June 4, 2007
Big10 Network playing chicken with cable companies?
By every indication, the question of just how many people will be able to watch the Big 10 Network will go down to the wire.
According to The Patriot News, the Big 10 Network is asking cable companies to pony up $1.14 per household - a fee that would rank the as the third highest fee on basic cable today. In fact, only sports giant ESPN ($3.00) and TNT ($1.26) have higher fees.
Since cable companies would be required to pay the subscription fee for every cable subscriber on their network - regardless of whether they want the Big 10 Network or not - it seems providers are balking at the fee. So far, only DirecTV, AT&T and Buckeye Cable (Toledo, Ohio) have been confirmed to carry the Big 10 Network. Larger carriers - like Comcast - have yet to finalize a deal with the network.
To be fair, the Big 10 Network has been saying for weeks that they have more than 40 cable companies already signed up. I asked the Alice Rooks of the Big 10 Network to confirm the number of additional cable companies and asked if the rate -- which seems very high on the surface -- was a holdup in the process.
We have agreements in place with over 40 cable operators. We have said that we will announce the agreements with the cable operators who plan to carry the network when the legal contracts are signed. Typically, both parties agree to terms, legal documents are drawn up, and then the contracts are signed. We are looking forward to making those announcements, as well as announcing agreements with even more operators, as soon as they are signed. We also will post the names of those operators on our website.
So, what's the holdup, I wonder? Is it the fact that the fledgling Big 10 Network is demanding a steep rate?
Respectfully, we believe the terms we are asking, given the breadth and depth of our content, including more than 350 live events, a nightly studio show and campus programming showcasing some of the nation�s finest athletic and academic institutions, are very reasonable. The fact that we have more than 40 deals and national agreements with DirecTV and AT&T � all at the price and level of service we have asked for � prove this point. Also, we are offering distributors not only a cable network, but also an HD network, a Video On Demand Service, Broadband Content, local advertising opportunities, and other content, all for the same price. No other network offers to distributors the level of content the Big Ten Network is offering.Having said that, the price we are asking within the Big Ten region is less than half, and sometime closer to a third, of what regional sports networks typically charge. Outside the Big Ten region, we are asking for a price that also is less than other college sports networks charge. Our average price across all homes in the U.S. is less than half of that asked by professional sports networks, and significantly less than other sports networks.
Negotiations between cable networks and distributors are unfortunately a part of the process that cable networks have to go through to provide viewers access to the programming they want to see. We believe our proposal is fair and reasonable based on market comparables and the fact that many cable operators, along with DirecTV, have already agreed to our proposal. We know we have a lot of work to do over the next few months and hope that fans of all Big Ten universities will support our efforts as we seek to provide more coverage of their universities than ever before.
Respectfully, I'm not sure the Big 10 Network -- in its first year -- needs to worry about what rate other sports networks are getting from the cable providers. And the suggestion that the Big 10 fans should support the network (against the cable companies) sounds very much like the network intends to use the (very!) limited time remaining to pressure the providers to agree to the network's rate structure.
In a nutshell, the Big 10 Network knows that fans will raise holy hell when they can't see their team on cable. In fact, the network has been encouraging fans to lobby their cable company for months.
We urge all Big Ten fans, whether they are inside or outside of the Big Ten footprint, to contact their cable or satellite provider to ask if they plan on carrying the Big Ten Network. We fully expect all cable systems and satellite providers to carry the network because they understand your passion and love for your team, and thus how important this programming is to you.By calling to inquire if your provider plans to carry the Big Ten Network, you will reinforce what they already know.
The Big 10 has laid out their case to the cable companies: pay our rate, or face the complaints.
Yep, the Big 10 Network is playing chicken with the cable companies.
Comments:
posted on June 4, 2007 1:48 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
ABC/ESPN still get first pick of the Big10 schedule, but the Big 10 Network *could* elect to carry games that aren't on the bigger networks. So, if both ABC and ESPN passes on... hypothetically... Purdue/Indiana, then that game would be available for the B10N to pick up. Doesn't mean they would, but they could.
gatorhippy said:
posted on June 4, 2007 2:02 PM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse?
Here's problem with this...
Outside of B-10 regionally is anyone going to make a loud enough amount of noise to warrant the cable companies making it available other than PPV...
That said...
It doesn't really seem like all that bad a deal...
I'm not buying it, but I'm sure Buckeye buddy would...
M GO BLUE said:
posted on June 4, 2007 5:00 PM — 216.46.211.185 — link — abuse?
IM NOT BUYING !!!!!!! I WILL SIT AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO !!!!
THE IDIOTS WHO CAME UP WITH THIS PITIFUL IDEA ARE A BUNCH OF.............IDIOTS !!!!
THE ONLY THING THAT WILL COME OF THIS IS A NATION OF PEOPLE READY TO RIOT !!! AND A LONGER WAITING LIST FOR TICKETS !!!!
Brian McCormack said:
posted on June 4, 2007 6:08 PM — 69.250.168.62 — link — abuse?
BTN is not playing chicken they are playing the extortion game. According to The Capital Times of Madison WI http://www.madison.com/tct/sports/general/index.php?ntid=130112&ntpid=1 the BTN is looking to put $7.5 million in the pocket of each member. That money will be taken from people living in Big 10 country. This is a pure and simple money grab.
http://thebusinessofcfb.blogspot.com/2007/05/big-75-million-each-network.html
Mike Johnson said:
posted on June 5, 2007 10:16 AM — 159.53.110.143 — link — abuse?
For people such as Brian above, relax and take a step back. People don't "have a right" to watch every football game on TV. This is not redistribution of wealth; it will work itself out in the marketplace. If you have a hot product, why not try to hold out for premium rates? It's a risk, but a calculated one.
College Football is now a serious business, not a jovial pass-time. Bitter cynics, tough titty.
posted on June 5, 2007 10:38 AM — link — abuse?
Zac - This isn't pay-per-view. I hate (but tolerate) pay-per-view. Every basic cable subscriber would be paying for this, whether they want to or not. It's the "Big 10 Tax", if you will.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on June 5, 2007 2:35 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
Kevin Post 8,
If that's the case how much do you suppose basic cable would go up just for the Big10 Network? I'm sure people in that region would not mind, but I think something like that would hurt them Nationally. I hope they know they are gambling recruits.
Pre-Tedford Cal Fan said:
posted on June 5, 2007 8:05 PM — 71.11.244.124 — link — abuse?
Nebraska vs. Iowa
Missouri vs. Iowa
Utah vs. Colorado
Texas vs. Tennessee
Texas vs. Florida
Texas vs. Georgia
Georgia vs. Michigan
LSU vs. Michigan
Stanford vs. Northwestern vs. Vanderbilt vs. Duke
UCLA vs. North Carolina vs. Kentucky vs. Kansas
CAL vs. Michigan vs. Virginia vs. North carolinaZac said:
posted on June 5, 2007 8:39 PM — 65.31.230.72 — link — abuse?
K-Hue, I like the idea of a "tax" even less. Though I too hate Pay-Per-View, at least you have the choice as to whether or not you pay to play. A "tax" is involuntary; it's imposed. Why should I pay for someone else's viewing pleasure, if I get no benefit from it?
By the way, Mike, college football has been a big business for some time. It was only a matter of time before it took a step change upward to keep in stride with what technology can do to make it even bigger.
goodolnuma5 said:
posted on June 5, 2007 8:43 PM — 65.24.221.145 — link — abuse?
Growing up, if the game wasnt on TV, you'd have to watch the replay sunday morning. It sucked, but it was a long time ago.
These guys are like drug dealers.
Get the high for free.
Get hooked.
Then YOU pay.
Then you're their biatch.
posted on June 5, 2007 10:02 PM — link — abuse?
Given that the B10N fees have been pretty highly publicized, I think it's going to be difficult for them to charge more than $1.50-$2.00 month more. Of course, $2.00 times a couple million cable boxes is... a lot.
College Pigskin Fan said:
posted on June 6, 2007 8:29 PM — 63.19.111.45 — link — abuse?
This sounds like the NFL network and how they want alot of money to carry their network, then blame the cable provider for not carrying it.
"Call your cable provider and tell them you want our network".
I love how the NFL and now the Big 10 wants the public to do their marketing work for them. Sad.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Zac said:
posted on June 4, 2007 1:17 PM — 209.36.193.14 — link — abuse?My 1st impression of this is, "OK, Big 10, you win. Keep your coverage." However, if you consider what ESPN Game Plan charges for their coverage, if the Top 5 BCS conferences charged what the Big 10 is proposing over the college football regular season, it doesn't sound too bad. Now, I'm not certain that means getting all those games week-in and week-out, but I would imagine a couple of key match-ups would have to be involved each week. Of course, there's the profit margin thing, taxes, surcharges, and other things that get tacked on, which make it less than attractive. Now, you're back where you started from: No coverage.