Big Ten vs. Comcast

Last winter I wrote about the Big Ten Network, and how it appeared at the time ESPN was dealing with losing some of the broadcast rights to various events. (To read that post, click here.) But now another controversy has exploded with the Big Ten Network and Comcast, the nation’s largest cable service provider.

The Big Ten Network premiered on August 30th. But it still hasn’t received clearance onto Comcast. The two sides are disagreeing on where to place the channel in Comcast’s cable service. The Big Ten Network would like to see their channel placed on basic or expanded basic cable, so that the largest number of subscribers possible would have access. Comcast would like to place the network onto an upper-tier sports package so that only those cable subscribers that purchase that package can see it. And neither side will budge. Comcast says that the reason for this placement is so that subscribers that don’t want to pay for this network won’t have to.

The fees that cable providers pay to networks are an interesting phenomenon. Your cable service provider pays a fee to each and every cable network to be able to have it on their service. It could be as little as a few cents or as much as a couple of dollars per cable subscriber. The more popular the network the more they are able to charge because there is demand for it. I’m certain that networks such as MTV, ESPN, and CNN charge much higher fees per subscriber than do the American Life Network, Logo, or the National Geographic Channel. However, as the channels gain popularity they can increase how much they charge the service providers.

Though I can not find any precise numbers, my guess is one of the sticking points between the two sides is how much the Big Ten Network is asking for. They believe that they have a guaranteed audience and are probably asking for more per subscriber than the typical upstart cable network. Comcast isn’t willing to pay that amount for every subscriber they have, so they want to place it on an upper-tier channel so that they only have to pay the Big Ten Network for every subscriber that purchases that package of channels.

But it’s gotten ugly. Now that I live in Delaware I have Comcast digital cable. And I’ve started to see advertisements from Comcast about the situation. And they are taking the tone of negative political advertising. Take a look at this commercial that I was able to find on YouTube.



Wow. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. I’m sure we’ll see similar imagery this winter and spring, after the presidential primaries, when the political advertisements for the candidates running for president start.

But the problem is that Comcast is leaving something out. They may be featuring “thousands of hours” of Big Ten sports, but there are thousands more that will be on the Big Ten Network that we won’t see. When you’re talking football you will see powerhouses such as Ohio State in your programming, but how likely are you to see an Indiana University game? Not likely unless they’re playing a powerhouse. And what about basketball? There are so many games played each season, and a majority of those will not be seen by those who are serviced by the nation’s largest cable provider. Games that used to be broadcast by ESPN Plus and therefore on local stations will not be there this year. Homes in Indiana will not be able to see home IU basketball games on their TVs. And what about some of the sports that the major networks never air, like swimming and softball? Shouldn’t they have a platform too?

I’m not sure what the solution is. If the Big Ten Network drops their fees, then maybe Comcast will place it so that everyone can have access to it. Or if Comcast won’t budge then the Big Ten Network will have to accept the fact that only special subscribers can see their programming.

All I know is that here in Delaware I could have seen IU football’s season opener thanks to this network, but my cable service provider couldn’t come to terms and therefore I missed out. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.