I Want My Big Ten Sports

I recently wrote some of my thoughts about the standoff between Comcast and the Big Ten Network about bringing the network to the largest cable provider in the United States.

As a Comcast subscriber I truly feel like I'm missing out on some of the best games the league has to offer, and as a three-time Indiana University graduate I am truly sorry that I haven't been able to watch IU football on TV this season.

I took the time to contact Comcast about the situation, asking if they will ever pick up the network. Here is their response.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. We too are fans of Big Ten schools and college sports.

We want to bring The Big Ten Network to you and other fans of Big Ten schools in a way that is fair to all of our customers. We’ve offered to make the network available on our digital sports tier within Big Ten markets (and as a subscription service for customers outside of the Big Ten eight-state region), so that fans of Big Ten schools can watch the games without burdening all of our customers with the Big Ten’s costly fees – which amount to a $13 “Big Ten Tax.” Unfortunately, the Big Ten is insisting that all consumers subsidize the network – whether they want to watch it, or not – and will not allow us to offer it to the fans who want it most like you. That’s just not fair.

On behalf of all of our customers, we will continue to work to reach a fair agreement that would let us begin carrying the network for you this fall.

First, this is obviously a canned response. But I can't expect a personalized response from a big corporation, can I?

But I hope to get one because as soon as I got this response I had to send them another e-mail.

I first don't like the characterization as it being a tax. That is ridiculous. Is part of what I pay every month a CNN tax or an ESPN tax? No, it obviously is not. This is just language used to inflame some subscribers.

But what I really have a problem with is the idea that we are "subsidizing" the Big Ten Network, including those who would be paying for it but not watching it. Don't all cable and satellite subscribers do this? I'm sorry but I don't watch the Style Network, A&E, or the Disney Channel yet I pay for them in my basic cable service. Am I subsidizing them as well?

I think it's time for Comcast to settle this dispute with the Big Ten Network and finally bring the network to their subscribers that want it. Otherwise all they are doing is punishing us.

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.

Could They Be Sending a Message?

This evening I had the joy of watching the Indiana University men’s basketball team handily defeat Purdue by a score of 85-58. Unfortunately many individuals in the Bloomington and Indianapolis area were not able to see the game on their televisions. The game was carried by ESPNU, a cable network not currently carried in basic cable packages in these areas. In the past this game, as well as other IU basketball games, have been carried in Bloomington on ESPN Plus and aired on the local WB (now CW) affiliate.

I began to wonder why ESPN would not this game between two big rivals available to a wider audience. I can understand that they would like to build ESPNU’s audience, but why do so at the expense of many fans?

Then a friend tonight asked me about the Big Ten Network, which is set to debut in August, 2007. Could the imminent start of this network, and the amount of Big Ten sporting events it will cover, be a reason why ESPN relegated this game to ESPNU?

I did some investigating of the Big Ten Network and discovered that the majority of the network is owned by the Big Ten Conference itself with a minority of the network owned by the Fox Cable Networks. The Big Ten Network will not carry just football and basketball. It will also carry the championship events, classic Big Ten sporting events, coaches’ shows, Olympics events, and academic programming.

I read in the FAQ section for the Big Ten Network how games that will be aired will be chosen. It appears that ABC gets first selection of Saturday afternoon games, CBS gets first selection of weekend men’s basketball games, ESPN has first selection of weekday men’s basketball games, and ESPN on most weekends has second and third selection of football games. The change occurs with the football and men’s basketball games not selected during this process. In the past these games could be picked up by ESPN’s syndication outlet (known as ESPN Regional Television or ESPN Plus). This is why a game such as Indiana vs. Purdue would have appeared on a local station. Now these games will appear on the Big Ten Network.

Did ESPN put this game on ESPNU to bolster this new network’s ratings? Or did they do this to send a message to the impending Big Ten Network, due to their partnership with Fox Sports?