Latest on the Big Ten Network

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by nmetro, Jun 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 23, 2007 #41 of 572
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    I have the same four choices available to me + of course OTA.

    They are all available to me as YES is not a manditory selection criteria anymore.

    DVRs are a must have though.

    I keep hearing bad things about the FIOS and CableCo DVRs from customers where I work. DirecTv has finally gotten it's HR20 good to go and Dshnetworks DVR is OK too. Or a Tivo HD OTA box excluding the subscription charge.

    Bottom line is Fios may be cheaper but I would need 5 tuners worth of DVR to equal what I have and a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) at $12.99/month per dual-tuner HD/DVR box will that really be cheaper or higher? or to feed more than one room a Multi-Room DVR is $19.99/month.

    So I would need at least 3 HD Dual tuner DVR at $12.99 per. Since they don't offer a cheaper SD Dual tuner box they'll need to be dual tuner HD DVRs so that add $38.96 a month to the price. Now from that Fee we take out the $6 Rental fee and the $10 mirroring fee I'm paying now and then we have a true comparison in my case.

    BTW I did a quick check and it looks like DIsh has more HD for now. DirecTv may be the highest in the semi-near future. Depends on how their satellite launches go.
     
  2. Jun 23, 2007 #42 of 572
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    949
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    Well, things are getting hot in Chicago, and it is not due to the late June Summer heat. The following article is from today's Columbus Dispatch. Suffice it to say getting BTN on cable networks is not an easy sell. Also, you know things are getting nasty when "the powers that be" resort to name calling.


    CHICAGO(AP) -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said cable TV giant Comcast should apologize for remarks that he claimed were "intended to denigrate institutions and teams" in his conference.

    And the company responded emphatically: Forget it.

    The Big Ten and Comcast are at odds over the price of the new Big Ten Network and whether it should be offered on basic cable. And they're also feuding over a news release in which Comcast said the network will show "second- and third-tier sporting events," called it "a niche sports channel" and added: "Indiana basketball fans don't want to watch Iowa volleyball, but the Big Ten wants everyone to pay for their new network."

    Delany took exception during a conference call with reporters yesterday -- the one-year anniversary of the day the Big Ten announced plans to form the network.

    "In the Midwest, when you're talking about a women's sports team, you talk about them with respect," Delany said. "They're not second tier. Certainly, games at Michigan and Penn State and Ohio State -- I don't care who the opponent is, those are not second-tier games. To the extent that those remarks were intended to denigrate institutions or teams or, in particular the women's volleyball team at Iowa, I think they ought to be rethought. I think if clarifications are necessary, that's fine. And really, if they were intended to denigrate, there ought to be an apology."

    Rich Ruggiero, a Comcast spokesman for the greater Chicago region, said the company was simply stating fact -- that ABC and ESPN get the top games -- and "was not denigrating anybody."

    Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen then wrote Delany, blasting him for insinuating the company is against women's sports.

    "Commissioner, you are a representative of an athletic conference made up of some of the finest academic institutions in the country," Cohen wrote. "Those institutions -- and the students they seek to educate -- should expect all of their representatives to maintain basic standards of integrity. Your mischaracterizations and overstatements are not consistent with such standards. Our hope is that we can keep our differing opinions regarding this carriage issue from resulting in any further personal attacks."

    Cohen reiterated that the top games would go to ABC and ESPN and the Big Ten Network would simply serve a niche market. He said the cable company would like to carry the network, but not if it means sticking customers with "a burdensome Big Ten tax."

    The Big Ten Network, which is set to launch in August, has agreements with about 40 smaller cable companies and DirecTV -- but not Comcast, which has 5.7 million subscribers in the eight states with Big Ten schools.

    Delany is adamant that companies in Big Ten markets carry the network on basic cable. Comcast says the cost is too high and it should only be offered on its digital tier or as part of a subscription package.

    "We'd like to make the network available to those who want to watch it and not force customers who have no interest in the content to have to pay for it," Cohen told The New York Times this week.

    The Chicago-based Big Ten Network, which is co-owned by the conference and Fox Sports, plans to show all the conference's football games that aren't broadcast elsewhere. It also plans to broadcast at least 105 men's basketball games, 55 women's basketball games, 170 other events from sports such as softball and track, and Big Ten championships.
     
  3. Jun 23, 2007 #43 of 572
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    949
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    So, where will these games be aired? Last year they were aired on GamePlan. Will they be aired on the ESPN/ESPN2 alternate channels? If so, then OSU fans will not get at least three games if BTN does not end up in Dish. If the games are not aired on the alternate channels or GamePlan, and you live outside the Big 10 region, this could amount to at least 8 OSU games not being aired. Multiply this by 11 and you see where this is going... very angry alumni.

    Another note. It looks like BTN is also aiming for the number of subscriber model, as opposed to the possibility of BTN being offered "ala-carte". In't it nice to have so much uncertainty with football season only 10 weeks away?
     
  4. Jun 23, 2007 #44 of 572
    DCSholtis

    DCSholtis Up The Irons!

    5,775
    6
    Aug 7, 2002
    There will be at least 3 OSU games exclusive to the BTN. I posted the link to the first 3 weeks of the season on page 1 of the thread. Those games shown on that link are BTN exclusive. Big Ten games will NO longer appear on Game Plan.
     
  5. Jun 23, 2007 #45 of 572
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    949
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    After searching the internet, I found the following 21 June, 2007 article. The end result, regional games on ABC will be shown on ESPN/ESPN2 nationally for folks who live outside of the Big Ten region. This fact was posted earlier, so this message it to provide the actual announcement from the Big Ten. The bottom line, if a game is an ABC regional game, then the game will be shown nationally on ESPN/ESPN2.

    The worse case scenario, if you don't get BTN, you will miss out only on the 35 or sio games being televised by BTN. The bad part of this deal is not Big Ten games will be broadcast "over the air" except on ABC (football) or CBS (basketball).

    By the way, I am still waiting to hear from DISH about BTN.

    PARK RIDGE, Ill. -- The Big Ten Conference has reached two milestone media agreements that will provide the organization with its greatest media exposure ever and ensures long-term vitality for its member institutions' broad-based athletic programs, it was announced today by Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany. The conference has signed a new 10-year national rights contract with ABC/ESPN and has reached a landmark deal with Fox Cable Networks to create the Big Ten Network, a national network devoted to Big Ten athletic and academic programs. The ABC/ESPN contract takes effect, and the Big Ten Network is expected to launch, in August 2007.

    ABC/ESPN Contract

    Big Ten action has been featured on ABC since 1966 and on ESPN since 1979, the network's first year. Details of the new ABC/ESPN agreement include, but are not limited to:

    * Up to 41 Big Ten football games will be televised - up to 17 on ABC and up to 25 on ESPN or ESPN2;
    * All regional afternoon football games aired on ABC will be aired by ESPN/ESPN2 in outer-markets, making these games nationally available;
    * Approximately 60 men's basketball games will air on an ESPN network (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN360), including games on each Tuesday and Thursday of the nine-week conference season, plus up to eight Saturday games during conference play;
    * A total of 100 women's basketball and volleyball events on an ESPN network, including the championship games of the Big Ten Women's Basketball Tournament, over the course of the agreement; and,
    * Through ESPN's collection of new media outlets such as ESPN.com, Mobile ESPN, ESPN360 and ESPN VOD, fans will receive live events (including simulcasts), extended video highlights including in-progress games, features and more. In addition, Big Ten coverage will be available on ESPN Classic and throughout the world through ESPN International.
     
  6. Jun 25, 2007 #46 of 572
    M. Campbell

    M. Campbell Cool Member

    14
    0
    Jul 5, 2006
    My point being that they offered what I would call a low demand sports channel like Sports Time Ohio at no charge, following Time Warner and D*. Maybe that is more indicative of their intentions than what was decided concerning YES.

    I would guess that if one of the large cable companies signs an agreement with the BTN, then Dish would follow through rather quickly.
     
  7. Jun 25, 2007 #47 of 572
    mhowie

    mhowie Legend

    152
    0
    Sep 30, 2006
  8. Jun 26, 2007 #48 of 572
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    949
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    Congressman questions Big Ten about cable network
    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:25 AM
    By KEN THOMAS
    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell said yesterday he was concerned about the ability of fans to watch Big Ten sporting events on a new television network debuting this summer.

    Dingell, D-Mich., wrote Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany with questions about the Big Ten Network, which is expected to launch sometime in August.

    The congressman said many constituents have expressed worries about being able to watch University of Michigan football games this season because none of the state's cable systems carry the network.

    "While I understand the motivation on the part of the Big Ten Conference and its member schools to create a new all-Big Ten cable channel, I am increasingly concerned about the migration of previously free, over the air content to a pay television tier," Dingell wrote.

    Dingell, whose committee has jurisdiction over telecommunications, asked Delany about the status of negotiations with cable systems, whether they would be concluded before football season and how the conference reached the per-household monthly rate it plans to charge cable systems.

    He also noted that all 13 of Michigan's football games last season were available on either free, over-the-air broadcast or on cable channels widely available to subscribers. Requesting details for each school, he asked how many of the games will be on free or basic cable TV.

    Delany, in a statement, said he looked forward to "continuing our conversation with Congressman Dingell and his staff to bring more Big Ten sports to more Big Ten fans across the country."

    Delany said: "Seeing 35 football games, 105 basketball games, more women's sports and more Olympic sports on the first major college conference sports network is a win-win for everyone."

    Big Ten spokesman Jeff Smith said the conference expects to request $1.10 per household per month from cable systems within the eight states that comprise the conference, and about 10 cents per month outside the Big Ten region.

    The Big Ten and Comcast Corp. have been at odds over the price of the new network and whether it should be offered on basic cable. The network has agreements with about 40 smaller cable companies and DirecTV, but not Comcast, which has 5.7 million subscribers in the eight states with Big Ten schools.

    The Chicago-based network, which is co-owned by the conference and Fox Sports, plans to show all the conference's football games that aren't broadcast elsewhere. It also plans to broadcast numerous other events, including at least 105 regular-season men's basketball games.

    Fox Sports is a division of News Corp.
     
  9. Jun 26, 2007 #49 of 572
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,129
    16
    Apr 9, 2006
    After being irritated against the satellite and cable companies over the carriage problems with the sports channels, including the Big 10 Network, NFL Network, the MTN, etc., I am now feeling something different. Instead of being the fault of Dish, etc., maybe the fault lies with the Big 10, NFL, etc. Maybe it is the GREED of the Big 10, NFL, etc. that is creating this whole mess?

    Here in Oregon we have a new sports channel starting this fall, Comcast Sports Northwest, with the Trail Blazers as the lead programming. So now we have half of our sports on FSN-NW and the other half on CSN-NW, or whatever acroynm they will use. I know there will be an issue for the providers on this one and its really the same battle.

    But let's remember something else - there is not enough sports programming out there period for all of these channels. ESPN and FSN show poker all the time now- WTF, that is not a sport, period. ESPN used to show CFL football and rugby from down under to fill the void - they don't anymore, but at least those were sports.

    A great example is ESPNU - what a freaking worthless channel. I upgraded my package to get this channel for the NCAA baseball playoffs - we'll, aside from a few games here and there it is almost all re-runs of events played already. What real value is there in this channel? Nada.

    In the end if every conference or league wants there own sports channel there simply will not be available bandwith to do so without an increase in costs. None of these new channels have enough real content to fill 24 hours of time. So why should Dish (or anyone else) even offer them a full channel on the low tier? In the end all these sports channels will probably result in lower viewership to events because there will be fewer people watching. I do anticipate cable companies in the midwest will pick up the Big 10 Network, but thats it, so the Big 10 will have the luxury of knowing it is reducing its audience for its games. At least with GamePlan the games are available for a reasonable cost.

    I think in the end the Pac 10 & Big 12 will get more airtime on FSN, ABC, ESPN, etc. because of the Big 10's greed factor. I think the country (as a whole) would much rather watch the Big 10, but it won't be available for most of the country aside from the one big game a week - and the void will be filled with other games from these two conferences (or in the alternative, total college football on national TV will end up being reversed.)

    So enough with the greed of the conferences and NFL. Their greed will result in less viewership in the end.....what they want? Probably not......and POKER is not a sport.
     
  10. Jun 26, 2007 #50 of 572
    Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005
    If you are an Indians fan, Sports Time Ohio is not a low demand channel. It is a
    must have to be a sub. MLB HD last week had two of the Phillies/Indians games
    on the HD Sports Times Ohio feeds. I watched both games in their entirety, because Comcast Sportsnet only provided an SD feed. Sports Time Ohio HD is
    a great channel. I am glad that Dish picked it up, but if Dish does not offer the
    HD channel and I lived in the Cleveland area, I would sub to another provider.

    Same thing for the BTN channel. Subs will have options with local cable and
    Directv. IF BTN is a must have channel for a sub, they will have to change
    providers.

    I agree with all the posters that all of the sports channels are very greedy,
    whether it be MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, Golf and now BTN. They all want to jump on the bandwagon and collect outrageous monthly fees from satellite or cable subs, whether the subs are interested in the programming or not. Comcast does not like
    getting a taste of its own medicine. For carriage of Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia, a cable operator is not allowed to carry it on a sports tier. CSN must be in expanded basic (about 90% of subs). But that is also true of any other
    RSN without exception. No RSN can be in a sports tier.

    Unfortunately since the sports content is owned by MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, Golf
    and BTN, the multi video providers have no choice. The fees have to be paid
    or they walk away from that niche market of fans. When a local area is served
    by three or four multi video providers, one of the providers will most likely
    pick up the programming. CHOICE IS FANTASTIC!! Because there is choice,
    the multi video provider does not have the leverage in negotiations with the
    content provider to force the price down. Its take it or leave it.

    Also, Delany's remarks about Comcast were very inappropriate and Delany should apologize. Comcast was using general industry expressions to summarize their impression of BTN's terms. Delany twisted the meaning and made an outrageous
    attack hiding behind women's team sports, insinuating that Comcast was
    denigrating women's athletics and men's events that were not the number one
    interest event of the day. I have prosecuted a successful Title IX action, and I
    hope that the women's programs get 50 percent of the BTN revenues as
    required by Title IX. The multi video providers should have a Title IX clause requiring a 50/50 split in any carriage agreement after Delany's remarks.
     
  11. Jun 26, 2007 #51 of 572
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,831
    2,506
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The same has been said for YES Network. E* somehow survives.

    STO is there and YES isn't because STO made the price right. Perhaps BTN is having similar problems making themselves worth the cost of carriage?
     
  12. Jun 26, 2007 #52 of 572
    Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005
    The United States is a big enough market that a provider of services does not
    have to serve every niche market to be successful. No matter what business you are in.

    YES and E* illustrates my point that because there are three or four multi video providers available to every niche market, one multi video provider (E*) does not have the leverage to force a content owner (YES) to lower its price (or change its
    terms).

    I will hazard a guess that the Yankee and Nets fans in the New York, CT, NJ, PA
    region have signed up with another multi video provider than E*. However, there are many subs in this region that could care less about YES.

    Same thing for BTN. Since BTN already has a carriage agreement with a multi
    video provider that serves the entire 8 state area, and the rest of the United States, the terms are not going to change. Just like YES, there are subs in the
    8 state area that could care less about BTN.
     
  13. Jun 26, 2007 #53 of 572
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    949
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    Considering The Big Ten Conference is a non-profit organization, all the Big Ten athletic departments are also non-profit, and that 10 of the 11 Big Ten schools are public institutions, what are implications of BTN? It is one thing for MLB , NHL, NBA, NFL, etc. to start networks, but it is quite another for the Big Ten to do so. Also, it is one thing to revenue share from ESPN or Fox, but it is quite another when a non-profit, a supposed amateur sports organization is trying to do the same thing.

    I think the Big Ten is a powerful sports conference, but remember this is college sports and not pro sports. This is an attempt by the Big Ten to earn revenue and a profit. BTN will be above and beyond what the conference now receives from bowl games, championships, TV contracts, etc. The Big Ten may open up a can of worms about the whole issue of amateur vs pro athletics. The line has been blurred for years, but BTN may push things over the line. I think that there may be some NCAA and government scrutiny over BTN and the Big Ten. Considering the SEC is going to try to create their own network, this Pandora's box may end up sending echoes through all of college sports. Especially, when the Big Ten has potential to make millions on this deal and the Big Ten athletes will be playing for mere peanuts in comparison.

    In addition to the issues above, what are the implications of just angering alumni, students and fans of the Big Ten? There are many people in rural areas who do not subscribe to satellite or cable; the were receiving the games over the air. Telling an farmer in southeast Indiana that they will no longer be able to see IU basketball over the air is going to leave a large void, the same goes for that farmer in Ohio in regard to Ohio State football. Substitute sport, state and school for similar situations across the mid-west. There are going to be a large number of angry and sad people out there.

    The Big Ten draws millions of fans to their games each year. What is the implication of reducing exposure on BTN? I know games will still be aired on ABC and ESPN, but no free over the air Big Ten sports except for a few games on ABC is not going to placate the masses. It is very possible that fan support could wane. I know what Columbus is like for Ohio State, and the same goes for places like Madison, East Lansing, Ann Arbor, etc. Also, my personal experience is how folks in Wisconsin support UW, folks in Ohio for OSU, Michigan - MSU and UM; folks who never went to these schools, but are die hard fans. Theses same folks would give anything to see a game in person; so much so that 75,000 people showed up for the OSU spring football game. In Columbus you see scarlet and gray everywhere and it starts at the airport and it transcends the who metropolitan area. The Big Ten in an effort to make more money could destroy what prompted creating BTN in the first place.

    Yes, this is way off the topic of status of the Big Ten Network, but it was time to take a step back and see what implications BTN could be creating. I guess we'll see come August.
     
  14. Jun 26, 2007 #54 of 572
    lionsrule

    lionsrule Godfather

    449
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    As stated before, bottom line for ME is that if dish doesn't add BTN in HD then I am a direct customer for the first time ever this fall. I care ZERO how my business affects dishnetwork. I am first and foremost a college football/NFL FANATIC. Give me what I want. If YOU can not provide it, then THEY will. Lucky for dish, I feel that the average joe football fan will be caught uninformed and blindsided by this new big ten network. I would like to think that the thought of dish losing 10's of thousand of customers because they want to get their college football fix would MAKE THEM ACT SOONER rather than later.
     
  15. Jun 26, 2007 #55 of 572
    mhowie

    mhowie Legend

    152
    0
    Sep 30, 2006
    I hold the same opinion about football, but we are both hypocrites. DirecTV is the only outlet for the NFL Ticket. I've stuck around only because I get enough different NFL games on distant network stations. That said, a true NFL fanatic would have DirecTV.
     
  16. Jun 26, 2007 #56 of 572
    lionsrule

    lionsrule Godfather

    449
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    ah, not so fast my friend....college football = love many teams, NFL = Love only ONE and that love comes in nice and clear in HD via my OTA here in sw michigan.

    Yeah....bring it on lion haters. Talk to me after #81 is rookie of the year
     
  17. Jun 27, 2007 #57 of 572
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,129
    16
    Apr 9, 2006
    The average Joe is not going to pay more to tons of more channels that show just a few hours a day of live programming, period. For folks in Big 10 territory, yes its reasonable they want the Big 10 Network and will hold firm. For me in Pac 10 territory, I'd like to have the Big 10 Network, but I am not going to issue any ultimatiums on it. In fact, in the end the Big 10 will have less viewership with its new channel than before. The overall question will be that with less viewership will it generate more revenues? Now we can get GamePlan and be pretty well covered. If the games are not on GamePlan then I won't see them. I am not paying more for the Big 10 games. ABC, ESPN, FSN will end up showing more with Pac 10 and Big 12 games to accomodate the missing Big 10 games. So these two conferences will end up with more viewers in the end.

    If every conference and league wants its own dedicated channels all of our costs will go up. That has a boundary. As it is most of the channels cannot even meet a reasonable coverage of sports and end up showing OLD tapes from decades ago or show things (like POKER) that are not even sports. I am not paying for that garbage and if ESPN things poker is a sport then they are fools.
     
  18. Jun 27, 2007 #58 of 572
    Hound

    Hound Icon

    891
    0
    Mar 20, 2005
    The tax implication to the non profit schools is that the TV income is unrelated
    business income subject to a Federal Excise Tax. Title IX requires that all outside
    athletic fundraising be distributed equally among women and men's programs.
    It does not matter which program raised the money.
     
  19. Jun 27, 2007 #59 of 572
    M. Campbell

    M. Campbell Cool Member

    14
    0
    Jul 5, 2006
    Obviously, but when given the number of subs who have access to STO versus the number of subs who watch STO, I would think the demand to be relatively low, yet DISH added the channel.

    Which gets to my original point that adding STO could be an indicator that DISH might be willing to add the BTN even though there is a perception that it is a pricey sports channel similar to YES which they decided not to add.

    Regarding the price of the BTN, this link from the New York Times would indicate that the BTN is not that high in price when compared to similar offerings including the YES network.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/18/sports/18sandomirgraphic.jpg
     
  20. Jun 27, 2007 #60 of 572
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    7,285
    202
    Apr 22, 2002
    Kansas City KS
    I don't want MY subscription raising just because some of YOU want a regional sports channel. If the people who want the channel were allowed to buy that one channel (and pay the true costs of it) , the problem would be solved. But no - the content provider (Big Ten in this case) has said they want their channel in the same tier as the other sports channels.

    As far as comparing BTN to YES - well you still don't see YES on Dish now either, do you ?

    As I see it, the case for Ala carte programming choices keeps getting stronger and stronger...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements