# BTN & DISH Agree to Deal (was BTN, Dish Network negotiation at stalemate)



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

An impasse between the Big Ten Network and satellite company Dish Network could prevent customers from watching the opening weekend of the college football season.

Elizabeth Conlisk, the BTN's vice president of communications and university relations, said today that the agreement between the Big Ten Network and Dish expires Friday - one day before BTN begins its 2012 college football broadcast schedule.

"We've offered proposals to Dish that are consistent with the current market value of the network," Conlisk said. "Dish is insisting on some kind of preferential treatment and is looking for terms below market value."

http://www.jconline.com/article/20120826/SPORTS020101/308260022/BTN-Big-Ten-Network-Dish-Network


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

Here we go again!


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

Here come the "I don't give a damn never ever watch it" people. Drop it and save me money!!!!!!!! 

Don't underestimate college football fans and their love for their teams and watching them. Way more people will leave over this than AMC.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

BTN has their site up http://www.iwantbtn.com/learn-more.php .


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

Yeah, I'm watching 49ers - Broncos and just saw the commerical.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

This is getting old. I pay for BTN because as part of the Sports Pack.Just like I paid for AMC, IFC, Sundance and We. So far no credit for the latter. You are told it is the cost of doing business. Of course, we never got credit when almost all the ESPN/Disney channel HDs feeds were removed. Now, it is BTNs (Big Ten Conference and FOX) turn to gouge customers, and we won't get a credit for that either.

The idea that carriers (cable and satellite) put their customers in the middle of their disputes just only add more ire to the situation. It is getting to point that a subscriber has to play a game of chance when they choose a provider, because the programming they subscribed to could be dropped because of greed by either the carrier or the provider.

Of course, if I lived in Columbus, Ohio, I would just go to the Ohio State game this Saturday. I am a seaon ticket holder. But, alas, I live in Colorado and my relatives use the tickets; at least they will get to see this week's game.

Finally, BTN telling folks to go seek out alternatives. Guess what? The HD feed is not carried by COMCAST in my area. I am in a two year committment with DISH; will they pay the $200 fee to change? Matter of fact, they are the only carrier in the area that will carry the PAC-12 network. Dish and DirectTV are is a dispute with them, as well. And, if I did change, what happens when COMCAST gets into a dispute? It gets expensive jumping from one carrier to another.

So this is the price people pay for media consolidation. Not only for the greed, but for the ever decreasing variety of programming that is now available. And we have politicians and government agencies which continue to ignore this problem.

So, if anyone knows a way to watch Big Ten games on my laptop come Saturday, please post the URL in this blog.

One last comment, didn't BTN require DISH, when BTN started, to pay $1 a subscriber for each subscriber in the Big Ten states and include BTN in DISH 100+? For those outside of the Big Ten States, one has to pay $7.99 (at the time it was $5.99) for the Sports Pack. This is not enough?


----------



## buck1973 (Aug 7, 2007)

nmetro said:


> T
> 
> Of course, if I lived in Columbus, Ohio, I would just go to the Ohio State game this Saturday. I am a seaon ticket holder. But, alas, I live in Colorado and my relatives use the tickets; at least they will get to see this week's game.
> 
> So, if anyone knows a way to watch Big Ten games on my laptop come Saturday, please post the URL in this blog.


If your relatives have Time Warner or Directv as a provider, use their logon to watch the game on bnt2go.


----------



## Rainbird (Aug 22, 2002)

In April this year Dish got in a dispute with Fox West Sports over carrying the Anaheim Angeles games that were formerly carried on KCOP Channel 13 in Los Angeles. Dish was wanting to add the games to it's current lineup. Negotiations dragged on and never did get resolved.


----------



## Oswald13 (Jul 28, 2007)

Wonderful. Just switched from Directv this spring, so I have a 2 year commitment. Anyone know what is the lowest package I can downgrade to without penalty?


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

buck1973 said:


> If your relatives have Time Warner or Directv as a provider, use their logon to watch the game on bnt2go.


Thanks. Well, there is always Buckeye Vision for $9.95 a month. Though, it looks like Buckeye Vision is part of BTN Digital fro $119 a year or so.

It is almost cheaper to drop DISH, go with DirecTV and pay the $200 for breaking the two year commitment.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> BTN has their site up http://www.iwantbtn.com/learn-more.php .


What amused me from that site... from the Q&A section of the "Get the facts" link...

"*Q: Are your proposals "unreasonable?"*
_A: No. BTN's proposals are entirely reasonable and in line with the BTN agreements already secured with other TV providers within the marketplace._"

Why amusing?

Because... what else would they say to that question? Yes, out proposals are entirely unreasonable. In fact, we are amazed that Dish didn't laugh in our faces when we threw the numbers on the table... I mean, we are SO out of bounds it isn't even funny... if only I could tell you, you'd say 'yeah, that is unreasonable!'

Talk about useless Q&A...

How about this... any Web site that puts up a link that says "Get the Facts"... whether it is Dish or anyone else... you MUST actually put the facts on that link destination!

Don't say "our request is reasonable and in line with market values" without actually telling people what you are requesting.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Don't say "our request is reasonable and in line with market values" without actually telling people what you are requesting.


I agree. Say, for example, "We currently get $1/subscriber from Dish. We are now requesting $1.10.". It is insulting to be told to trust them when they say they are being reasonable. Dish could counter with, "95% of subscribers to packages with the BTN never watch it. This is not a popular channel. Other channels with similar peak ratings receive $0.40/subscriber or less.". But the days of transparent contract negotiations are likely never going to come.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

It's no wonder people are ditching cable and satellite packages and going with OTA plus online options. I'm tired of these stalemates.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

The timing of these negotiations are always a killer for the viewers and seem to be in favor of the content provider. It stinks for the fans as I like to watch Big 10 football but maybe it would be better for Dish to wait until the season is over and sign a deal which expires on that date in the future. Yes, we lose a season of viewing but there is at least a chance at moving the expiration date beyond the beginning of the season.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

_Another programming negotiation dispute?_

Is Charlie Ergen trying to nickel and dime?

This seems to have now become the _norm_ with him and Dish Network!


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

All the latest technology is useless if there are no channels to watch.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

APB101 said:


> _Another programming negotiation dispute?_
> 
> Is Charlie Ergen trying to nickel and dime?
> 
> This seems to have now become the _norm_ with him and Dish Network!


After 14 years, I have decided to jump to DirecTV. The now weekly disputes became more and more annoying; and is costing me money. One of the reasons I subscribed to satellite was that one way or another I would be able to have access to Ohio State/Big Ten sport. Be it ESPN, ABC, and, in the past few years, BTN. Comcast, until recently, did not carry BTN and ABC regionally shows either Big 12 and now PAC 12 (University of Colorado recent relocation helped spur the change.

I pay extra money to get BTN, because I do not live in a Big Ten State. To me that is $7.99/month or about $96/year. So, to me it is not a $1 per subscriber. I generally do not watch out of market RSNs and rarely watch other channels which are in the Sports Pack.

I am fully aware that DirecTV has its issues, many are mentioned in these blogs. They had an issue with Viacom a few weeks ago. But, the DirecTV provider disputes are not the norm, like they have become at DISH.

In the end I will be paying about $20/month more, once all the promotional credits run out. But, I do not have to play channel dispute roulette almost on a weekly basis and not see any credit for lost channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Good luck to you... I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically... I think DirecTV's recent temporary drop of Viacom signals a brand new day where DirecTV will be playing hardball like Dish has done... so I don't think there will be a provider immune.

We even have the do as I say not as I do scenario with AMC calling Dish penny-pinching for dropping them, while simultaneously Cablevision (with many of the same board members as AMC) has dropped other channels that wanted more money... so when the shoe is on the other foot, the channel owners don't want to pay more either!

I expect DirecTV to step up and negotiate harder in the coming years.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.

So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.

Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

"nmetro" said:


> By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.
> 
> So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.
> 
> Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


All stations owned by Local TV LLC are up for renewal on 9/1. There are 21 involved. IIRC


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

nmetro said:


> Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


That is apples vs oranges, though.

OTA stations don't charge you to receive the OTA broadcasts either... and in my DMA they didn't want cable or satellite to charge you... My DMA, the local stations years ago were willing to even provide fiber links to the cable company for free if the cable company would deliver them to you the viewer for free... but cable wanted to charge for the locals... so the locals said, if you want to charge then you have to pay us.

Cable and satellite had the opportunity years ago to suck it up and retransmit locals for free, but they saw it as a place to charge money... so that ship sailed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is illegal for a local station to be charged for carriage or channel positioning - although it is legal for them to cover the costs of getting their signal to the cable/satellite company's headend/point of presence.

For cable, once the signal is at the head end it is carried along with all the "pay" cable channels using the same infrastructure and consuming space. There are laws that require cable systems to set aside a certain number of channels (based on system size) for locals. Once they have met that threshold additional channels do not need to be carried.

For satellite the point of presence is only the beginning of the journey. From there the station is backhauled to an uplink center (one of 10 regional centers, depending on the satellite the channel will appear on). Then it is uplinked to a specialized satellite that allows the satellite company to carry different locals in each market. The law does not allow satellite to carry another market's locals, which means to achieve full carriage thousands of channels need to be backhauled and uplinked - at no cost to the local channel. (If there is no local of a major network in a particular market distants can be imported ... but if a local of a major network exists that is the ONLY station that can represent that network in that market. Which leads to a lot of uplinks.) Satellite is also burdened with "carry one/carry all" where all stations in a market must be offered carriage - not just a quota.

While it may sound like a grand gesture to have stations say that their feed can be carried for free if a satellite/cable company doesn't charge for the signal it doesn't match the economics. Carrying local stations, especially on satellite, is very expensive. The satellite providers might be better off not carrying them at all ... except that satellite providers compete against cable providers who can carry a few local stations at each headend fairly cheaply.

I wish people at the stations could see the costs and partner with the satellite providers to extend their coverage and reach viewers without demanding an additional charge. But when offered an income source the local station certainly is not going to turn it down.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> While it may sound like a grand gesture to have stations say that their feed can be carried for free if a satellite/cable company doesn't charge for the signal it doesn't match the economics. Carrying local stations, especially on satellite, is very expensive. The satellite providers might be better off not carrying them at all ... except that satellite providers compete against cable providers who can carry a few local stations at each headend fairly cheaply.


I wonder how the cost-comparison is for Dish to carry local markets vs their subscriber-base VS the cost of a local channel to build/power its transmitter?

Local stations put a lot of money into their tower & transmission equipment... and their only source of revenue is from the programming they carry and commercials. OTA stations don't charge their viewers (for the purposes of this argument, PBS is being ignored since they are privately funded and do solicit viewer donations)...

So I don't discount the cost to Dish to retransmit locals... but how does that cost compare to the cost the local station has to exist?

Meanwhile... we've seen how customers demand that dish or DirecTV carry their locals. Now that most are carried, the noise has died down... but lots of people would switch to Dish or DirecTV if only one carried their locals... people used to have to get "lifeline" cable for their locals before the satellite companies started carrying LiLs...

so... from Dish's point of view, there is a cost of providing the locals BUT also they gain a lot of customers who wouldn't subscribe to Dish at all without the LiLs... so it isn't entirely fair to paint Dish's cost of providing/uplinking LiLs as just an expenditure that doesn't in and of itself pay off in the form of subscribers.

Example... in the Raleigh, NC DMA where I live... there would be a lot less Dish customers if they didn't carry LiLs... consider the Hopper too currently without OTA support... without Raleigh, NC LiLs in my DMA nobody here would sign up for Dish and get a Hopper and lose their OTA networks if Dish didn't have the LiLs.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

nmetro said:


> By the way, after I wrote what I posted, I learned that a company called "Local TV", which seems to be made up of mostly FOX stations, is about to be dropped by DirecTV for WJW in Cleveland (FOX 8). The usual, the stations want more money for transmission. While they have not said they will do the same in Denver (KDVR and KWGN) are owned by "Local TV". So, that thread about FOX being dropped by DISH may actually have some traction in a few weeks; as it is now happening with DirecTV.
> 
> So, Sinclair is not the only group playing the increase the transmission cost game.
> 
> Another argument that local TV stations should not be allowed to charge for their signals. If I owned a cinema, and charged people to see a local broadcast (you can do this now with Digital Transmission), I would get in trouble with the FCC. Because the frequencies are owned by the public; you cannot charge for them. But, NAB and our so called "representatives" in Congress has let them do just that with Satellite and Cable; sell their signals.


That is correct the "airwaves" are supposed to be free,but there is no"air" in space.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder how the cost-comparison is for Dish to carry local markets vs their subscriber-base VS the cost of a local channel to build/power its transmitter?


How many millions of viewers does the local station reach vs the 12%(?) market share that DISH has? How many people in the local market cannot receive the OTA signal due to the lack of the proper outdoor mast mounted antenna?

DISH comes along and offers to help the station distribute their signal to their entire market and their thank you is a per subscriber bill from the station?



> Local stations put a lot of money into their tower & transmission equipment... and their only source of revenue is from the programming they carry and commercials. OTA stations don't charge their viewers (for the purposes of this argument, PBS is being ignored since they are privately funded and do solicit viewer donations)...


Local stations can make money off of the programming they produce, and from commercial sales/underwriting. And now they have added reselling their signal to cable/satellite to their ways of making money.

Perhaps the local stations should just say no ... absolutely NO retransmission of their signals whatsoever. See how they survive without the audience cable and satellite providers give them. Especially in a market where the other stations have said yes and subscribers can more easily watch competitive programming.



> So I don't discount the cost to Dish to retransmit locals... but how does that cost compare to the cost the local station has to exist?


The cost to the local station is there with or without DISH carriage. It doesn't cost the station any more to be carried on DISH ... other than what they pay their lawyers and negotiators to argue over the contract.



> [W]ithout Raleigh, NC LiLs in my DMA nobody here would sign up for Dish and get a Hopper and lose their OTA networks if Dish didn't have the LiLs.


I had DISH for a couple of years before my locals were added. And while I could receive some of the signals OTA (analog) I found the DISH interface more convenient and didn't watch the locals. Getting added to DISH increased those station's reach. Once they showed up in the guide I watched them.

And now with the Hopper automatically recording the big four I'm watching more of the local stations. It certainly sounds like a win for the local stations to be part of the DISH lineup and available on the Hopper. Yet they also want cash or other payment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> Perhaps the local stations should just say no ... absolutely NO retransmission of their signals whatsoever. See how they survive without the audience cable and satellite providers give them. Especially in a market where the other stations have said yes and subscribers can more easily watch competitive programming.


And bringing that back to the topic of this thread ... perhaps BTN should say no and refuse to be carried by DISH.

Cutting your network off from millions of viewers does not seem to make sense. A relative few may leave for a provider that has BTN ... but there will still be millions of people who will not have the option of watching BTNs commercials and the programming surrounding them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, we somehow are WAY off-topic for the BTN thread.

So to get back to topic... I'm frankly surprised we haven't heard more about this by now... I guess no games until Saturday... but seems like we should have heard something positive OR negative by now.

Unless, as I said in the other thread... Dish is trying to do this and PAC-12 all in one fell swoop in time for the weekend.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

What needs to happen is channel consolidation. I'm not a Big10 sports fan. I am a fan of my local college Big10 football team. Before BTN, I'd get all but one or two games on ESPN or ABC. Pre conference games were on my local FSN. Along came the BTN and now those one or two games are televised, but I never watch it otherwise. So from my perspective, the programming I like was spread over more channels (since ESPN and ABC still air some of the games I watch) and that is the sole benefit. It seems that we had a boom of channel creation without a corresponding boom in quality programming. At some point, duplication and dilution have to stop and the number of channels must shrink. BTN can fold for all I care. They haven't made my life better, just more expensive.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In theory... networks like the Big Ten and PAC-12 are "anchored" by their football and basketball coverage... but were supposed to also cover other less-covered sports. I have to say, though, that they sure don't use those alternate feeds to cover say volleyball or softball do they?

It might still be niche... but I could see a LOT more potential for these conference-dedicated networks IF they gave more coverage to the other sports at the schools and athletes that otherwise are largely ignored.


----------



## bscott (Jun 4, 2004)

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...work?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

I'm going away for he weekend but I've got the Purdue-EKU game scheduled to record. Call me an optimist.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

sregener said:


> What needs to happen is channel consolidation. I'm not a Big10 sports fan. I am a fan of my local college Big10 football team. Before BTN, I'd get all but one or two games on ESPN or ABC. Pre conference games were on my local FSN. Along came the BTN and now those one or two games are televised, but I never watch it otherwise. So from my perspective, the programming I like was spread over more channels (since ESPN and ABC still air some of the games I watch) and that is the sole benefit. It seems that we had a boom of channel creation without a corresponding boom in quality programming. At some point, duplication and dilution have to stop and the number of channels must shrink. BTN can fold for all I care. They haven't made my life better, just more expensive.


Not likely to fold.

Five years after its launch, Big Ten Network celebrated as a whopping success
http://www.indystar.com/article/201...cess?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah, we somehow are WAY off-topic for the BTN thread.
> 
> So to get back to topic... I'm frankly surprised we haven't heard more about this by now... I guess no games until Saturday... but seems like we should have heard something positive OR negative by now.
> 
> Unless, as I said in the other thread... Dish is trying to do this and PAC-12 all in one fell swoop in time for the weekend.


The latest.

Dish Network likely to drop Big Ten Network

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...work?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s


----------



## chris83 (Aug 16, 2006)

I've been through cable, DirecTV and am currently with Dish. When my contract is up in the Spring I will most likely say "So long" to pay TV and do OTA and streaming, for a while at least. I've just grown weary of these types of disputes over the years with ALL the providers. I'm sure I will miss a lot of the programming, but even MORE sure I WON'T miss the crappola.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Meanwhile, the the BIg Ten Network goes dark on DISH, folks in Indianapolis also have to put up with losing their NBC affiliate"

"WTHR's contract also expires at midnight Friday and would not be available on Dish Network if the sides can't reach an agreement."

So, no Notre Dame football come 8 September, with no Purdue and Indiana on BTN.

One has to wonder that the owners of WTHR may be a more larger push. They are owned by the same people who own The Columbus Dispatch (WBNS) - a CBS affiliate).

In the end , only 400,000 DISH subscribers outside the Big Ten states subscribe to the channel. Inside the Big Ten states not everyone watched BTN and do not care about Big Ten sports. So, how many will leave DISH over this; it is hard to say. 

I am because I do not have only have two options DirecTV or Comcast. Such is life in the exurbs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder if we will hear news before Saturday... or if the "answer" will come in the form of being able (or not) to watch Big Ten on Saturday.

Interesting too that DirecTV and PAC-12 pretty much fell apart to the point of PAC-12 launching attack ads against DirecTV (and not Dish curiously) for not launching with them this weekend... so that probably relieves some pressure on Dish since people thinking of jumping to DirecTV if Dish dropped BTN might have to consider if DirecTV might be next when their contract ends.

Used to be you assumed DirecTV would pick up the sports channels... but now with PAC-12 falling through, you can't just assume DirecTV will keep Big Ten either.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Just a few years ago the was no BTN or Pac 12 network. Dish and DTV played a big role in getting them exposure. Now those networks have joined many other content providers in deciding the cable or satellite TV consumer is a pigeon ripe for plucking. I'm tired of it. 

I remember the year the NFL locked out players for weeks. Everyone predicted the end of the world. For advertiers it might have been, but I and everyone I know discovered there is a whole active world out there on Sunday afternoons. And some, who were normally glued to the TV on Sunday afternoon, never fully came back to NFL football. 

I love football. I'm in Big Ten territory. But my Dish bill is already large enough to choke a horse. I hope Charlie stands up to every content provider who thinks I'm the golden goose. Inflation based increases sure. They're a part of life in all areas. But when providers demand increases of 50% and more I can do without them.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I wonder if we will hear news before Saturday... or if the "answer" will come in the form of being able (or not) to watch Big Ten on Saturday.
> 
> Interesting too that DirecTV and PAC-12 pretty much fell apart to the point of PAC-12 launching attack ads against DirecTV (and not Dish curiously) for not launching with them this weekend... so that probably relieves some pressure on Dish since people thinking of jumping to DirecTV if Dish dropped BTN might have to consider if DirecTV might be next when their contract ends.
> 
> Used to be you assumed DirecTV would pick up the sports channels... but now with PAC-12 falling through, you can't just assume DirecTV will keep Big Ten either.


Part of the problem with the PAC 12 Network, is that they have seven full time channels (one for Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Southern California, Arizona and Colorado/Utah). Unlike BTN, which has one full time channel (2 if you count the SD). So, PAC 12 would want a satellite carrier to uplink all their channels. If both HD and SD are involved; that is 14 channels. So, in order to do that, either more capacity has to be added, or other channels need to be dropped. This besides what the channel wants per subscriber.

As it stands now, BTN, again, is only one channel, and shares the HD pool for alternate football games. Certainly a much smaller footprint, then what PAC 12 is doing.

It is unfortunate that DISH is pulling the channel and I have to move to another provider. But, in this case, BTN is the guilty party here. Also, the PAC 12 is a greedy party here. The conferences of so called amateur athletics want carriage charges as if they were the NFL and the NBA, sorry folks, in the end it is still college sport.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

nmetro said:


> orry folks, in the end it is still college sport.



The only differences between big-time college football and the NFL are that ostensibly nonprofit university athletics departments instead of privately held franchises are raking in the millions of dollars, and the players are largely uncompensated and too frequently exploited.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

I just found this (Lansing State Journal):

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...rge-dropping-Big-Ten-Network?odyssey=nav|head

It seems that it is not the Big Ten, but FOX. The following is from the article in the Lansing State Journal:

John Hall, a spokesman for DISH, released a statement that said only "DISH continues good-faith negotiations with FOX, part owner of Big Ten Network. We are always open to proposals that offer our customers high quality programming at a good value."

And:

"But the current negotiations come in the context of a legal fight. FOX filed a lawsuit against DISH earlier this year contending that Auto Hop, a feature that allows subscribers to automatically skip commercials, was a violation of copyright."

Apparently, if FOX succeeds here, NBC, ABC and CBS will try to do the same with other channels. Get rid of the "Hopper" ad skip feature or else. I guess the legal term is "bribery".


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

nmetro said:


> I just found this (Lansing State Journal):
> 
> http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...rge-dropping-Big-Ten-Network?odyssey=nav|head
> 
> ...


As everyone said would happen. Even if DISH wins the lawsuit the networks can still "make them pay" in negotiations like this.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

An update from the Big Ten Network

BTN and DISH have agreed to a short-term arrangement. Discussions will continue towards a long-term agreement. Enjoy today’s season-opening games.

Thank you for your continued support.

(Received via email 4:04 AM EDT 9/1/2012)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I just read that on the Big Ten Web site as well... It's a positive sign, though not as positive as a new deal of course...

It's also potentially positive for the PAC-12 as well, since if Dish is looking to keep Big Ten, they are open to a similar deal IF the PAC-12 will back off of wanting their 7 24/7 channels! But that's for another thread.

In the meantime, nice to see Big Ten still on this morning.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I think one full time channel is enough to devote to each conference.

They think they are WAY more important than they really are.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

"Jim5506" said:


> I think one full time channel is enough to devote to each conference.
> 
> They think they are WAY more important than they really are.


That's because they are. The Big Ten isn't even the best conference and they put hundreds of thousands of people in their stadiums every Saturday. Just Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State put about 320,000 people in their stadium's.

College football is a huge deal. If you don't like it don't watch. Don't pay for the sports pack. You can even get the top 120 without Big Ten. Don't ever underestimate collage football fans. It's passion like no other sport.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

But, you see, I AM a sports fan and without looking it up, can you tell me who won the national chanpionship in 2003?

Only the rabid fan would know much less care, and there are a lot fewer of those than they think.

I know people who pay thousands of dollars for season tickets, that's OK, but they think everyone else should feel the same way they do, and 99% of everyone else doesn't.

It's wonderful that you want to watch college football 24/7/365, more power to you, just don't be a bandwidth hog and let the rest of us see the sports we like too.

If PAC12 or whatever gets 6 or 7 full time HD channels, how many other more deserving channels (full time RSN's) will have to wait until 8PSK is fully implemented.

If the Big 10 puts 1,000,000 people in the stands on a weekend, that is about 0.3% of the US population, multiply that by 10 and you are still at only 3%.


----------



## sloop30 (Sep 4, 2012)

Jim5506 said:


> But, you see, I AM a sports fan and without looking it up, can you tell me who won the national chanpionship in 2003?
> 
> Only the rabid fan would know much less care, and there are a lot fewer of those than they think.
> 
> ...


Yeah they are asking for quite a bit in my opinion, having a network is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Received from Big Ten Network last night---

I Want My BTN! Don't let DISH Network Drop the Big Ten Network
Attention DISH Network Customers,

The Big Ten Network still does not have a long-term agreement with DISH.

Last Friday, we thought an agreement with DISH was close so we entered into a short-term arrangement to allow BTN fans to see their teams for the kickoff of college football. Unfortunately, negotiations have stalled and we do not anticipate another short-term arrangement will be reached. This all means starting Saturday, September 8, DISH plans to drop BTN and DISH customers may miss over 35 BTN football games, including the Iowa Corn Cy-Hawk series.

Act Now. BTN has long-term agreements with many other TV providers that carry the network. To find another BTN provider, visit IWantBTN.com or CALL 1-855-WANT-B10 for more information.

Thank you for your support.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

"John W" said:


> Received from Big Ten Network last night---
> 
> I Want My BTN! Don't let DISH Network Drop the Big Ten Network
> Attention DISH Network Customers,
> ...


Here we go again.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I will say this... it doesn't make Big Ten look good when the message fluctuates...

Dish is going to drop us, run!
Nevermind, we have another week...
Crickets chirp...
AAAAHHHH! The sky is falling, for real this time, panic!


----------



## Geordon (Sep 27, 2007)

I dropped cable for Dish HD the weekend before BTN started covering Michigan State football in HD. I pay for the local sports package, which only contains two channels - Fox Sports Detroit (woop-de-do) and BTN. Without BTN, I will drop my programming level. What sucks about losing BTN, is that, as posted above, games which used to be broadcast by the local stations are now on BTN (especially basketball). Now, I will get nothing.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> Here we go again.....


I think I made the right move by switching to DirecTV. DISH has to learn that their lawsuits, and programming disputes, have consequences. I may not be alone with the latest salvos of the AMC channels and now BTN.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

nmetro said:


> I think I made the right move by switching to DirecTV. DISH has to learn that their lawsuits, and programming disputes, have consequences. I may not be alone with the latest salvos of the AMC channels and now BTN.


This is purely anecdotal and not scientific in any way, so take it FWIW.

I've had satellite TV since 1995, and I am a writer in the computer and electronics world. As a result I have had a lot of friends over the years ask my help in picking a TV provider. A lot. Also FWIW, this included people in all of the places I've lived in the U.S., including Houston, Mid-Michigan, KC, Chicago, Akron/Cleveland, NC, and middle of nowhere IA. Among others.

It almost always goes the same way (with some changes, as technology has changed, e.g. HD large screen TVs.) I put together the options (cable, DirectTV, Dish, and the occasional new technology. The we look at channel lineups and compare packages, including pricing. We'll also compare things like DVRs, etc. but it usually comes down to the channel line-up and pricing.

Almost always, people immediately check to see if some specific channels are available. That always seems to come before looking at pricing. If they are looking for some favorite channel, and it is not available on one of the providers, they'll pick another even if it is more expensive. If both carry the channels they care about, they'll go with the cheaper (usually.) Now, with HD, I've seen people pick one over the other due to a favorite channel not being in HD on a provider. I've commonly seen people pick a provider and pay $10-15 more per month for one dumb channel. Dumb to me, but important to their viewing habits.

A month or so ago, a guy and his family asked for help, the local cable company switched RSNs and he could no longer see all the Cardinals (MLB) regular season games here in NW Iowa. He pays significantly more but he made the switch (to Dish) within a week. I was helping someone else last week, and they were all set to go with Dish, and then they asked if the AMC deal had been resolved, I told them no, and they immediately changed to go with DirectTV. I've seen people really hung up on making sure they got the new NBC sports channel in HD, just because of the Stanley Cup playoffs on there. I've seen people take a higher cost package just because some home/garden channel was only available in HD in that package.

I guess my point is that a lot of people, when choosing a provider, focus on the channels first and then the cost. I've never, thinking back, had someone tell me "Yeah, we don't mind giving up watching these shows that we regularly watch for a $7 or $10 lower cost" when making their choice.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Geordon said:


> I dropped cable for Dish HD the weekend before BTN started covering Michigan State football in HD. I pay for the local sports package, which only contains two channels - Fox Sports Detroit (woop-de-do) and BTN. Without BTN, I will drop my programming level. What sucks about losing BTN, is that, as posted above, games which used to be broadcast by the local stations are now on BTN (especially basketball). Now, I will get nothing.


What local sports package do you pay extra for that has FSD and BTN on Dish? You mean TOP120+ rather than Top120?

You can blame this all on the greed of sports. And I do mean all of it. This has to come to an end, we can't keep paying for every new sports channel at the prices they ask. I


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

All the hoppin' bells and whistles on the box won't mean a thing if you can't watch what you want to watch. DISH's slogan ought to be: "Let's watch TV ... except for ..."


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

tampa8 said:


> What local sports package do you pay extra for that has FSD and BTN on Dish? You mean TOP120+ rather than Top120?
> 
> You can blame this all on the greed of sports. And I do mean all of it. This has to come to an end, we can't keep paying for every new sports channel at the prices they ask. I


I think sports channels are ideally suited for a la carte' pricing. Something like the BTN is a BIG deal in part of the country, and other parts wouldn't pay an extra nickel. Ask any SEC fan how much they would pay to get an SEC package and they'll pay a ton and be happy to pay. Same for other conferences. But an SEC fan shouldn't have to pay for a Big Ten network, and vice versa.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

And to reinforce my point about people picking based on a channel, from another thread here:



> Only thing stopping me from switching is Direct doesn't have DIY in HD. Thats the channel my gf and I watch the most together. Other than DIY, Direct has more channels I want in HD (ESPNNews and ESPNU). If Direct gets DIY in HD, bye bye Dish!


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

fudpucker said:


> And to reinforce my point about people picking based on a channel, from another thread here:


Hahahahaha! Are you saying there is minimal demand for watching someone change out a water heater in HD? How could you imply such a thing? 

Heres hoping we see the games on Big 10 tomorrow . . . .


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

Thank goodness I can use my folks Directv login and I can watch the games thru BTN2go on the Iphone.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

Geordon said:


> I dropped cable for Dish HD the weekend before BTN started covering Michigan State football in HD. I pay for the local sports package, which only contains two channels - Fox Sports Detroit (woop-de-do) and BTN. Without BTN, I will drop my programming level. What sucks about losing BTN, is that, as posted above, games which used to be broadcast by the local stations are now on BTN (especially basketball). Now, I will get nothing.


Yeah BTN pissed me off when I could no longer watch Wisconsin Women's b-ball which USED to be on our local PBS. A seperate 14.95 fee per month to see those games was bull thru BTN digital. I already have BTN thru Dish and those scammers can't include those games online at no extra charge?

GURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

What time is the BTN going dark today?


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

ehren said:


> What time is the BTN going dark today?


Should have been Dark at Midnight so IDK ....Per BTN facebook they are going to have an ANNOUCEMENT at 10 am central ...I see BTN has taken down the anti-dish" iwantmbigten.com" website


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

Suppose Charlie the fox closed the PAC-12 deal and used it for leverage with the BTN?


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

monoparadox said:


> Suppose Charlie the fox closed the PAC-12 deal and used it for leverage with the BTN?


Certainly shows BTN dish can MAKE the deal ... I think with the crawler gone off BTNS station and the Negative remarks removed from BTNS page we may see a positive outcome


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Feed Just went DARK.... uhoh


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

rtd2 said:


> Feed Just went DARK.... uhoh


Yooop. Notice page is up.


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

rtd2 said:


> Certainly shows BTN dish can MAKE the deal ... I think with the crawler gone off BTNS station and the Negative remarks removed from BTNS page we may see a positive outcome


Or, Charlie took his BTN marbles and made an exclusivity deal with the PAC-12, leaving BTN high and dry.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

EPG Notice on channel 439 (438-01 Hopper/Joey) ...

We continue to work with Fox to try to reach a deal on the Big 10 Network.
Visit FootballOnDISH.com for game info.

From the Football On DISH site ...

*COLLEGE FOOTBALL ON DISH.*

DISH continues to work towards an agreement with Fox, the owners of Big Ten Network. We are hopeful we will reach a deal to restore this programming. Thank you for your patience as we work towards an agreement.

While The Big Ten Network is unavailable, use our Big Ten Schedule and GameFinder tool for information on where you can watch many of the Big Ten games on your local stations and other sports channels.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

monoparadox said:


> Or, Charlie took his BTN marbles and made an exclusivity deal with the PAC-12, leaving BTN high and dry.


Me thinks your correct..... nope ITS BACK ON!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't like the Big Ten Network Web site where they list "all the history of Dish dropping channels"...

The thing they are missing... and hoping nobody questions... is that Dish rarely drops channels.

Usually the channels are pulled by the channel provider when no contract is issued.

I honestly can only think of Voom as an example of Dish pulling the plug rather than the provider cutting the feed.

They list the Disney HD feeds we lost a couple of years ago... but the thing is... Dish didn't drop those feeds at all! Dish believed they had the right to carry them for free... and Disney said "no" and pulled the feeds from Dish after Dish refused to pay... and now we have that lawsuit.

AMC similarly pulled their feed when Dish didn't agree to the new proposal...

See the pattern?

Regardless of who you support... the simple facts are that IF there is no contract, Dish can't carry the feeds... so Dish isn't "dropping" these channels...

Dish would happily carry the channels for free OR under the old contract while the negotiations go... but at some point the channels decide to pull their feed and hold the viewers hostage as a negotiation tactic to pressure Dish... and rarely does that work with Dish.

So... when Big Ten went dark... it wasn't Dish dropping them... it was Big Ten dropping Dish.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Came back on 4 mins ago...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The alternates are back as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rtd2 said:


> Came back on 4 mins ago...


Yep ... and the EPG I quoted above is back to normal.

A last minute catch in the endzone for a game winning touchdown?


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The alternates are back as well.


dont really make a lot of since to take it down long enough for Dish's facebook page to be bombarded with post Only to bring it back up  glad to see it back but.... DAMAGE CONTROL NEXT TIME PEOPLE...


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yep ... and the EPG I quoted above is back to normal.
> 
> A last minute catch in the endzone for a game winning touchdown?


More like an Extra Point .....

according to Dish's Facebook " we have reached a short term agreement with BTN so that you are able to watch your college football! We hope to reach a long term agreement soon! -Cheri T. "

tHEY GONNA short Term the whole season ..lol


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Regardless of who you support... the simple facts are that IF there is no contract, Dish can't carry the feeds... so Dish isn't "dropping" these channels...


There is too much focus on who actually flips the switch on the channels. What you state is very important. Without PERMISSION to carry a channel, DISH cannot carry the channel. Permission comes with a contract for carriage.

The ESPN/Disney issue is a rare example of DISH carrying channels without permission and the channels going down only when ESPN physically disabled the receivers at DISH. That physical pull coming after a court battle (with ESPN not disabling the feeds until they were sure that they could without penalty). DISH carried the channels based on the belief that they had permission granted by other contracts.

Otherwise, no permission (no contract) = no carry. And all the "A dropped B" talk is simply "failed to come to an agreement".


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rtd2 said:


> dont really make a lot of since to take it down long enough for Dish's facebook page to be bombarded with post Only to bring it back up  glad to see it back but.... DAMAGE CONTROL NEXT TIME PEOPLE...


Well... we can only assume that no contract agreement was reached, and thus no contract, and Dish was legally obligated to stop carrying the channel OR it was pulled by Big Ten... either way, Dish would have no choice.

So... I'd say Big Ten is in damage control... The postings I see if I look at the Big Ten Facebook page is people noting that Dish just signed with the PAC-12, so it must be the Big Ten dropping the ball here... and I think Big Ten saw that writing literally on their wall... and figured it was in their best interests to extend again and try to work while keeping their games on the air.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Well... we can only assume that no contract agreement was reached, and thus no contract, and Dish was legally obligated to stop carrying the channel OR it was pulled by Big Ten... either way, Dish would have no choice.
> 
> So... I'd say Big Ten is in damage control... The postings I see if I look at the Big Ten Facebook page is people noting that Dish just signed with the PAC-12, so it must be the Big Ten dropping the ball here... and I think Big Ten saw that writing literally on their wall... and figured it was in their best interests to extend again and try to work while keeping their games on the air.


I agree Im 100% with Dish...They showed they can make the deal (Pac12) but timing really sucked on this BTN deal...The avg customer will simply fly off the handle and immediatly blame dish.....Who knows why these things work out like they do I just know BTN better quit playing short term deal- roulette with dish....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Maybe the fact that Dish announced a multi-year deal with PAC-12 will help keep things moving for Big Ten.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Just received this email from BTN---

I Want My BTN! Don't let DISH Network Drop the Big Ten Network

Big Ten Network (BTN) and DISH have come together to reach an agreement in principle for DISH to continue carrying BTN. We expect to finalize a long-term agreement soon and we thank fans for their patience.


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

rtd2 said:


> More like an Extra Point .....
> 
> according to Dish's Facebook " we have reached a short term agreement with BTN so that you are able to watch your college football! We hope to reach a long term agreement soon! -Cheri T. "
> 
> tHEY GONNA short Term the whole season ..lol


Well, we know how it feels being a pawn in a chess game.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Things didn't work out. Received 2:52 AM EDT today:


Attention Dish Network Customers:

Despite Big Ten Network's efforts to finalize an agreement, we are disappointed to tell you that DISH Network has decided to drop the Big Ten Network. As you know, BTN has been working around the clock for weeks to try and reach a deal with DISH. They are now unwilling to sign a contract.

DISH customers will miss the rest of the football season on BTN and over 400 Big Ten sporting events. Not only are you missing eight Big Ten games today, but several dozen more this season and over a hundred men's basketball games. It is unfortunate that DISH does not value BTN in the same way that so many of their customers do, including Big Ten students, parents, alumni and fans across the country. Furthermore, DISH customers will continue to pay DISH for a channel they no longer receive.

If DISH won't give you the games you want, others will. To find another BTN provider, go to IWantBTN.com or call 1-855-WANT-B10 (1-855-926-8210) for more information. Stay up to date on the latest developments on BTN's Facebook page and on Twitter (@IWantBTN).

Thank you for your support.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I honestly have to laugh at letters like these... They're always the most slanted, biased pieces of drivel ever put to paper...

Line by line they try to make it sound like only THEY were trying to finalize an agreement - and that DISH decided to drop the network (as opposed to BTN holding out for more money). They make the LUDICROUS claim about working "around the clock" - go ahead, show me the 24/7 schedule of what YOU did... "They" are now unwilling to sign a contract - yeah, the one YOU want to sign just as YOU don't want to sign the one that THEY want...

Then the list of all the stuff we'll miss out on. You know, here in the Northeast, the Big Ten doesn't mean much. Heck, north of NYC, college sports in their ENTIRETY mean very little unless Boston College makes a run (and sometimes UConn).

You know, they ARE right about ONE thing - DISH does NOT give me the games I want, since I can't get MLB Extra Innings - so I went and signed up for MLB.tv.

I'm sorry - I know there are fans out there for this.. And I'm sure they're not happy about not getting the channel they might want.. But that letter could have been a LOT more dignified and still exhorted their fans to contact Dish to find an agreement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

John W said:


> Just received this email from BTN---
> 
> I Want My BTN! Don't let DISH Network Drop the Big Ten Network
> 
> Big Ten Network (BTN) and DISH have come together to reach an agreement in principle for DISH to continue carrying BTN. We expect to finalize a long-term agreement soon and we thank fans for their patience.


So... umm... what happened to this?

Wasn't it BTN that just last week was sending out notices that the deal was practically done? And now 1 week later they are back to Dish=evil, BTN=good?

IF a deal was so close last week for BTN to send out that email, what could possibly have happened this week to go the completely opposite direction and have them now ranting that Dish has killed BTN for the rest of the season?


----------



## Beanie (Jan 8, 2008)

Welp, guess it's time to call directtv. I could stomach losing AMC, but this hurts!


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

Beanie said:


> Welp, guess it's time to call directtv. I could stomach losing AMC, but this hurts!


Me too. I'm not cancelling today but it's getting to the point that I'll eat an ETF and switch back to D*.


----------



## Riverpilot (Aug 13, 2010)

Ugh... I feel for you all, losing the channel. Be well....


----------



## Eksynyt (Feb 8, 2008)

Time for y'all to switch. Dish is going bankrupt when they lose ESPN next year.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

So, I am glad I made my move to DirecTV a couple weeks ago. I saw the writing on the wall. I suspect a number of customers will be joining me, especially the 400,000 who live outside the Big 10 region. And probably 25% of the other 2.1 million who live in the Big 10 region. 

Oh yeah, still no PAC 12 network on DirecTV, they are at a roadblock similar to what DISH has with BTN. DIrecTV does have it squabbles, but certainly not to what I have seen at DISH over the last 14 years.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Eksynyt said:


> Time for y'all to switch. Dish is going bankrupt when they lose ESPN next year.


Really? Prove that is going to happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nmetro said:


> So, I am glad I made my move to DirecTV a couple weeks ago. I saw the writing on the wall. I suspect a number of customers will be joining me, especially the 400,000 who live outside the Big 10 region. And probably 25% of the other 2.1 million who live in the Big 10 region.


It is a shame that it is the beginning of a quarter ... we will have to wait until February's release of quarterly reports to see if your claim of 900k lost customers comes true. 

Or we can accept the fact that "subscribers" to BTN via DISH include people who happen to have AT120+ or above and live in a BTN state and people who happen to have Multi-Sport for other reasons (perhaps the stand alone NFL Red Zone). 2.5 million people did not choose to subscribe to BTN.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Eksynyt said:


> Time for y'all to switch. Dish is going bankrupt when they lose ESPN next year.


That would be a big risk on ESPNs part ... to throw away 14 million households and expect them to change to other providers? Especially when they can easily find the undercurrent of satellite and cable subscribers who want ESPN to be a la carte so they can DROP their channel?

When ESPN's contract comes up for renewal there may be a battle. There may be some time where ESPN walks away from DISH and refuses to be carried. It has happened before. But they would be absolutely stupid to walk away and stay away. ESPN needs subscribers as much as the systems that carry their signals.

Perhaps BTN will come to the realization that they need DISH as well ... or perhaps they won't. They claim 80 million households and if DISH is only 2.5 million of them they could survive without DISH subscribers.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"James Long" said:


> That would be a big risk on ESPNs part ... to throw away 14 million households and expect them to change to other providers? Especially when they can easily find the undercurrent of satellite and cable subscribers who want ESPN to be a la carte so they can DROP their channel?


If, as has been widely reported, ESPN costs close to $10/subscriber once you include all the extras, Dish could offer a serious discount over other providers. And since stats show that half of all households never watch ESPN, that would provide a serious incentive for non-sports fans to switch to Dish. ESPN could lose a lot more than 14 million subscribers with such a move. Risky indeed.


----------



## MCHuf (Oct 9, 2011)

sregener said:


> If, as has been widely reported, ESPN costs close to $10/subscriber once you include all the extras, Dish could offer a serious discount over other providers. And since stats show that half of all households never watch ESPN, that would provide a serious incentive for non-sports fans to switch to Dish. ESPN could lose a lot more than 14 million subscribers with such a move. Risky indeed.


I think losing ESPN would be far riskier for Dish than it would be for Disney. Do you really think that a provider would discount it's product because it doesn't have a channel? Sure the rate would be lower, but I bet not by that much. And not by enough to replace the people who would drop Dish because of that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I would not expect an immediate discount if ESPN left DISH ... nor would I expect ESPN to return as an a la carte package. But as I noted - losing 14 million subscribers would not be good for ESPN. They would find a way to come to terms with DISH. The Weather channel thought they were a lock to stay on DISH but they found themselves restoring their channel to their previous format and refocusing on weather coverage once DISH forced the issue by letting them go.

There is no immediate replacement for ESPN's channels ... The Weather Channel could be replaced by another group of meteorologists with high tech software - ESPN has exclusive sports. But if ESPN pulls their feeds I expect Multi-Sport would be immediately provided as a replacement package with a discount for those already paying for Multi-Sport. I doubt the outage would last a month ... and I'm sure the people already looking for some reason to leave would leave but DISH would survive. They did it before and they can do it again.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. ESPN's contract is not up. BTN is the network that made a carriage offer that DISH could refuse. It may be back by next weekend. It all depends on the ratings. DISH isn't as big of a piece of BTN's subscriber base as DISH is of ESPN's viewership. And I assume the viewership of BTN via DISH is low enough that DISH can do without the channel.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> I would not expect an immediate discount if ESPN left DISH ... nor would I expect ESPN to return as an a la carte package.
> .


I think we all know if this were to happen there would be some instant discounts given to anyone who called in about it. So while not a national discount there would be compensation.

With that said DISH will be fine without BTN just like DIRECTV will be fine without PAC 12. In fact I'd bet they just trade people with the amount of "hard core" fans that will swap. Everything else will just be business as usual. Neither of these will be a huge driving force but it may just add something to the argument of why someone would leave.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

I suspect this is a case where Dish shot itself in the foot. In the middle of negotiations with BTN they gave in to Pac 12 for multiple channels. Why wouldn't BTN dig in their heels after that? I'm in BTN territory but don't watch it that much. My alma mater is in the Big East but moving to ACC next year. And I love SEC football which is free on CBS. Found more games than I had time to watch before BTN and I'll be fine without it if they never reach agreement. Would be really unhappy if I had to pay extra because Dish caved on a fee increase for BTN.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

Well, now I don't have AMC (which I don't watch a whole lot), my local CBS station in Columbus (which I can get OTA but it makes recording shows a pain) and now BTN (which I do watch during football season).

I tend to be on the side of Dish in all of this. But it's getting to the point where I simply need a provider that carries the channels that I want. I might give a couple of more weeks but at that point I may have to consider DirecTV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BillJ said:


> I suspect this is a case where Dish shot itself in the foot. In the middle of negotiations with BTN they gave in to Pac 12 for multiple channels. Why wouldn't BTN dig in their heels after that? I'm in BTN territory but don't watch it that much. My alma mater is in the Big East but moving to ACC next year. And I love SEC football which is free on CBS. Found more games than I had time to watch before BTN and I'll be fine without it if they never reach agreement. Would be really unhappy if I had to pay extra because Dish caved on a fee increase for BTN.


Dish didn't give in to PAC-12 for multiple channels. In face Dish didn't give PAC-12 as good of a deal as Big Ten in terns of number of channels...

Big Ten has: Full time SD main channel, Full time HD main channel, 4 part time alt SD channels, 4 HD part time alt channels.

PAC-12 has: Full time SD main channel, Part time HD main channel, 4 part time alt SD channels, 4 HD part time alt channels.

So... PAC-12 didn't get a full-time HD feed at all! Big Ten did... otherwise, no difference.


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

Frankly, I don't care who is at fault. I want to watch my team. That's why I have a television in the first place.

Bye Dish.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Their side of the story reads as follows:

Big Ten Network has made the decision to remove its signal from DISH customers. We asked Big Ten Network to leave their programming up while we continued to negotiate. However, they refused.

Big Ten Network was demanding that DISH pay programming fees at least a third higher than any other major distributor. Such an increase would equate to more than DISH pays per subscriber for NFL Network, MLB Network, NBA Network, NHL Network and Golf Channel combined, and would result in unreasonable monthly fees for DISH customers.

We continue to work diligently to reach an agreement with Big Ten Network to restore your programming. We take our promise to bring our customers the best programming at a price they can afford very seriously.

For up to date information where DISH customers can view college football games this weekend, customers can visit www.footballondish.com.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> PAC-12 has: Full time SD main channel, Part time HD main channel, 4 part time alt SD channels, 4 HD part time alt channels.


If I understand correctly PAC-12 has one full time HD main channel and six regional variations that simulcast the main or play alternate games of interest to that region. I understand the plan is to program the six regionals differently throughout the day - so each school's other sports also get carried on their regional version of PAC-12. DirecTV publicly balked at the idea of giving PAC-12 seven channels ... so I believe seven produced channels is what PAC-12 "has" despite what DISH carries.

The compromise with DISH is that DISH will only carry PAC-12's main channel, not the regionals, and carry it like the rest of the RSNs - SD only except for games. Plus four channels for alternate games (four HD, four SD). Other RSNs use the generic ALT channels when needed for additional games (for example, when FS Midwest airs a Pacers game on FS Indiana the feed ends up on an ALT).

BTN does not have more than one channel. They have a single feed with ALT feeds similar to other RSNs. They had a good deal being DISH's only 24/7 RSN and being presented in a way that put them above the other RSNs. Perhaps it went to their head when setting the renewal price.


----------



## diggerg56 (Sep 26, 2007)

Seems like we're not getting the full story from either side here. I have a former classmate that works for BTN and he tells me they initially were asking for a 5 cent per sub increase. During negotiations BTN agreed to 2.5 cents per sub, per month and DISH balked at that.
That's a whopping 30 cents per sub per year. Instead of paying that DISH is giving out bill credits like crazy to anyone that complains that will far outweigh the price of the increase if this dispute isn't resolved soon. Seems crazy if those numbers are right. (Yes I am a Directv subscriber but I follow both Directv and Dish closely)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

diggerg56 said:


> Seems like we're not getting the full story from either side here. I have a former classmate that works for BTN and he tells me they initially were asking for a 5 cent per sub increase. During negotiations BTN agreed to 2.5 cents per sub, per month and DISH balked at that.
> That's a whopping 30 cents per sub per year. Instead of paying that DISH is giving out bill credits like crazy to anyone that complains that will far outweigh the price of the increase if this dispute isn't resolved soon. Seems crazy if those numbers are right. (Yes I am a Directv subscriber but I follow both Directv and Dish closely)


There is no way this was all just about 5 cents. It wouldn't even be in the Big Ten's interest to bother negotiating for just a 5-cent increase... as it probably costs them more to spend time negotiating than that would benefit them in revenue.

I agree we aren't getting the full story, though.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> If I understand correctly PAC-12 has one full time HD main channel and six regional variations that simulcast the main or play alternate games of interest to that region. I understand the plan is to program the six regionals differently throughout the day - so each school's other sports also get carried on their regional version of PAC-12. DirecTV publicly balked at the idea of giving PAC-12 seven channels ... so I believe seven produced channels is what PAC-12 "has" despite what DISH carries.
> 
> The compromise with DISH is that DISH will only carry PAC-12's main channel, not the regionals, and carry it like the rest of the RSNs - SD only except for games. Plus four channels for alternate games (four HD, four SD). Other RSNs use the generic ALT channels when needed for additional games (for example, when FS Midwest airs a Pacers game on FS Indiana the feed ends up on an ALT).
> 
> BTN does not have more than one channel. They have a single feed with ALT feeds similar to other RSNs. They had a good deal being DISH's only 24/7 RSN and being presented in a way that put them above the other RSNs. Perhaps it went to their head when setting the renewal price.


Yeah... I know that in reality PAC-12 had a bunch of full-time HD channels for their different regions... far more than Big Ten has full time.

I was just comparing what Dish agreed to carry vs what they had been carrying for Big Ten. Dish certainly didn't agree to carry all 7 full-time HD PAC-12 channels. Heck, they didn't even agree to carry the main channel as a full-time HD channel... so in that regard, they were technically carrying more of the Big Ten in HD than they are the PAC-12.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

sregener said:


> If, as has been widely reported, ESPN costs close to $10/subscriber once you include all the extras, Dish could offer a serious discount over other providers. And since stats show that half of all households never watch ESPN, that would provide a serious incentive for non-sports fans to switch to Dish. ESPN could lose a lot more than 14 million subscribers with such a move. Risky indeed.


Normally prices don't go down, instead there is no increase or less of an increase at some point. But should ESPN and Dish not come to an agreement when the time comes, I think Dish has no alternative but to cut subscription costs and clearly be less than anyone else. To lose ESPN would be huge and in the case of ESPN I have to think it would hurt Dish more.

While there is a cum-able affect of losing channels, just losing the Big Ten is not going to hurt Dish. Many people who have posted they are leaving over the years are still subscribing. Add AMC and if ever ESPN however then Dish will have to do some fancy dancing.

Still wondering where the negotiations broke down.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"tampa8" said:


> Normally prices don't go down, instead there is no increase or less of an increase at some point. But should ESPN and Dish not come to an agreement when the time comes, I think Dish has no alternative but to cut subscription costs and clearly be less than anyone else. To lose ESPN would be huge and in the case of ESPN I have to think it would hurt Dish more.


Everyone wants to make it out like the Big10 can afford to lose 2.5 million Dish subscribers. But profit margins for entertainment companies are pretty low. BTN will either need to reduce costs (content) or raise rates elsewhere to make up the difference, or face being a loss leader for their schools. Simply put, I think in the long run losing Dish will do great harm to BTN.

And while normally prices don't go down for lost programming (see AMC), this is frequently because the lost channels make up such a small percentage of package costs. Rumor was that AMC cost 35 cents a subscriber. Cutting package prices that little doesn't make sense. But ESPN gets a huge share of programming costs, such that a package discount not only makes sense, but it would be demanded. Dish is already popular for being low-cost, and if they could further undercut other programmers by dropping ESPN, I think they'd see more customers join than left. I would leave because ESPN is a significant part of why I pay for my TV, but I know many people with cable who hate paying for ESPN and only stick with it because they really don't have a choice.

The real problem is that it wouldn't just be the ESPN multiplex. It'd be Disney and ABC and ABC Family, which would be too much. That's why any talk of Dish dropping ESPN is meaningless.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

This is not an ESPN thread, but two quick points.

Many believe Dish subsidizes much of the programming and equipment costs, especially for newer customers. Loss of some programming would not result in reduced subscription rates, but would rather stave off future increases as any revenue saved would help with those subsidized costs.

I agree that while many would not miss ESPN and might even prefer not to have it, few will want to lose the attached Disney/ABC channels.

Now back to BTN?

Don't even know what it is, so couldn't care less.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Now back to BTN?
> 
> Don't even know what it is, so couldn't care less.


Then why even comment? This helps how?


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Well damn.

On ESPN - that's a very high profile set of channels. I believe that not having them in their programming would result in a lot of people leaving, but also keep a lot of people moving to satellite from picking Dish. 

Hopefully it will not come down to that. I can't watch AMC shows on Dish, now I can't watch BTN here in the middle of Big Ten country. I shudder at what's next. I'll be watching for how much my bill goes down, lol.


----------



## Renob2317 (May 14, 2008)

So are they not negotiating any longer and for now they have permantenly dropped BTN? I will switch providers if this is the case, but if they are still in talks I will wait a little while longer before switching.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Renob2317 said:


> So are they not negotiating any longer and for now they have permantenly dropped BTN? I will switch providers if this is the case, but if they are still in talks I will wait a little while longer before switching.


This is hard to read... As far as dropping the feed, that's ALL on Big Ten. Right or wrong, Dish didn't drop the feed... Big Ten said "we have no contract, stop broadcasting"... and Dish had to comply.

That said... I know I'm normally on Dish's side for many of these... and Big Ten isn't helping their cause.

Big Ten apparently jumped the gun last week in emailing people that there was a deal in principle in place... Remember when we had the Sinclair dispute recently? Sinclair announced a deal in principle with Dish... and then we never heard anything else, and Sinclair took down all their nasty stuff... so we had to assume the long term deal was reached.

So what happened with Big Ten? Big Ten said "we're good" and then a week later they are gone and saying they are likely done for the season. That's a HUGE turnaround.

Also... why would Big Ten agree for two weeks to continue allowing Dish to show the games while negotiating, then pull the feed on week 3? IF you're going to pull feed until you get a contract, do that when the contract ends. Once you start extending, you are doing that for your fans... so if you pull the feed after that, then in my opinion, you just told the fans you don't care about them.


----------



## KSbugeater (Feb 17, 2005)

Leverage explains the timing. This week the BTN carries 7 football games. That's a huge day revenue-wise for the BTN. The other sports, while nice, likely don't pay the bills like football does. If BTN waited until after football season to pull the plug, the result would most likely be yawns except from rabid basketball fans (outnumbered by football fans). This Saturday there will be a LOT of people in 6 states pounding down Dish's door.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I agree. But I think the BTN miscalculated if they thought Dish would succumb. If they come back this season it almost has to be because in the end Dish will have payed what they wanted or even less. (Because of less games now to broadcast)


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

KSbugeater said:


> This Saturday there will be a LOT of people in 6 states pounding down Dish's door.


And this Sunday, there will be a lot advertisers pounding down BTN's door and demanding a partial refund for the advertising they paid for because the ratings will be lower. Yes, networks guarantee a certain rating level, and it is doubtful that BTN can achieve those levels without Dish customers in the fold.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dish doesn't need BTN nearly as much as BTN needs Dish. Profit margins are thin. Advertising revenue is viewer-based, and denying a significant number of viewers a single game will hurt BTN in the pocketbook. And then the per-subscriber fees they were getting disappear, too. The only thing they can do is cut costs (original programming) or cave.

In the meantime, how many customers will leave Dish over what is probably a temporary loss of a channel? Probably less than 1/10 that were viewing the channel, which is probably less than 1/10 of those who were paying for the channel. I know I've paid for the BTN, and I've probably watched between 1-2 hours of programming on it, total. And I'm a former Big10 season ticket holder, so I'm not completely disinterested, as many of you are. Will I leave Dish over this? Not a chance. Will BTN lose my monthly customer fee? Absolutely.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Renob2317 said:


> So are they not negotiating any longer and for now they have permantenly dropped BTN? I will switch providers if this is the case, but if they are still in talks I will wait a little while longer before switching.


Per DISH's site: http://www.footballondish.com/
Unfortunately, Big Ten Network has removed its signal from DISH customers. We asked Big Ten Network to leave their programming up while we continued to negotiate. Unfortunately, they refused. DISH continues to work diligently around the clock with Big Ten Network to reach an agreement.

While Big Ten Network is unavailable, use our Big Ten Schedule and GameFinder tool for information on where you can watch many of the Big Ten games on your local stations and other sports channels.​DISH still wants it ... they just need a good deal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

KSbugeater said:


> Leverage explains the timing. This week the BTN carries 7 football games. That's a huge day revenue-wise for the BTN. The other sports, while nice, likely don't pay the bills like football does. If BTN waited until after football season to pull the plug, the result would most likely be yawns except from rabid basketball fans (outnumbered by football fans). This Saturday there will be a LOT of people in 6 states pounding down Dish's door.


Yeah, but it is weak leverage.

Unlike a traditional channel... Big Ten only has value on the day of the games... IF you pull your channel that day, then the pressure is off after that day gets here... so there's no real advantage to pulling your signal in-season.

IF they pulled it prior to week 1, that could have added some pressure... but after the season starts, Big Ten would have been better off negotiating through the season and then trying again next year frankly.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

These threads always amuse me. Like any game is 'important' at all.

If the two teams in any game got together before it started and decided to switch uniforms, would anybody notice? Or would the crowds still root for a certain color jersey?


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> These threads always amuse me. Like any game is 'important' at all.
> 
> If the two teams in any game got together before it started and decided to switch uniforms, would anybody notice? Or would the crowds still root for a certain color jersey?


And posts like this in these threads always amuse ME.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Significant games will be carried by ABC, ESPN, FOX or FSN, weak sisters or poor matchups on BTN.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> These threads always amuse me. Like any game is 'important' at all.
> 
> If the two teams in any game got together before it started and decided to switch uniforms, would anybody notice? Or would the crowds still root for a certain color jersey?


What is your point here?

I could say the thing about most TV. Most original plots have been played out by now... so most TV shows and movies are just the same stories with different actors and costumes.

So arguably, by that logic you've presented... there's no point in any TV, thus no point in Dish or DirecTV or cable, and then no point for DBSTalk since we'd have nothing to talk about.


----------



## pmjones (Aug 3, 2012)

SayWhat? said:


> These threads always amuse me. Like any game is 'important' at all.
> 
> If the two teams in any game got together before it started and decided to switch uniforms, would anybody notice? Or would the crowds still root for a certain color jersey?


Why comment when you clearly don't care?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_Insults are not necessary or allowed here._


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> _Insults are not necessary or allowed here._


Isn't post #118 an insult to every sport fan?


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

Pound sand BTN. I may have watched a couple of Badger games through an entire season (because they were not broadcast on local channels for some idiotic reason) but I am not going to drop Dish because of a couple of games. I will get my college football fix watching games televised from the other conferences on those days. 

Maybe if BTN goes bankrupt we will be able to see the local games on another network that we are already paying for. That would be my hope.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"jdskycaster" said:


> Maybe if BTN goes bankrupt we will be able to see the local games on another network that we are already paying for. That would be my hope.


The argument for why we needed BTN in the first place was so that they could televise more of the "less popular" sports. I don't see the softball and volleyball fans rising up to protest the loss of BTN. What we really got was double-charged for the popular sports of basketball and football. If ESPN+ came back, I'd be pretty happy. Yeah, there were a handful of games not televised, but it didn't ruin my life to have to do yard work instead of watching another game (and unpopular games are almost always blowouts anyway). But the days of ESPN+ are probably over.

I have nothing against BTN. I just wish these fringe channels charged fringe prices.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_If anyone has a specific problem with a specific post, report it and the moderators will take a look.

If you have a question about how the thread is moderated, contact another moderator. Questioning moderation is not acceptable in threads.

Thank you for getting back to topic and allowing the thread to stay open!_


----------



## acs236 (May 8, 2006)

That's funny. Last year BTN distributed nearly $8 million to EACH of the Big 10 schools. Sounds like its profit margin is fine.

Frankly, I don't care who's at fault here. Both Dish and BTN are screwing their customers.



sregener said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dish doesn't need BTN nearly as much as BTN needs Dish. Profit margins are thin. Advertising revenue is viewer-based, and denying a significant number of viewers a single game will hurt BTN in the pocketbook. And then the per-subscriber fees they were getting disappear, too. The only thing they can do is cut costs (original programming) or cave.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"acs236" said:


> That's funny. Last year BTN distributed nearly $8 million to EACH of the Big 10 schools. Sounds like its profit margin is fine.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care who's at fault here. Both Dish and BTN are screwing their customers.


If the BTN really is making that much dough, they have no reason to seek a price increase. And Dish would be right to refuse any increase.

Dish isn't screwing me. I don't watch BTN, even though I live in a Big Ten market. I can live without it much easier than I could part with extra money every month.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

sregener said:


> The argument for why we needed BTN in the first place was so that they could televise more of the "less popular" sports. I don't see the softball and volleyball fans rising up to protest the loss of BTN. What we really got was double-charged for the popular sports of basketball and football. If ESPN+ came back, I'd be pretty happy. Yeah, there were a handful of games not televised, but it didn't ruin my life to have to do yard work instead of watching another game (and unpopular games are almost always blowouts anyway). But the days of ESPN+ are probably over.
> 
> I have nothing against BTN. I just wish these fringe channels charged fringe prices.


Exactly. It's my fear that if DISH and DirecTV (and the cable providers) start buckling to the demands of BTN and Pac12 Network, EVERY conference is going to want a network, and FREE broadcasts of college sports is going to be a thing of the past.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

syphix said:


> Exactly. It's my fear that if DISH and DirecTV (and the cable providers) start buckling to the demands of BTN and Pac12 Network, EVERY conference is going to want a network, and FREE broadcasts of college sports is going to be a thing of the past.


Despite that fear, there is more "free" (OTA) college sports on than there ever was. All the big conferences have OTA deals as well as cable/satellite deals. There is actually more Big Ten sports on OTA than there was before BTN as part of the ABC/ESPN contract.

Remember, "free" is CBS (a couple of SEC games a week), ABC, NBC (only Notre Dame basically), Fox (a few games) and syndication of SEC, ACC, etc.

ESPN is not free. RSNs are not free. NBC Sports Channel (Versus) is not free. F/X is not free. CBS Sports Network (previously College Sports) is not free. None of the BCS bowl games are free.

None of these college networks expect or plan to be the only providers of their conferences. ABC et al are still and continue to be important to them.


----------



## Klatu (Jun 22, 2011)

I have the B10 in the 200 package and watch sometimes in football and mostly in basketball. When in AZ I have to pay for the regional package ($9/mo) to see the basketball games as I am in another region then. Looks like I'll save some money this next year.

The B10 should not have turned off it's customers. Too bad.

I told the Big Ten Network that I was suspending all donations to one of the B10 schools until they turned us back on; told the school that also. Not much money, but their greed is starting to get to me. So screw 'um.

Dish should renegotiate with ESPN and get some of the sd channels turned on to HD and let the B10 swing. 

Back to rooting for Notre Dame, I guess. 

Have a good weekend everyone.


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

My "free" CBS station wants a big increase from Dish. So I no longer have it via satellite. Still get it OTA but it makes the dvr timers a pain.

I'm tired of these stations (BTN included) wanting more and more cash. How much is enough?


----------



## acs236 (May 8, 2006)

I'm not making the numbers up: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/coll...cle_e05a998c-a390-11e1-99b2-001a4bcf6878.html

If you don't care about BTN, then fine -- but why are you commenting in this thread?

And I'm not sure why everyone is assuming BTN is to blame here. We don't know the details of the negotiations. We hear unconfirmed bits in pieces. Maybe it's BTN's fault, maybe it's Dish's fault -- likely, it's both.

Directv seems to get in spats with channels all the time, but they rarely seem to lose them. I recall the viacom dispute a few months ago. Dish, on the other hand, still doesn't have AMC.



sregener said:


> If the BTN really is making that much dough, they have no reason to seek a price increase. And Dish would be right to refuse any increase.
> 
> Dish isn't screwing me. I don't watch BTN, even though I live in a Big Ten market. I can live without it much easier than I could part with extra money every month.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

acs236 said:


> If you don't care about BTN, then fine -- but why are you commenting in this thread?
> 
> And I'm not sure why everyone is assuming BTN is to blame here. We don't know the details of the negotiations. We hear unconfirmed bits in pieces. Maybe it's BTN's fault, maybe it's Dish's fault -- likely, it's both.
> 
> Directv seems to get in spats with channels all the time, but they rarely seem to lose them. I recall the viacom dispute a few months ago. Dish, on the other hand, still doesn't have AMC.


I care about BTN a teeny, tiny little bit. I can imagine a snowy Saturday when I'd like to watch a Gophers game and missing it because of this. Or a basketball game, if they're playing well. But otherwise, forget about it.

I think the reason everyone assumes BTN is to blame is because they are publicly insisting that they are not to blame. And because their complaints do not say, "We offered to continue providing our programming to the same packages at the same rates and Dish said no." In other words, BTN has demanded an increase, and there's no reason to think Dish would turn down a reasonable (under 5 cents/sub) request. If the numbers were that low, BTN would be announcing it loudly.

DirecTV does seem to settle these things quite quickly. The Viacom thing was quite surprising when it happened. But if you look, DirecTV is also more expensive for identical programming than Dish, and that is in part because DirecTV errs on the side of programming over price. Dish holds the line hard on price and is willing to kiss unreasonable programmers goodbye. In essence, Dish is doing the heavy lifting of keeping prices down.


----------



## acs236 (May 8, 2006)

Agreed -- the .05/sub thing really doesn't make sense. Hell, I'd pay an extra $1 a month to subsidize my share of Dish customers who value their nickles.

Again, though, there is so much information we don't have.

I assume BTN was asking for more money. In fact, that has to be the case. The question is, how much? And was it reasonable? Is Dish's claim that BTN wanted 1/3 more than its deal with other providers true? It seems hard to believe -- why would BTN want more from Dish? I doubt Dish is using a true apples to apples comparison when making that claim. It's not in BTN's interest to just screw with Dish.

If BTN's product outgrew the previous price Dish was paying, then I would expect BTN (or any company in its situation) not to agree to extend the current deal indefinitely. If it did that, Dish would have no incentive to reach a new deal and would, in essence, get the benefit of the old, outdated price indefinitely. So I don't know who's really to blame regarding the blackout.

To me, it all comes down to reasonableness. Was the rate increase that BTN demanded reasonable? As to this, I have no idea.



sregener said:


> I care about BTN a teeny, tiny little bit. I can imagine a snowy Saturday when I'd like to watch a Gophers game and missing it because of this. Or a basketball game, if they're playing well. But otherwise, forget about it.
> 
> I think the reason everyone assumes BTN is to blame is because they are publicly insisting that they are not to blame. And because their complaints do not say, "We offered to continue providing our programming to the same packages at the same rates and Dish said no." In other words, BTN has demanded an increase, and there's no reason to think Dish would turn down a reasonable (under 5 cents/sub) request. If the numbers were that low, BTN would be announcing it loudly.
> 
> DirecTV does seem to settle these things quite quickly. The Viacom thing was quite surprising when it happened. But if you look, DirecTV is also more expensive for identical programming than Dish, and that is in part because DirecTV errs on the side of programming over price. Dish holds the line hard on price and is willing to kiss unreasonable programmers goodbye. In essence, Dish is doing the heavy lifting of keeping prices down.


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

First they came for AMC,
and I didn't speak out because I don't watch AMC.

Then they came for BTN,
and I didn't speak out because I don't watch BTN.

Then they came for a channel I _do_ watch,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

I find it interesting that the negotiations have been framed as with "Fox" regarding the BTN. Bad blood might be boiling and the BigTen may be caught somewhat in the middle.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

acs236 said:


> If you don't care about BTN, then fine -- but why are you commenting in this thread?


The thread is open to both points of view.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This is not a DirecTV vs Dish thread... but having said that, this is a BAD thread to be bringing up DirecTV.

Dish lost BTN, but signed with PAC-12.
DirecTV still has BTN, but thus far has failed to sign PAC-12.

So on an apples to apples comparison... I'd say on this one particular situation (college leagues launching their own networks) Dish and DirecTV have the same record.

Further.. Dish was the first to sign with BTN 5 years ago... similarly Dish was the first to sign with PAC-12... so if you give a nod to a small margin, Dish technically has the upper hand on this particular scenario.

Most of the time you'd be right... that DirecTV seems to have less disputes... but they seem to be getting smarter and joining the fray in fighting the channels... so I expect to see DirecTV more like Dish in the coming months and years.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

BTN only uses the alt channels for football. They charge $15 to watch other big 10 sports online per month!!! This is why I like how the PAC12 network has done it so far. 3 soccer and 3 volleyball games the past 2 nights. 1 on the main feed and 2 on the alternates. BTN you'd get 1 game and the other 2 would only be online. I hope Dish has this issue in the contract dispute.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Most of the time you'd be right... that DirecTV seems to have less disputes... but they seem to be getting smarter and joining the fray in fighting the channels... so I expect to see DirecTV more like Dish in the coming months and years.


That's one way to look at it. I'd say DirecTV has been smarter about it all along...hence the lack of lasting disputes and legal battles by comparison.


----------



## adunkle (Aug 19, 2006)

I just saw on BTN.com that they have reached an agreement. I will have to check when I get home


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Big Ten Network (BTN) and DISH have reached an agreement that returns BTN to the DISH channel lineup. We're pleased that both sides could eventually come together, and we thank fans for their patience."

No Uplink Activity yet to restore the channels ... but that is good news.


----------



## monoparadox (Feb 19, 2006)

Thanks DISH and BTN. That saved me from a tough decision I was going to make next week if it was still in hiatus.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

BTN is on now


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

And all that angst!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*Big Ten Network Returns to DISH*
*DISH Customers Can Watch BTN Football Games Starting Today*

ENGLEWOOD, CO -- (Marketwire) -- 09/22/12 -- DISH Network L.L.C. (NASDAQ: DISH) announced today that it has reached a new, multi-year agreement with FOX, part owner of Big Ten Network, for the rights to resume broadcast of Big Ten Network and its coverage of college football games and other sports content.

The agreement makes the BTN broadcasts available on DISH in time for today's games. DISH customers have not received the channel since Sept. 14 when a contract between the two companies expired.

"With BTN in our portfolio, and with the recent addition of Pac-12 Networks, we now offer more college sports than any other pay-TV provider in America," said Dave Shull, DISH's senior vice president of programming. "We think our customers will be delighted that they can watch all Big Ten games this weekend and for years to come; and we are proud to offer our channel lineup at the lowest everyday prices in the industry."

BTN is available on channel 439 in DISH's America's Top 120+ package in most areas of states with Big Ten Conference schools. The channel is also available nationwide in DISH's Multi-Sport Pack for $9 per month with a qualifying core package.

Terms of the agreements between DISH and BTN were not disclosed.

Press Release


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

So, to summarize:

Week 1: You will lose BTN if Dish doesn't straighten up and fly right! but for the moment we are still negotiating.

Week 2: Dish is evil, say goodbye to Dish... oh wait, nevermind, Dish is still cool and we have an agreement in principle for long-term.. Yay Dish!

Week 3: Dish sucks... BTN will never ever be on Dish again... they are NOT cool, and you should switch to DirecTV today or else you will never ever see college football that matters again!

Week 4: Dish is the best! Tell all your friends how cool Dish is, Big Ten forever! Dish + BTN = BFF!

And they (both Dish and BTN) couldn't have just done all this without the angst and the prodding of customers to "act" on their behalf?

Glad to see BTN back... but could have done without all the hyperbole and stress they wanted to induce over this negotiation.

Frankly, I kind of like the AMC situation much better. The channels went dark, and we know they won't come back until a longterm deal is reached. No jerking around of the customers.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So, to summarize: ........
> 
> Week 4: Dish is the best! Tell all your friends how cool Dish is, Big Ten forever! Dish + BTN = BFF!


_Lmao_



> Frankly, I kind of like the AMC situation much better. The channels went dark, and we know they won't come back until a longterm deal is reached. No jerking around of the customers.


_Agree_.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> That's one way to look at it. I'd say DirecTV has been smarter about it all along...hence the lack of lasting disputes and legal battles by comparison.


If by smarter you mean charging higher prices to keep/get programming then yes. And they do have more subscribers so they are doing something right. But while these disputes do get old, I am paying considerably less then my friends with Direct with maybe even more programming, and indeed with nothing looking good for the economy one is ready to switch, another has talked about it. One may give up Mets games to pay less with DISH and get a couple of channels in HD. The challenge for Dish imho is to keep a clear difference in cost. That said, they have added most of the new sports channels from CBS and NBC, along with BeIn, etc... and have both the BTN and PAC12 now, Direct TV does not have both.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

sregener said:


> Snipped
> 
> DirecTV does seem to settle these things quite quickly. The Viacom thing was quite surprising when it happened. But if you look, DirecTV is also more expensive for identical programming than Dish, and that is in part because DirecTV errs on the side of programming over price. Dish holds the line hard on price and is willing to kiss unreasonable programmers goodbye. In essence, Dish is doing the heavy lifting of keeping prices down.


The Viacom thing was more or less surprising mainly due to the coming out of nowhere. However the Versus span of time before being back on the air does seem to be a forerunner of the way these things will be going in the future. Add that to the PAC12 and it looks like DirecTV is starting to take a hardline too.


----------



## pfred (Feb 8, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> There is no way this was all just about 5 cents. It wouldn't even be in the Big Ten's interest to bother negotiating for just a 5-cent increase... as it probably costs them more to spend time negotiating than that would benefit them in revenue.
> 
> I agree we aren't getting the full story, though.


Don't jump to conclusions. Do you know if BTN is worth an extra 5 cents? As far as I am concerned, BTN is worth as much as the home shopping channel to me, and that is bupkus ($0).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pfred said:


> Don't jump to conclusions. Do you know if BTN is worth an extra 5 cents? As far as I am concerned, BTN is worth as much as the home shopping channel to me, and that is bupkus ($0).


You completely misread what I had posted. I didn't say whether BTN was worth another 5 cents... I said it wouldn't make sense for BTN to pull their feeds over a matter of 5 cents. They would lose more money over pulling the signal than they would make back if they get a 5-cent increase.

Moot points anyway since Dish and BTN came to a long term agreement.


----------

