill so that the subset of rabid college sports fans and B11 alumni can watch their games. Maybe if the price to customers was more reasonable, they'd have a legitimate argument -- but at that cost (~4% of a $40 cable bill), it seems quite ridiculous.

[Yachtzee]

Of course they aren't, but I'm betting that none of those channels charges the cable operator (who, in turn, charges you on your bill) nearly the amount of money that the B11 Network is asking for. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 of those channels cost the cable operator $0.00 per sub, with the network hoping to make the money up by charging advertisers higher rates due to increased market penetration.

As far as broad appeal goes, I'd be shocked if TWC and Comcast were in these negotiations without some notion of what customer demand was for these channels. I'm guessing they keep their finger on the pulse fairly closely -- either by monitoring e-mail and call volume from people asking for the channel, attrition rates to DTV and DISH since the network started, and perhaps customer surveys assessing demand for these channels. If there was really a massive outrage and customer revolt occurring, they'd have done the deal by now. Maybe it is a *slight* overstatement to say that demand for B11 content is huge just because you happen to live in a state that features a B11 school.

SeeinRed has this perfectly pegged -- if you're siding with B11 on this one, you're basically saying that they're right and every cable subscriber, regardless of their particular interests, should be forced to pay an additional $1.30 on their cable bill so that the subset of rabid college sports fans and B11 alumni can watch their games. Maybe if the price to customers was more reasonable, they'd have a legitimate argument -- but at that cost (~4% of a $40 cable bill), it seems quite ridiculous.

I'm not siding with either side. However, I do know that for many folks in Northern Ohio, your choice of tv subscription is TWC or nothing. Local communities can no longer negotiate with competing cable operators because TWC bought them all out. You can't get satellite because you've got too many trees in your yard or you live in a place where they don't permit dishes. If you're lucky, you might have AT&T as your local phone provider, which means you might some day get U-verse. But other than that, you've got no real choice. I have DirectTV, but I know that if I want HD channels some day, I'm probably going to have to relocate my dish because the trees just beyond my backyard have grown high enough to block the HD satellite. At least in this area, TWC has monopoly power and it shows. The customer service stinks, cable outages are common and channel selection doesn't always match up with the tastes of the community, but rather what kind of deal TWC can get from the channel.

Before TWC bought out all the cable operators up here, most of the non-TWC operators offered NFLN in extended basic. When TWC bought them out, they immediately dumped NFLN. And if NFLN is so expensive, as TWC now claims, why is it that, before the big buyout, so many other cable operators were able to offer NFLN in extended basic, pushing some of those other channels into digital tier, and yet TWC goes to war? They could offer it in extended basic in some communities where demand for it is high and people would be willing to pay a little more, but they want to use it to sell other channels that nobody wants. Same with BTN. TWC has staked out its position and NFLN and BTN have staked out theirs and its the consumer that gets hurt. Rather than congressmen talking about whether to pass laws forcing BTN and TWC to agree, they should be looking into whether satellite TV provides sufficient competition to cable. Maybe instead they should look into anti-trust violations.

I'm not for BTN. I think what they're asking is unreasonable. People nationwide shouldn't have to get BTN. It's a regional sports network. But I'm also against TWC because, at least as far as us in Northeast Ohio, it's a terrible company with terrible service and it exhibits many of the bad characteristics of a monopoly company. I look forward to the day when technology reaches the point where cable operators are responsible solely for infrastructure and programming is delivered in a way similar to the internet, where customers can choose what programming is or is not delivered to their TV.

[guttle11]

Are you telling me that Golf TV...are on there because of their broad appeal?

Golf channel, yes. They have TV deals with every major professional tour in the world, and golf is a world-wide game.

Comparing the BTN to the Golf Channel is wrong anyway. More like the BTN to an LPGA channel.

[Yachtzee]

Golf channel, yes. They have TV deals with every major professional tour in the world, and golf is a world-wide game.

Comparing the BTN to the Golf Channel is wrong anyway. More like the BTN to an LPGA channel.

Not in this area. Football is king. If they had a High School Football channel up here, people would watch it. As far as golf goes, people will watch big tournaments that are on the major networks, but I know few people who watch the golf channel outside of when they're having a few beers in the clubhouse after a round. Does anybody watch the Golf Channel outside of hardcore golfers? I love golf and I can't watch 5 minutes of the Golf Channel that I couldn't catch on the major networks.

[Caveat Emperor]

Does anybody watch the Golf Channel outside of hardcore golfers?

Does anyone watch the B11 Network outside of hardcore college sports fans and B11 alums?

How many people is that really?

Because, in just about every instance, there's a more compelling matchup on ABC, CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, or TBS. If you're a passing fan of college sports with no rooting interest in any game being played, chances are the best games will be found on a channel you already get.

So, really, we're talking about slicing off a small segment of the sports viewership here...not all that dissimilar to the small slice the golf channel caters to.

[Brutus_the_Red]

Of course they aren't, but I'm betting that none of those channels charges the cable operator (who, in turn, charges you on your bill) nearly the amount of money that the B11 Network is asking for. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 of those channels cost the cable operator $0.00 per sub, with the network hoping to make the money up by charging advertisers higher rates due to increased market penetration.

As far as broad appeal goes, I'd be shocked if TWC and Comcast were in these negotiations without some notion of what customer demand was for these channels. I'm guessing they keep their finger on the pulse fairly closely -- either by monitoring e-mail and call volume from people asking for the channel, attrition rates to DTV and DISH since the network started, and perhaps customer surveys assessing demand for these channels. If there was really a massive outrage and customer revolt occurring, they'd have done the deal by now. Maybe it is a *slight* overstatement to say that demand for B11 content is huge just because you happen to live in a state that features a B11 school.

SeeinRed has this perfectly pegged -- if you're siding with B11 on this one, you're basically saying that they're right and every cable subscriber, regardless of their particular interests, should be forced to pay an additional $1.30 on their cable bill so that the subset of rabid college sports fans and B11 alumni can watch their games. Maybe if the price to customers was more reasonable, they'd have a legitimate argument -- but at that cost (~4% of a $40 cable bill), it seems quite ridiculous.

you are correct, most of those other channels do cost the cable companies $0.00 per subscriber, because most of those channels are owned by the cable company itself or forced on the cable company by the big boys.

i've spent some years working w/ comcast, and trust me, the cable companies more in the wrong than most of you think.

the basic premise of it all is that Cable companies NEVER add channels to their extended basic unless one of those two things occur.

If I remember correctly, right before I left comcast ESPN was charging in the neighborhood of $3.75 - $4.00 per subscriber for it's channels. The strongarm tactic that most of you can figure is that you can't just get ESPN alone, ESPN ransoms the cable company by saying carry them all or get nothing. Cable companies are undoubtedly not going to turn down ESPN, so they just turn around and inflate the price to their customers. It works this way with Discovery Channel, MTV, etc. Don't carry their sister's, you don't get the big fish.

and with other channels, the cable company's generally own them or the station charges nothing to the cable company in return for the advertising. Of course the cable company still promotes these generally junk channels as great content and charges the customer accordingly.



now we come down to the real argument for the B10 Network.

The cable companies do not want to put it on their extended basic cable tier because they can make more money off of it on a sports tier. If you think they are out to save joe schmo in oregon who doesn't want to be charged $.10 for the BTN, you're completely wrong. They will raise it more than anyways, just for inflation. If you think their scared of upping prices in the B10 states for offering the channel, you're wrong. They would probably raise them without the channel.

They want it on a sports tier so they can make more money off of it by packing it with their own poor programming.

example: let's say for instance the B10 was to give in and let TWC and Comcast put it on a tier. Immediately, Comcast and TWC would package it with a couple of newly created "lame duck" stations that the cable companies own. The they would offer the tier in the neighborhood of $10.00 a month, capitalizing on the B10 content, paying them their portion, but taking a large piece of the pie for themselves.


An example of the hypocrisy with Comcast is this: they are currently in talks with the SEC to convert their extended basic Comcast SouthEast regional sports network that currently plays taped delayed SEC into a new SEC Network channel, carrying comparable content to the BTN, nationwide. The reason they aren't going to force it onto a sports tier....

they'll have a piece of the pie.

[Yachtzee]

Does anyone watch the B11 Network outside of hardcore college sports fans and B11 alums?

How many people is that really?

Because, in just about every instance, there's a more compelling matchup on ABC, CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, or TBS. If you're a passing fan of college sports with no rooting interest in any game being played, chances are the best games will be found on a channel you already get.

So, really, we're talking about slicing off a small segment of the sports viewership here...not all that dissimilar to the small slice the golf channel caters to.

Do you realize how many people are Buckeyes fans in Northeast Ohio that never went to Ohio State? Ohio State is the de facto college sports team for Ohioans that never went to college. Everyone on my street follows the Buckeyes, even the guy from Cape Cod who moved here later. Every level of football is big up here and I suspect it is the same for Columbus. It's not just Big 10 alumni who are fans. It's everybody. In fact, when I went to BGSU, half the students seemed to be Buckeyes fans and half were Michigan fans. The BGSU Falcons were a definite second place in the hearts of most students. As much as I would love Kent State or Akron to do well and have a big following, I realize most people around here would rather see the Buckeyes or Penn State or Michigan on TV than go to a MAC game. Buckeye football and basketball gets way more press in the local media, particularly the Akron Beacon Journal, than any other college sport and almost as much press as the Indians and Cavs (but not even close to the Browns). People follow the local kids who play for the Buckeyes all the time. So I would say it's way more than just hardcore sports fans and B10 alumni who would watch it here. Your assessment is true outside B10 markets. But I beg to differ when it comes to the Ohio. Well, at least the Northeastern part of the state.

[SeeinRed]

Maybe a la carte isn't technically feasible at this time, but I think putting BTN and NFLN on expanded basic in some areas and not in others is entirely feasible and not unheard of.

It is unheard of. You don't see that anywhere in TWC with very few exceptions. It is a corporate contract. The can't take one of the other channels out in some areas and leave them in in others to make room for the BTN. It would break agreements. This is just not possible. That is why it has to go either in digital cable, or on basic, not both. If it was added to basic, another channel has to go. They can't expand the basic tier until 2009 when it all goes digital. The frequencies have already been alloted. Of the two (basic or digital) digital makes the most sense. Period.

Are you telling me that Golf TV, GSN, Discovery Health, Fit TV, SoapNet, and some of those other channels are on there because of their broad appeal? I would be willing to bet you that, in football crazy Northeast Ohio, one Saturday of Big 10 football will bring in more viewers than some of those channels bring in in an entire year. And considering that Time Warner offers different channel lineups on expanded basic in the town next door to me, I don't see how Time Warner and BTN can't work out a deal that puts BTN in expanded basic in areas where there is a demand for it and leaves it to the sports tier in others.

Extended basic really isn't all that different from area to area. There may be the difference of getting a different regional station or two. The biggest difference is they are on different channel numbers. There isn't a different nationally brodcast channel in the different areas.

Here's the Digital Sports Tier for the Akron area:

103		Speed Channel	 	
145		Fox College Sports Central		
104		Outdoor Channel	 	
146		Fox College Sports Pacific	
114		FUEL TV	 	
151		College Sports TV	
115		Fox Soccer Channel	 	
159		NBA TV	
130		G4	 	
160		Tennis Channel	
144		Fox College Sports Atlantic

Of those selections, there is only one channel, Fox Soccer Channel, that I would actually watch and I'm an oddball. Maybe CSTV if a Kent State or Akron game was on, but that's it. Would I pay extra for it? No way. I highly doubt everyone who would want BTN and NFLN are already subscribers to that list of channels.

Do I want to pay extra for a channel I don't want? No way. Why should I or anybody else have to pay for a channel that isn't already in the lineup that I don't want to watch? You want it and don't want to pay for it. Why would I want to pay for it but not want to watch it? NFLN has never been discussed as far as channel position goes BTW. It never gets past price. The NFLN wanted about 1.50/subscriber at last check to show what amounts to 8 games a year. Not worth the cost by a long shot. Negotiations have moved along some though since then but no figures have been revealed.

TWC is just as greedy and bullheaded as those networks are. Based on past experience, I'd say they don't care about catering to the tastes of the communities they serve.

If you switch TWC and Networks in the first sentence it pretty much makes the same argument you try to make. I'm sorry about you expirences, but you want them to cater to a small groups taste, not that of a majority. It doesn't make sense. Why would everybody pay so a group of sports fans want to watch games from a specific conference. Yeah there are a lot of B10 fans in Ohio, but they aren't the majority.

If there was a Big East Network, would you be OK with paying the extra per month so others can watch it? You will probably say yes. That is of course assuming you aren't a fan of the Big East. How about an SEC Network. There are a lot of UK fans around here. Even some UT fans. Would you pay extra for that to be on basic so others can watch. I don't understand how you can tell me that I should have to pay the same price as you for a specialty channel I don't watch and you do.

[Yachtzee]

I have no problem with fans in Big East markets getting a Big East Network in expanded basic cable. I have no problem with fans in SEC markets getting the SEC network in expanded basic cable. If I had cable I'd have Fox Sports Ohio and Sports Time Ohio in expanded basic. I don't have a problem with a Big 10 network in expanded basic in Big 10 markets. In fact it makes sense. I don't think such a channel should be forced on people in Oregon. However, I do think it would do quite well in most parts of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota and would be desirable in those states over some of the other options in expanded basic cable and the key should be whether the customers want it in basic cable.

As far as moving channels and breaking agreements, TWC has moved channels from basic to the digital tier often, and one community having a different basic lineup is not unheard of. My parents have a different basic lineup in Lorain Co. than I would get with TW Akron. Hudson, the neighboring town, has STYLE in its basic lineup. Whether TWC moves channels around is determined by which channels they can move. I'm sure many of those contracts have provisions that allow TWC to bump a channel to digital if the need arises. They had to do it when the Indians came up with Sports Time Ohio. If they had to pay a buy-out fee to a lesser channel, I'm sure they could negotiate with BTN to pay whatever breach of contract costs they had to pay to the other channel. Up here they have TW Akron and TW Hudson and TW Kent and TW Cleveland and TW Bath. Each one has slightly different lineups that were probably set when TWC either came into the town or bought out the existing carrier. Each town negotiated a franchise agreement with TWC in order for TWC to be permitted to use right of ways to offer cable service in the community. Some of those channel lineups are set by the franchise agreements, some not. In any case, having different channels in expanded basic in different communities isn't all that crazy a notion. The idea that TWC has to have the same expanded basic lineup nationwide is a bunch of bs.

As far as paying for channels you don't want, you already do that. There are plenty of channels in the expanded basic tier that most people don't watch and whether they pay for it in subscriber fees or in bandwidth used up that could be used for channels they would like to watch, they're paying for it. In fact, the BTN could probably make up enough money in local ad sales in one fall Saturday so that TW Akron probably wouldn't have to raise subscriber fees at all to carry it.

[Sea Ray]

If it was added to basic, another channel has to go. They can't expand the basic tier until 2009 when it all goes digital. The frequencies have already been alloted. Of the two (basic or digital) digital makes the most sense. Period.

I don't know as much about this as you do so please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like TW does have room on its basic tier. Channel 32 is merely color bars now. It used to be ESPN-Classic

[Cedric]

Of course they aren't, but I'm betting that none of those channels charges the cable operator (who, in turn, charges you on your bill) nearly the amount of money that the B11 Network is asking for. I wouldn't be surprised if all 5 of those channels cost the cable operator $0.00 per sub, with the network hoping to make the money up by charging advertisers higher rates due to increased market penetration.

As far as broad appeal goes, I'd be shocked if TWC and Comcast were in these negotiations without some notion of what customer demand was for these channels. I'm guessing they keep their finger on the pulse fairly closely -- either by monitoring e-mail and call volume from people asking for the channel, attrition rates to DTV and DISH since the network started, and perhaps customer surveys assessing demand for these channels. If there was really a massive outrage and customer revolt occurring, they'd have done the deal by now. Maybe it is a *slight* overstatement to say that demand for B11 content is huge just because you happen to live in a state that features a B11 school.

SeeinRed has this perfectly pegged -- if you're siding with B11 on this one, you're basically saying that they're right and every cable subscriber, regardless of their particular interests, should be forced to pay an additional $1.30 on their cable bill so that the subset of rabid college sports fans and B11 alumni can watch their games. Maybe if the price to customers was more reasonable, they'd have a legitimate argument -- but at that cost (~4% of a $40 cable bill), it seems quite ridiculous.

Read the post below by seeinred.

You have a little too much faith in Time Warner.