• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

#1 OSU vs. #21 Wisconsin and 65% of Cable Subscribers Can't See the Game

B

BigJelly

Golden Member
Damn greedy cable companies
Damn greedy big ten

This is criminal to have the #19 play the #1 and 65% of cable subscribes cant see the game.

Once again the people that support the Big Ten get screwed over by the Big Ten and TWC/Charter; because both are more concerned with lining their pockets than caring about the ones that line them. The big loser(s) of this game are the Big Ten Fans.

FYI I only have cable because I plan on buying a house and cable had the best rate given the short time that I'm renting. Just didn't figure the bigten would be so damn greedy and force a game like this on the BTN. Can't wait till i get direct-tv.

Now to the two pool questions:
I feel the Big Ten is more greedy than TWC or Charter on this issue. Big 10 network should NOT take games that are worth watching. Yes some football games were not shown last year w/o the big ten network but lets face it--those games were not worth any network picking them up.
I feel BTN should be optional. I'd pay for the big ten network but dont feel it should be forced on everyone. Simple logic: everyone pays for it. Even people outside of the 8 Big Ten states; they pay less but still foot the bill (averages to 30 cents/subscriber--$1 for big ten states and $.1 for non-big ten states). So what, 30 cents who cares...until we have the pac 10 network, the sec network, etc.

EDITED : Wisconsin is #21 in BCS -- used the USA today poll which has them at #19
 
I don't think the cable companies are greedy in this case, I think it's all on BTN. Come on, >$1 in big ten states for EVERY subscriber, even those who don't want it? The cable companies are being consistent with their treatment of other sports networks by putting BTN in a sports package. :thumbsup: cable companies.
 
Cable co should make it a la carte and see who actually wants to pay for it at whatever price point(s) they set. They could put BTN out of business that way if nobody subscribes. If not, people can pay the asking price.

Why should I subsidize your cable price any more than I already do?
 
As much as I hate to say it... I agree with the cable companies on this one.

I don't think everyone should be forced to pay for it.

Although our cable provider (the city I live in) picked it up and I don't remember being asked if we wanted it or not.

 
The retarded part is that for cable companies to implement the Big10 Network, residents of Big10 states end up having to pay more than residents of non Big10 states - that doesn't make any sense other than supply/demand. However the fact is that the B10 network is taking games away from local broadcasts - this means the customer is forced into buying when they got the game for "free" in the past.

When out of state fans can now watch Big 10 games when they couldn't at all prior to the Big10 network, and for less cost than instate fans...that just doesn't make any sense. That's like charging local NFL fans for NFL Sunday Ticket but offering it practically for free for everyone else...WTF!
 
I have zero interest in watching anything other than OSU football games. Paying to watch other sports and classic games seems like a waste to me. I don't want to pay for more channels.

I think the BTN is the greedy one here. I feel sick siding with the cable companies.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The retarded part is that for cable companies to implement the Big10 Network, residents of Big10 states end up having to pay more than residents of non Big10 states - that doesn't make any sense other than supply/demand. However the fact is that the B10 network is taking games away from local broadcasts - this means the customer is forced into buying when they got the game for "free" in the past.

When out of state fans can now watch Big 10 games when they couldn't at all prior to the Big10 network, and for less cost than instate fans...that just doesn't make any sense. That's like charging local NFL fans for NFL Sunday Ticket but offering it practically for free for everyone else...WTF!
Click to expand...

I think the split pricing makes sense. When the cable company offers a channel, the price of the channel matters less than the price per customer who actually watches it. That's why ESPN can charge an assload more than other channels. If 50% of subscribers in Big Ten states watch BTN, that's $2 per subscriber who watches. If only 5% of subscribers in non-Big Ten states watch BTN, that's also $2 per subscriber who watches. If BTN charged the same price nation-wide, the cable company would be paying $20 per subscriber who watches BTN in non-Big Ten states. Those numbers are obviously hypothetical, but it wouldn't surprise me if viewership was vastly disproportionate like that - otherwise they'd have set the pricing differently. Without the split pricing, I don't think any cable company would even carry BTN outside of the Big Ten states.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The retarded part is that for cable companies to implement the Big10 Network, residents of Big10 states end up having to pay more than residents of non Big10 states - that doesn't make any sense other than supply/demand. However the fact is that the B10 network is taking games away from local broadcasts - this means the customer is forced into buying when they got the game for "free" in the past.

When out of state fans can now watch Big 10 games when they couldn't at all prior to the Big10 network, and for less cost than instate fans...that just doesn't make any sense. That's like charging local NFL fans for NFL Sunday Ticket but offering it practically for free for everyone else...WTF!
Click to expand...

I think the split pricing makes sense. When the cable company offers a channel, the price of the channel matters less than the price per customer who actually watches it. That's why ESPN can charge an assload more than other channels. If 50% of subscribers in Big Ten states watch BTN, that's $2 per subscriber who watches. If only 5% of subscribers in non-Big Ten states watch BTN, that's also $2 per subscriber who watches. If BTN charged the same price nation-wide, the cable company would be paying $20 per subscriber who watches BTN in non-Big Ten states. Those numbers are obviously hypothetical, but it wouldn't surprise me if viewership was vastly disproportionate like that - otherwise they'd have set the pricing differently. Without the split pricing, I don't think any cable company would even carry BTN outside of the Big Ten states.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter, we shouldn't have to pay when we didn't have to in the past.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The retarded part is that for cable companies to implement the Big10 Network, residents of Big10 states end up having to pay more than residents of non Big10 states - that doesn't make any sense other than supply/demand. However the fact is that the B10 network is taking games away from local broadcasts - this means the customer is forced into buying when they got the game for "free" in the past.

When out of state fans can now watch Big 10 games when they couldn't at all prior to the Big10 network, and for less cost than instate fans...that just doesn't make any sense. That's like charging local NFL fans for NFL Sunday Ticket but offering it practically for free for everyone else...WTF!
Click to expand...

I think the split pricing makes sense. When the cable company offers a channel, the price of the channel matters less than the price per customer who actually watches it. That's why ESPN can charge an assload more than other channels. If 50% of subscribers in Big Ten states watch BTN, that's $2 per subscriber who watches. If only 5% of subscribers in non-Big Ten states watch BTN, that's also $2 per subscriber who watches. If BTN charged the same price nation-wide, the cable company would be paying $20 per subscriber who watches BTN in non-Big Ten states. Those numbers are obviously hypothetical, but it wouldn't surprise me if viewership was vastly disproportionate like that - otherwise they'd have set the pricing differently. Without the split pricing, I don't think any cable company would even carry BTN outside of the Big Ten states.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter, we shouldn't have to pay when we didn't have to in the past.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bring it up? 😕
 
Ohio + Wisconsin < All of Michigan

They changed it week ago so that the country could watch the Michigan - Michigan St. game. What I can't figure out is why they had to choose one or the other because one was a 12:00 start and the other was 3:30. Why not both?

I thought ABC could broadcast any game they chose and then BTN got the sloppy seconds with ESPN bringing up the tail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top