Now Hear This Electronic Newsletter, August 23, 2007 Posted
by Bob at 08/21/07 12:55 PM
Consumers stand to be the biggest losers in an extortion contest now playing out between big cable companies and a pair of new and powerful sports networks. And as is often the case in fights predicated on pure greed, this one doesn't have any good guys.
At issue is how -- or if -- several of the country's biggest cable systems will carry new sports networks owned and operated by the National Football League (NFL Network) and the Big Ten Conference (Big Ten Network).
Both of the fledgling networks want cable companies such as Comcast and Time Warner to carry their programming as part of their basic cable package. The cable companies say such an arrangement would hike the cable rates of all its subscribers, which they contend would be unfair to customers who have no interest in the fairly limited programming offered by the NFL Network and soon-to-be-launched Big Ten Network.
For the two sports networks, getting onto basic cable would mean they would reach more viewers and would be able to charge higher advertising rates. That’s in addition to the hefty fees the two networks want to charge cable companies to get their programming.
The cable companies claim they are trying to protect their customers who don’t want the NFL Network and/or the Big Ten Network. That would be commendable, were it true.
The cable companies want to offer the NFL Network and the Big Ten Network as part of “premium sports packages.” That means fans would have to pay for a whole host of sports programming they might not want just to get the NFL Network and/or the Big Ten Network.
The two sports networks are now enlisting millions of fans and alumni to put pressure on the cable companies to put their channels on their basic cable packages. (You can click here to see an email sent out by the University of Michigan asking supporters to contact their local cable company and demand the Big Ten Network be included in their basic cable package. Other Big Ten schools have been sending out similar appeals.)
We think both sides need to knock if off.
It's rotten for these two sports networks -- or any other powerful programmer -- to try and wring money out of cable customers who have little or no interest in their programming. If consumers want the networks, it's only fair they pay for them.
And it’s just as rotten for the cable companies to force consumers who do want the NFL Network and/or the Big Ten Network to pay for a bunch of other sports channels they don't want.
So what would be fair?
The two sports networks should stop trying to get basic cable subscribers who have no interest in their programming to subsidize their profits. At the same time, the cable companies should offer the two sports networks as stand-alone products, not part of an expensive, take-it-or-leave-it package.
This is a fairly simple concept called "cable a la carte" -- the idea that consumers only have to pay for the channels they actually want to watch. Think about it. There are dozens of channels on most basic cable plans -- sometimes hundreds -- but the vast majority of subscribers rarely watch more than a handful of those channels. (Click here to read more about cable a la carte on www.hearusnow.org.)
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin has been beating the drum for cable a la carte, as have many public interest groups, including Consumers Union, the sponsor of this blog.
Imagine if you had to pay for a quart of motor oil, a manicure and a pint of ice cream just to get the ice cream. That may sound ridiculous, but that is exactly the way that cable programming is sold.
It's long past time for cable companies to start selling their products and services the same way that virtually every other product or service is sold.
********************************************************************************************************************************
Want to learn more about the current battles between cable companies and the two sports networks?
The Wall Street Journal published a good article this week on battle over the NFL Network, which you can view by clicking here.
The Los Angeles Times published good article this week on the battle over the Big Ten Network, which you can view by clicking here.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NEW ON “NOW HEAR THIS”
Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on “Now Hear This”, our blog:
AT&T's Shenanigans in Hiding $10 DSL Service Go From Exasperating to Infuriating
comments
(5)
1
Posted by Rox Ann Petoskey at 08/23/07 01:58 PM
The same thing is happening with the National Hockey League. After the lockout, ESPN decided not to renew their contract with the NHL. So in the interim, Fox Sports Network and a few local affiliates picked up the games; along with NBC.
Now there is .VS, which isn't available to everyone forcing fans to pay more to get the channel. It also isn't available by itself, you have to buy the channel package that contains it. Last season .VS didn't broadcast all the games, they too farmed out the majority to FSN, FOX affiliates and ABC.
Their reasoning is faulty and I had a week-long email argument with a sales representative from the NHL.
In the end it is all about the money.
2
Posted by Linda at 08/23/07 02:12 PM
Thank you for reminding me that I am quite happy living in a cable-TV free home. Probably the only thing I miss by saving $45.00 per month is the programming on Comedy Central. I don't miss the sports channels, the faux news channels, the commercials ( why should people pay for TV that includes commercials?! ).
I get more reliable news on the Internet and the commercials are not obtrusive. I wouldn't have to pay for sports reports, even if I wanted them.
And many websites provides me with lots of humor.
3
Posted by steve weinberg at 08/26/07 12:05 PM
I live in large middle class suburb of Dallas, Tx [actually just across the street from Dallas]. We are surrounded by dsl. Yet we cannot get dsl. $10.00 ? They advertise $14.95. I have never seen it for $10.00. I would jump on it for $14.95. I pay $24.00 for regular service right now. Asking why and getting answers is indeed time consuming and frustrating. I took the time in the past to ask. The technical problem att says is that in our area we have high speed to curb, not to house.The real problem is large company ethics and their close ties with the federal government rather than technical. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Have a problem with your phone? The first answer is the problem is in your house wiring. It is never their fault whether or not it is and with or without them checking their equipment. Oh Oh Oh yeh ---- thanks deregulation!
4
Posted by Mike van Winkle at 08/26/07 05:15 PM
Here we go again. What is Southeastern Conf gonna do? Are we going to have a SEC channel next ?
5
Posted by Lori at 08/27/07 03:14 AM
Another very important channel that has been lumped -in with the upper-tier cable packages is the two-year-old Current channel that was co-founded by former VP Al Gore (yes, him). This is a channel specifically aimed at the "coveted" 18-34 demographic audience and so much more relevant than any of the reality pablum that MTV, VH1, and even Fuse pander to this group constantly ("What's a music video?" they ask) It actually encourages this age group to do something besides watching TV, playing video games, hanging out in "virtual" and social-networking worlds, extreme sports, etc. It encourages it to stand up for and express themselves about the world they live in. It should be made available for the taking.
On another note...I am concerned, however, that al-la-carte offerings could lead to the demise of independent channels such as Current and Public Access channels. I know of people who are only interested in getting either Comedy Central, VH1 Classic, and/or, unfortunately, Faux News as their cable channels of choice. There are also those who want only a public access channel ... particularly if it carries Democracy Now! So...I am not sure I am all for al-la-carte programming, if it will mean the loss of good channels at the expense of conglomerate-controlled, trashy ones that serve no purpose whatsoever.
