Big Ten Network (BTN)

[buckeyefool]

At least that way the market would decide, and we'd all see if the BTN can actually stand on its own two feet, which it wants us to believe it can even though it insists on being crammed down the throat of every cable subscriber.

How about all the channels that I already have that are "crammed down" my throat?

I see your point but to say either side is without fault is wrong. Why should the cable companies get to make as much money as they want off of a new channel, but heaven forbid the BTN ask for $1 per subscriber.

 

[exhawg]

ehhh just as much can be said against the cable company. Lets add a little more to this arguement. Lets say they put it on the digital sports package like they want. so you have the $1 then the $12 or what ever the charge for the channel ohhhhh and don't forget, if you don't already have digital cable you have to pay the extra $30 to $50 to move to digital so really for the $1 that BTN wants to charge the cable company, the cable company get to milk out another $40 to $60 dollars out of the consumer. So don't let the cable company fool you and make it seem like they are just protecting people from having to pay extra if they dont want the channel.

You would have to have digital cable anyway even if the BTN gets its way. IIRC they want it on expanded basic that you can't get without a box. If you're too cheap to have digital cable (as I am) you don't deserve to have some of the perks.

 

[Lockup]

At least that way the market would decide, and we'd all see if the BTN can actually stand on its own two feet, which it wants us to believe it can even though it insists on being crammed down the throat of every cable subscriber.

Your not seriously one of those people who is going to try and make the argument about how the big bad BTN is trying to force itself down the throat of every 85 year old grandmother who does not want it are you?

I got a list of about 60 channels I could share with you that I don't care about and I am being forced to pay for too.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Your not seriously one of those people who is going to try and make the argument about how the big bad BTN is trying to force itself down the throat of every 85 year old grandmother who does not want it are you?

Is that really a bad argument? I know tons of people who are huge sports fans and don't want to pay the extra $1+ that the BTN wants, not to mention people who couldn't care less about sports.

I got a list of about 60 channels I could share with you that I don't care about and I am being forced to pay for too.

So that makes it OK for the BTN to get shoved down our throats, just b/c it's been done before? Great logic.

 

[Lockup]

Is that really a bad argument? I know tons of people who are huge sports fans and don't want to pay the extra $1+ that the BTN wants, not to mention people who couldn't care less about sports.

yes it is a bad argument when cable companies already shove tons of stations down our throats that people don't want.

The 1+ is complete crap too. It may have started there but it has long since been lower than that. I remember reading an article not long ago that said they were down to like 60-80 cents with Time Warner but TW still refused because they want it on a sports tier.

So that makes it OK for the BTN to get shoved down our throats, just b/c it's been done before? Great logic.

No it does not make it OK. Point is though cable companies can't use the logic that you are forcing people to pay for a channel they don't want when there are plenty of channels people don't want that cable companies make you pay for now.

If the cable companies want to act like they are user customer friendly in that regard then why don't they do an al-la-cart? Let people pay for the channels they actually want then, but they are not going to do that are they?

 

[MaxBuck]

"Shoving channels down our throats..."

Sounds like somebody needs to re-read their economics textbooks. If the demand justifies it at $1 per subscriber, the BTN will be offered. Otherwise, forget it.

 

[Lockup]

"Shoving channels down our throats..."

Sounds like somebody needs to re-read their economics textbooks. If the demand justifies it at $1 per subscriber, the BTN will be offered. Otherwise, forget it.

The shoving channels part has nothing to do with economics. Obviously if there was big enough demand than TW and Comcast would cave. the point isn't how miuch or little of demand there is. The point is cable companies useing the excuse that it is a niche station that only certain people want and that they don't want to charge everybody for it.

Well they certainly don't have a problem charging everybody for Food network, Oxygen, Lifetime, a couple of spanish speaking stations and many others who are clearly just as much of a niche station as the BTN. I am guessing the demand for those stations isn't much higher than the BTN.

Don't get me wrong the BTN is a money grubbing entity in itself, but I know some of the reasons beyond money it was started and agree with them. Plus to put it simple I want to see my Bucks and have enjoyed some of the other things I have seen on it.

If you for one minute though think the cable company is tring to protect you from the BTN then you might want to think why TW would want it on a sports tier. TW stands to make a hell of a lot more money off of it if they can charge you and me way more than $1 a month for the 1 station we want by forcing us to by a whole package we don't want.

 

[sandgk]

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

 

[Buckeye737]

"Shoving channels down our throats..."

Sounds like somebody needs to re-read their economics textbooks. If the demand justifies it at $1 per subscriber, the BTN will be offered. Otherwise, forget it.

Except, the $1 per subscriber isn't being offered to the public a la carte to even gauge where BTN falls in the supply/demand spectrum.

 

[osugrad21]

Made the jump to Dish Network...tired of the garbage from the cable company. They told me one too many lies on this move...

 

[sandgk]

Except, the $1 per subscriber [strike]isn't being[/strike] cannot be offered to the public a la carte to even gauge where BTN falls in the supply/demand spectrum.

And this is entirely because the cable companies won't allow it and the FCC won't force the issue to make them permit such a la carte services available.

For those with longer memories of when Time-Warner cable first came to Columbus (remember it was a test market for all that was good and wonderful in cable television back in the early '80s) one of their original visions was to permit exactly that which they now say they cannot allow:

A La Carte Programming.

 

[buckeyesin07]

And this is entirely because the cable companies won't allow it and the FCC won't force the issue to make them permit such a la carte services available.

For those with longer memories of when Time-Warner cable first came to Columbus (remember it was a test market for all that was good and wonderful in cable television back in the early '80s) one of their original visions was to permit exactly that which they now say they cannot allow:

A La Carte Programming.

Not saying I doubt what you wrote, but I don't understand why cable companies wouldn't do so, particularly where they compete with one another (e.g., I could have either TWC or WOW at home). Do you think there is some kind of tacit agreement (still an industry in which many markets have only one provider and there are a small number of players even in situations where there are more than one) among cable companies not to do so for fear of driving down profits?

 

[cincibuck]

Is that really a bad argument? I know tons of people who are huge sports fans and don't want to pay the extra $1+ that the BTN wants, not to mention people who couldn't care less about sports.

Tell you what, I'll give TW a buck for BTN if they'll give me two bucks off for not using ET, 5 shopping channels, MTV, BTV, 4 religious channels... talk about shoving it down your throat... and those aren't "niche programming?" GMAFB.

 

[jlb1705]

This is like the Mark Sanchez thread - Over a hundred pages of nothing happening at all.