BTN strikes deal w/Time Warner & Cablevision

[kibblesnbits]

Sadly, it doesn't matter if they watch or not. As long as the BTN gets their monthly fees the cash still flows in.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big...ackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

Unless he has data and sources he didn't cite, he made some huge assumptions. The article mentions opening up millions of homes to the BTN. There are more than 3M possible in NJ alone so that doesn't indicate they've captured NY. He also assumed full in league carriage rates for all subscribers. There's no evidence that the NY media companies that have fought so hard in previous sports network battles will just roll over for Rutgers and the Big 10.

 

[Drimple]

Unless he has data and sources he didn't cite, he made some huge assumptions. The article mentions opening up millions of homes to the BTN. There are more than 3M possible in NJ alone so that doesn't indicate they've captured NY. He also assumed full in league carriage rates for all subscribers. There's no evidence that the NY media companies that have fought so hard in previous sports network battles will just roll over for Rutgers and the Big 10.

Totally agreed and would love to know the details.

At the same time, Delaney is no fool and you gotta assume the Big 10 got something at least in the neighborhood of their price. I would assume the discussions have been going on for a very long time. The fact that they were kept out of the media for the most part speaks volumes to how good the Big 10 is at all of this. No knock down drag-outs in the media like YES vs. Cablevision here. Just a solid deal that apparently satisfied both parties.

What's really apparent is the value that all those potential eyeballs bring to the carriers. Still wish it were Uconn. I guess the fact that Jersey has double CT's population was a huge factor. Argh.

 

[frankthetank]

My question would be if the state can somehow fight this since, as you said, the rates would likely be significantly higher since the demographic is a wealthy one. If there was enough of an uproar by Connecticut residents who don't want the BTN (until UCONN is invited), can the state do anything to block it? Or at the very least, make cable companies tier the channel lineups so that CT residents who don't want the BTN (minus UCONN) don't have to pay extra for it?

No. As long as the basic cable model is in place, your choices are to either drop cable completely or switch to another carrier (which likely wouldn't matter because DirecTV and DISH carry BTN already). That's the entire essence of the basic cable model - you don't get a bill saying you paid $5 this month for ESPN and $1.50 for BTN, but rather one single basic price that the cable provider provides (which may or may not rise whenever channels are added). If there's a la carte pricing in the future, that might be a different story, but until that occurs, you'll be paying for the BTN whether you watch it or not if your cable provider has it in its basic package.

 

[OkaForPrez]

No. As long as the basic cable model is in place, your choices are to either drop cable completely or switch to another carrier (which likely wouldn't matter because DirecTV and DISH carry BTN already). That's the entire essence of the basic cable model - you don't get a bill saying you paid $5 this month for ESPN and $1.50 for BTN, but rather one single basic price that the cable provider provides (which may or may not rise whenever channels are added). If there's a la carte pricing in the future, that might be a different story, but until that occurs, you'll be paying for the BTN whether you watch it or not if your cable provider has it in its basic package.

I'll cut my cable tomorrow and write a letter telling them why.

 

[JayRU09]

You'll cut cable because your bill will most likely be staying the same?

God bless you.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

So, has there been confirmation that this is just in Jersey, in NYC or even extending into CT?

I really don't understand how this all works - if it's just Jersey for now then we're ok but if this is the full NYC dma... ugh.

 

[OkaForPrez]

You'll cut cable because your bill will most likely be staying the same?

God bless you.

To have my vote counted.

 

[dayooper]

So, has there been confirmation that this is just in Jersey, in NYC or even extending into CT?

I really don't understand how this all works - if it's just Jersey for now then we're ok but if this is the full NYC dma... ugh.

I'm not sure, but if Fox bundles The BTN with YES, then my guess would be for the entire NYC DMA. (Fox bought a controlling interest in YES and has 51% ownership of The BTN)

 

[FDNY99]

Why does Westchester = Fairfield cty?

I don't see that. Fairfield Cty is already paying $2.50+ to SNY to watch UConn games.You're going to tack on $1 to their bill to watch Rutgers?

I don't see the logic there.

Also, I don't see this as a bad thing as everyone else does. The Conn. market itself is lucrative with 1 million TV households in the Hartford/New Haven mkt., not even counting Fairfield. $1 a month for BTN (or more, really, because SNY would have to take a big decrease) x 1.3m households x 12 months is $15.6m a year / .50 for Fox's take = $7.8m a year to the B1G for UConn's secondary rights alone.

What ever programming/Chanel lineup you get on Cablevision in Westchester is the same programming/Channel line-up you get in Fairfield County. The only difference is the News 12 coverage and news team. SNY has been included on the Cablevision channel line-up in Fairfield County since it's inception.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I'm not sure, but if Fox bundles The BTN with YES, then my guess would be for the entire NYC DMA. (Fox bought a controlling interest in YES and has 51% ownership of The BTN)

I suspect that Yes has long term contracts. Besides, if Fox tried that it might backfire. Imagine the cable companies telling Yankees fans, who even with their lower current ratings are among the most passionate in sports, that they are being held hostage in favor of Rutgers.

 

[Dooley]

If my already expensive cable bill goes up because conferences and/or networks, who are shutting UCONN out, are added to my lineup, I too will be canceling cable. I can stream UCONN games on 3 rd party websites and I LOVE the MLB.tv package I bought to stream baseball. I too also plan on making my reasons as to why quite clear.

 

[The Viking]

you know the news is bad when The Gravedigger AKA FrankTheTank shows up to share his two cents

 

[WestCoastHusky]

If CT cable carriers force the BTN onto the basic package in CT, I hope CT cable subscribers would riot if UCONN is not in the B1G. CT cable subs should never be forced to pay for the BTN if UCONN is not part of the BTN.

 

[Dooley]

If CT cable carriers force the BTN onto the basic package in CT, I hope CT cable subscribers would riot if UCONN is not in the B1G. CT cable subs should never be forced to pay for the BTN if UCONN is not part of the BTN.

If that happens, there needs to be an organized effort to sway CT carriers. And not just a couple of passionate and, perhaps, irrational fans like myself making angry phone calls. I'm talking about thousands of subscribers canceling their service until things change (UCONN invited or channel lineups and pricing remains unaffected). Having Rutgers sports jammed down my throat without UCONN (and charging me extra for the honour) would absolutely be the final straw for me and cable TV.

 

[frankthetank]

If CT cable carriers force the BTN onto the basic package in CT, I hope CT cable subscribers would riot if UCONN is not in the B1G. CT cable subs should never be forced to pay for the BTN if UCONN is not part of the BTN.

Look, I get the outrage. Texas A&M fans had the same visceral reaction to the Longhorn Network with threats of boycotts and cancellation of subscriptions. Ultimately, it didn't matter (and Aggie fans about as big of a fan base as you can get that will spite people just on principle en masse).

At the end of the day, the likelihood is that the number of people that feel the same way to the point that they'll actually cancel their cable service over a single channel is extremely low. As I've pointed out before, if you live in Connecticut and subscribe to DirecTV or DISH, you were already paying for the BTN without Rutgers, anyway.

The decision to add or drop cable is typically a macro-level decision. You're going to be hardpressed to see anyone drop cable simply because BTN was *added* since, in practicality, the cable bill itself likely won't change much at all just because of that channel. Haterade might be a powerful force on the Internet, but if a consumer is getting more channels with little change to the cable bill, then they generally are pretty happy as opposed to complaining. What's more powerful is when the cable bill *overall* is getting too expensive as a result of the aggregate of all of these cable subscriber fees, particularly from sports networks. When YES, SNY, MSG and others all raise their rates at the same time, THEN you'll see material impact to cable bills and that's when the chord cutting from non-sports fans accelerates (which has already been occurring).

 

[StevieDude]

Look, I get the outrage. Texas A&M fans had the same visceral reaction to the Longhorn Network with threats of boycotts and cancellation of subscriptions. Ultimately, it didn't matter (and Aggie fans about as big of a fan base as you can get that will spite people just on principle en masse).

At the end of the day, the likelihood is that the number of people that feel the same way to the point that they'll actually cancel their cable service over a single channel is extremely low. As I've pointed out before, if you live in Connecticut and subscribe to DirecTV or DISH, you were already paying for the BTN without Rutgers, anyway.

The decision to add or drop cable is typically a macro-level decision. You're going to be hardpressed to see anyone drop cable simply because BTN was *added* since, in practicality, the cable bill itself likely won't change much at all just because of that channel. Haterade might be a powerful force on the Internet, but if a consumer is getting more channels with little change to the cable bill, then they generally are pretty happy as opposed to complaining. What's more powerful is when the cable bill *overall* is getting too expensive as a result of the aggregate of all of these cable subscriber fees, particularly from sports networks. When YES, SNY, MSG and others all raise their rates at the same time, THEN you'll see material impact to cable bills and that's when the chord cutting from non-sports fans accelerates (which has already been occurring).

Thanks Captain Obvious

 

[djct1999]

Look, I get the outrage. Texas A&M fans had the same visceral reaction to the Longhorn Network with threats of boycotts and cancellation of subscriptions. Ultimately, it didn't matter (and Aggie fans about as big of a fan base as you can get that will spite people just on principle en masse).

At the end of the day, the likelihood is that the number of people that feel the same way to the point that they'll actually cancel their cable service over a single channel is extremely low. As I've pointed out before, if you live in Connecticut and subscribe to DirecTV or DISH, you were already paying for the BTN without Rutgers, anyway.

The decision to add or drop cable is typically a macro-level decision. You're going to be hardpressed to see anyone drop cable simply because BTN was *added* since, in practicality, the cable bill itself likely won't change much at all just because of that channel. Haterade might be a powerful force on the Internet, but if a consumer is getting more channels with little change to the cable bill, then they generally are pretty happy as opposed to complaining. What's more powerful is when the cable bill *overall* is getting too expensive as a result of the aggregate of all of these cable subscriber fees, particularly from sports networks. When YES, SNY, MSG and others all raise their rates at the same time, THEN you'll see material impact to cable bills and that's when the chord cutting from non-sports fans accelerates (which has already been occurring).

Trust me, you do not get the outrage.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

FTT I think has jumped the shark.

Normally pretty good insight, but just a vulture circling around our CR corpse lately.

 

[frankthetank]

FTT I think has jumped the shark.

Normally pretty good insight, but just a vulture circling around our CR corpse lately.

Sincerely not trying to be a vulture. I've always found the antitrust and cable carriage issues interesting and there happens to be two threads on that at the same time.

Frankly, I'm very surprised that the BTN was able to get basic carriage in any portion of the NYC DMA (whether it includes CT or not) this early in the game. I've said many times that I was skeptical of the Rutgers addition (in contrast to Maryland, which made all of the sense in the world from a financial perspective). Gotta give Jim Delany credit - there was no school that was vetted by the B1G from every angle more than Rutgers and it looks like it's going to pay off.

 

[Fishy]

Why don't we wait for the deal to actually be signed before we go into full lemming mode or the usual suspects go into 'gleefully pick over UConn's bones' mode?

If you didn't think the BTN would get carriage in New Jersey, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I'm curious to see what the carriage actually is in New York and Connecticut.

 

[StevieDude]

Sincerely not trying to be a vulture. .

Not a vulture more of pouring salt in a wound type of guy

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@frankthetank I honestly don't believe you do it on purpose or with any malicious intent, but I think as a collective fan base, were just tired of opposing fans giving us their dose if reality and outsider perspective.

 

[CL82]

I won't pretend to know anything about how cable subscriptions and rates work but I would say that if Rutgers addition includes Connecticut's Gold Coast, that would be a significant blow to UCONN's immediate short-term chances of getting a B1G invite. I'll fall back to what I said earlier: force feeding Rutgers to Connecticut residents is one thing, getting them to WATCH it is quite another. I don't know a single person in Connecticut who watches (or cares) about Rutgers unless they are playing against UCONN. I don't know how the splits are in Fairfield County but I can't imagine that there are loads of Rutgers fans down there...maybe some alumni.

My question would be if the state can somehow fight this since, as you said, the rates would likely be significantly higher since the demographic is a wealthy one. If there was enough of an uproar by Connecticut residents who don't want the BTN (until UCONN is invited), can the state do anything to block it? Or at the very least, make cable companies tier the channel lineups so that CT residents who don't want the BTN (minus UCONN) don't have to pay extra for it?

I'm in Middles e x County and am always looking to trim back my cable lineup to the bare minimum until the day UCONN is invited somewhere. I would be furious if I had to pay one penny more for my cable because of friggin' Rutgers.

IF you are Verizon, and I'm guessing that you are, tell them that you want to terminate service. They have a lot of flexibility. I knocked over $100/mo off my bill.

@frankthetank I honestly don't believe you do it on purpose or with any malicious intent, but I think as a collective fan base, were just tired of opposing fans giving us their dose of their mid-western perspective.

JMO on the edit...

 

[UConnJim]

Look, I get the outrage. Texas A&M fans had the same visceral reaction to the Longhorn Network with threats of boycotts and cancellation of subscriptions. Ultimately, it didn't matter (and Aggie fans about as big of a fan base as you can get that will spite people just on principle en masse).

At the end of the day, the likelihood is that the number of people that feel the same way to the point that they'll actually cancel their cable service over a single channel is extremely low. As I've pointed out before, if you live in Connecticut and subscribe to DirecTV or DISH, you were already paying for the BTN without Rutgers, anyway.

The decision to add or drop cable is typically a macro-level decision. You're going to be hardpressed to see anyone drop cable simply because BTN was *added* since, in practicality, the cable bill itself likely won't change much at all just because of that channel. Haterade might be a powerful force on the Internet, but if a consumer is getting more channels with little change to the cable bill, then they generally are pretty happy as opposed to complaining. What's more powerful is when the cable bill *overall* is getting too expensive as a result of the aggregate of all of these cable subscriber fees, particularly from sports networks. When YES, SNY, MSG and others all raise their rates at the same time, THEN you'll see material impact to cable bills and that's when the chord cutting from non-sports fans accelerates (which has already been occurring).

Connecticut is a funny state when it comes to cable. Why? Does Fairfield County belong as part of Connecticut or part of NYC? This battle has gone on for years as Cablevision fought the carriage of Connecticut's TV channels (3 CBS, 8 ABC, and 30 NBC) in Fairfield County vs the respective NYC network channels. What has happened is that Fairfield County has generally gotten both sets of channels with many disputes including the recent dispute (2014) over Channel 3 (CBS) in Hartford being telecast in Cablevision's Fairfield County for a fee. WFSB did have leverage as they carried Patriots football games which, for the most part, are not carried by NYC stations. Finally Cablevision gave in and Fairfield County has both CT and NYC network channels.

As for the BTN, it seems like Fairfield County is part of NYC. Will the cable companies pay full boat for the BTN in Fairfield County or less? My guess is less. But, this could create another political situation as back in 1993 (I think), the Governor and AG (Richard Blumenthal of all people!) battled Cablevision over carrying CT TV stations in Fairfield County. Guess who won? The channels are available in Fairfield County. Politicians could lobby to have Fairfield County categorized as part of Connecticut instead of NYC which would create a problem for many NYC sports networks and channels, but it is probably a battle nobody wants to have, although the NYC sports channels and networks have the most to lose.

 

[Stray_Dog]

If that happens, there needs to be an organized effort to sway CT carriers. And not just a couple of passionate and, perhaps, irrational fans like myself making angry phone calls. I'm talking about thousands of subscribers canceling their service until things change (UCONN invited or channel lineups and pricing remains unaffected). Having Rutgers sports jammed down my throat without UCONN (and charging me extra for the honour) would absolutely be the final straw for me and cable TV.

I cancelled my cable back in January, once I thought we were stuck in the AAC with our lousy ESPN deal. I like sports but cannot support ESPN, they already get huge tax breaks, I wont give them anything else. I watched the superbowl streaming on my computer that is in my family room attached to my 65" TV. So the longer they wait to get this done, the more likely it is I never go back to cable. Netflix at $8.07 and computer streaming...wonder why more people don't do this. Oh and I do have antennas for most local channels so I can get weather and news.