Big Ten Network (BTN)

[DaddyBigBucks]

I'm not sure what you're referring to on their website, but I did notice something new. They have begun to show some basketball and hockey games over the internet.
Big Ten Network

Those BAStards!

 

[Lockup]

I am not sure how many people are aware of this and truth be told I am not 100% sure it is true. I read that the Franchise fee TW charges you when you have cable with them is actually a kickback to your city.

Oddly enough this only applies when you have actual cable TV with them. When I dumped TW for Dish I kept RR with TW. I no longer pay the franchise fee.

 

[buckeyesin07]

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?

If the BTN were to be put on basic cable, then how would people who don't want it "go find something else?" I still haven't heard a good response to why the BTN shouldn't be put on an additional sports tier package and fend for itself. If the best argument you can think of is, "The cable companies make us pay for the Home Shopping Network, which we don't want, so I don't think the cable companies should be able to only put the BTN on a premium sports tier," then you haven't come up with much. And that's pretty much all I see around here.

 

[buckeyesin07]

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).

If what you're saying is true, however, it proves my point--if the demand for the BTN were as inelastic as you and Delaney think it is, the BTN should have no problem with going to a sports tier only broadcast. Think about it.

 

[buckeyefool]

Lets put it back on you...other than you saying it is a niche program, which there are ton of other niche programs already on my basic cable. Why is it you think that it should be on a sports teir? Why should peoplehave to pay for something that they don't know if people want.

Hell if cable companies were smart they would agree to put it on basic cable, and then in a year or two once people are use to the programming and like it move it to a sports teir, more likely people will pay for it then.

If the BTN were to be put on basic cable, then how would people who don't want it "go find something else?" I still haven't heard a good response to why the BTN shouldn't be put on an additional sports tier package and fend for itself. If the best argument you can think of is, "The cable companies make us pay for the Home Shopping Network, which we don't want, so I don't think the cable companies should be able to only put the BTN on a premium sports tier," then you haven't come up with much. And that's pretty much all I see around here.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

If what you're saying is true, however, it proves my point--if the demand for the BTN were as inelastic as you and Delaney think it is, the BTN should have no problem with going to a sports tier only broadcast. Think about it.

The fact that we are even having the discussion is proof enough of the inelasticity of the demand. The problem is that there are numerous paths to satisfying the demand.

• Buy the sports tier
  • and pay $10-$15 for one channel you want and a dozen MORE channels that you never watch in addition to the 150 that you already don't watch
• Switch to DirecTV or other provider
  • which is what I did
• Go to a sports bar or a friends house
  • which I did while waiting for DirecTV to be installed
• Contact the government and get them to impose your will on others

Obviously, the relevant solution to this discussion is the Sports Tier.

If the BTN is bundled on the Sports Tier, their advertising revenue goes down as they are in fewer homes. The way to offset this is to get a 'share' of the Sports Tier subscription money. But if you are one of the highest-demand channels on the tier, you deserve a much higher percentage of the subscription money. Do you think you're going to get it? Of course not.

Think about it.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Lets put it back on you...other than you saying it is a niche program, which there are ton of other niche programs already on my basic cable. Why is it you think that it should be on a sports teir?

That (once again) is the problem with your argument--you complain about the cable company making you buy niche programs, yet you are fine with the cable company adding yet another one to the basic lineup simply b/c you're in the niche that enjoys this particular channel. Don't you see the inconsistency/hypocrisy in your approach?

 

[Lockup]

If the BTN were to be put on basic cable, then how would people who don't want it "go find something else?" I still haven't heard a good response to why the BTN shouldn't be put on an additional sports tier package and fend for itself. If the best argument you can think of is, "The cable companies make us pay for the Home Shopping Network, which we don't want, so I don't think the cable companies should be able to only put the BTN on a premium sports tier," then you haven't come up with much. And that's pretty much all I see around here.

Ok fair enough but how is a Sports tier fair for the people that do want it? Let's assume worst case for TW and BTN wants a $1 per subscriber.

TW puts it on a sports tier so now poeple who do not have digital cable have to pay what 20-30 more a month to see the BTN? On top of that they will be charged from 5-7 a month for the sports tier. So the BTN which would cost TW $1 a month is making at least 4-6 a month off of people who have to now by the sports tier and an additional 20-30 a month off of people who don't have digital cable.

So somebody who wants the BTN could end up paying as much as $40 a month for 1 program that TW is paying $1 a month for.

Oh let's not forget if somebody lives outside of the Big 10 footprint they may be paying $40 more a month for what TW is paying $.10 for.

Youer right that sounds complety fair to me. TW is really looking out for their customers. In the meantime every TW customer is paying for a ton of stations they don't want.

We could get into Comcast as well who owns similar sports channels for smaller conferences and guess where they are? You guessed it Expanded basic.

BTW my numbers are a complete guess but I am pretty sure I am close if not too low.

 

[buckeyefool]

That (once again) is the problem with your argument--you complain about the cable company making you buy niche programs, yet you are fine with the cable company adding yet another one to the basic lineup simply b/c you're in the niche that enjoys this particular channel. Don't you see the inconsistency/hypocrisy in your approach?

Nope. If they have room for one niche peogram make room for them all.

 

[buckeyesin07]

If the BTN is bundled on the Sports Tier, their advertising revenue goes down as they are in fewer homes. The way to offset this is to get a 'share' of the Sports Tier subscription money. But if you are one of the highest-demand channels on the tier, you deserve a much higher percentage of the subscription money. Do you think you're going to get it? Of course not.

It all comes down (as is the case in any negotiation) to bargaining power. If the BTN had the bargaining power that it thinks it does, it could get it (then again, if it had said bargaining power, it probably would be on basic cable right now, too). Your assumption is that it is/would be one of the highest demand channels on the tier. Again, the results of the negotiation don't support that assumption. Sorry.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Nope. If they have room for one niche peogram make room for them all.

So you're ok with your cable bill skyrocketing when the backgammon, kayaking, sewing, ice fishing, and lawnmowing channels are added?

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

It call comes down (as is the case in any negotiation) to bargaining power. If the BTN had the bargaining power that it thinks it does, it could get it (then again, if it had said bargaining power, it probably would be on basic cable right now, too). Your assumption is that it is/would be one of the highest demand channels on the tier. Again, the results of the negotiation don't support that assumption. Sorry.

Ummm


The results of the negotiation prove only that both parties are cutting off their noses to spite their face. Both parties are losing because they have become emotional about this. The fact that you seem to believe that both parties would simply analyze the demand for the various products and negotiate accordingly, using only logic as their guide, shows only that you have never been involved in a high- (or even mid-) level negotiation of any kind. These kinds of things are every bit as affected by emotion as the purchase of a car or any other consumer good.

Sorry.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

So you're ok with your cable bill skyrocketing when the backgammon, kayaking, sewing, ice fishing, and lawnmowing channels are added?

wow, just wow


EXTREME niche channels with very low viewership pay the basic rate for getting on the air (10cents per subscriber is typical). Some of them even allow the service providers (cable companies et.al.) to carry them for free, just so they can get their advertising on the air.

Your bill therefore goes up very little or not at all when such things are added.

And if it did (which it obviously does not), would this help YOUR argument???

 

[Lockup]

It all comes down (as is the case in any negotiation) to bargaining power. If the BTN had the bargaining power that it thinks it does, it could get it (then again, if it had said bargaining power, it probably would be on basic cable right now, too). Your assumption is that it is/would be one of the highest demand channels on the tier. Again, the results of the negotiation don't support that assumption. Sorry.

I believe the BTN was the first channel to hit 30 million in 30 days (something like that).

Both major satillite providers offer and many smaller cable companies do to. I would say somebody out there thought there was enough demand for it.

TW and Comcast a big enough to ride the storm out longer than others are. Eventually though I beleive you will see the BTN on both where the BTN wants them.

 

[buckeyesin07]

The fact that you seem to believe that both parties would simply analyze the demand for the various products and negotiate accordingly, using only logic as their guide, shows only that you have never been involved in a high- (or even mid-) level negotiation of any kind. These kinds of things are every bit as affected by emotion as the purchase of a car or any other consumer good.

The fact that you seem to think that these parties are arguing with all the sophistication and foresight of two elementary school kids on the playground shows only that you have never been involved in (nor, apparently, can appreciate the financial considerations of) a high- (or even mid-) level negotiation of any kind. Think about it.