• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
buckeyesin07;1010922; said:
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?


I am just guessing but I imagine their problem with it is would be lost revenue. If you are paying say $50 for 100 stations and all of a suddent things are al-la-cart and you only want say 20 of those 100 stations, which you would now pay $20 (assuming some sort of base price) that cable company stands to lose a lot of money that way. Seriously who is actually going to want a $100+ a month cable bill if they don't have too.
 
Upvote 0
Lockup;1010949; said:
I am just guessing but I imagine their problem with it is would be lost revenue. If you are paying say $50 for 100 stations and all of a suddent things are al-la-cart and you only want say 20 of those 100 stations, which you would now pay $20 (assuming some sort of base price) that cable company stands to lose a lot of money that way. Seriously who is actually going to want a $100+ a month cable bill if they don't have too.

which is exactly why I have DirecTV :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
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.
Please. The NFL network is a very desirable addition, yet they continue to refuse to add it. They are notorious for refusing to pick up channels, this is no different.

How is it the other companies, especially those with smaller budgets, are able to add the BTN, yet TWC can't? It's a personal choice, and one driven by greed.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck;1010942; said:
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.

I agree with the premise of what you are saying. FYI, however, the shopping and religious channels pay the provider for transmission, so you want all of them you can get on your system, just delete them from your programming guide and you won't even know they exist. :wink:
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, and because Time Warner is so principled, if they added another shopping channel to their lineup tomorrow they would be sure pass those savings on to me, the customer, on my next bill.

That's why I'm backing the BTN on this. Even if they are being a little too ambitious perhaps, at least they seem like they are being mostly honest about their principles and what they are trying to accomplish. I don't think I can say the same for TW.
 
Upvote 0
Okay so even though its about 4 months too late, I have switched over to Direct Tv and will be having it installed come Monday. I would have done it sooner but the thing that put me over the edge is that I bought a new 61inch Samsung DLP TV at Best Buy a couple days ago, and Direct TV has a deal where they will give you 300bucks off an expensive TV if you sign up with them.

So I just said absolutely and cancelled my TWC Digital Cable(keeping Road Runner). I think my bill will go up a few bucks. With Cable/Internet I was paying 132bucks a month with TWC but now with RRinternet and Direct TV cable, im paying like 70bucks for each cause I have the PLUS package for both internet and satellite cable.

I do have a question though regarding BTN. Do they show alot of replays of old games, and last weeks games? Also, do they have regular shows like talk shows and bigten news broadcasts throughout the week where they discuss teams, players, schools, sports, etc?
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1010971; said:
That's why I'm backing the BTN on this. Even if they are being a little too ambitious perhaps, at least they seem like they are being mostly honest about their principles and what they are trying to accomplish. I don't think I can say the same for TW.​

Apparently you haven't visited BTN's website lately.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck;1010942; said:
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.

I doubt any of the channels you name is asking anywhere near what the BTN is (maybe MTV is an exception). Regardless, take your business to satellite or find someone else to make the tradeoff you proposed if you don't like TWC--don't whine to me.
 
Upvote 0
Magua;1011047; said:
I do have a question though regarding BTN. Do they show alot of replays of old games, and last weeks games? Also, do they have regular shows like talk shows and bigten news broadcasts throughout the week where they discuss teams, players, schools, sports, etc?

I am no expert on the channel since I have not watched a great deal of it and since it is moving into BBall season it may be different. Yes they would replay the games from the prior week and also show "greatest games". There are a variety of other types of shows they do. It does appear to be a lot of repeat going on during the week but they are just starting.

buckeyesin07;1011059; said:
Apparently you haven't visited BTN's website lately.

god I hate when people do this. It might be helpful to the conversation if you actually directed people to any specifics about their website. I went there but since I have no idea where you are going with this it is kind of hard to find anything of fault.

If you have a beef with them then spill it. These kind of games people play make it seem like they have nothing to offer the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyesin07;1011061; said:
I doubt any of the channels you name is asking anywhere near what the BTN is (maybe MTV is an exception). Regardless, take your business to satellite or find someone else to make the tradeoff you proposed if you don't like TWC--don't whine to me.

And by identifying the possible exception you have admitted that you understand why the BTN is worth more than the other channels.

The BTN is in higher than demand than the other channels (except maybe MTV) and has a lower elasticity of demand than the other channels (including MTV).
 
Upvote 0
Lockup;1010949; said:
I am just guessing but I imagine their problem with it is would be lost revenue. If you are paying say $50 for 100 stations and all of a suddent things are al-la-cart and you only want say 20 of those 100 stations, which you would now pay $20 (assuming some sort of base price) that cable company stands to lose a lot of money that way. Seriously who is actually going to want a $100+ a month cable bill if they don't have too.

They could charge a flat monthly subcriber fee, or access fee, or whatever they want to call it, of say $25. Then make everyone pick the channels they want and charge them a a monthly fee for each. Some of the more popular channels could be a couple bucks a month while some of the less popular or niche channels could be a buck.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1011112; said:
They could charge a flat monthly subcriber fee, or access fee, or whatever they want to call it, of say $25. Then make everyone pick the channels they want and charge them a a monthly fee for each. Some of the more popular channels could be a couple bucks a month while some of the less popular or niche channels could be a buck.

Your right they could. Like I said I am just guessing. Only other beef I could see them having with it would be it being more expensive for them to do for some reason. I really don't know I am not sure I have ever heard specifically why they don't like the idea.

The only thing I would say about the pricing is being able to do it that way could create some major pricing wars with other competition.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyesin07;1011059; said:
Apparently you haven't visited BTN's website lately.

buckeyesin07;1011061; said:
I doubt any of the channels you name is asking anywhere near what the BTN is (maybe MTV is an exception). Regardless, take your business to satellite or find someone else to make the tradeoff you proposed if you don't like TWC--don't whine to me.

Why should I be the one that has to take my business elsewhere? How 'bout all the people who DON'T want BTN go find something else? Some people (like myself) cannot make a switch. Insight, WOW and U-Verse are not available where I live. My apartment complex does not allow satellite service - I am under a lease, and I am sure as shit not gonna pay to break my lease and move to a new apartment or buy a house to get BTN. Therefore I am exercising my right as a TimeWarner customer to voice my displeasure with their refusal/inability/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to provide me with the programming that I want.

I am not asking to get something for nothing here. As a TimeWarner customer, I already pay for the additional sports tier. I do not mind that nominal fee and I find value in the programming they offer at that level. I do however also see value in what the Big Ten Network can do to benefit the conference's member institutions - not just athletically - and for that reason I feel that it is important that this programming be made available to as wide a variety of people in the Big Ten region as possible.

I don't know what the BTN's website has to do with your objections. I'm being told by TimeWarner that their motivation is to protect its subscribers from rising prices, but as a long-time subscriber, I don't feel that is what is actually taking place. I have had channels that are still running taken away from me without seeing their cost taken off of my bill. When TW adds a channel that pays for access, I do not see the impact of that subsidy in the form of a lower monthly bill. I have however seen no hesitation in the past for TimeWarner to pass on costs and increase my monthly bill.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top