knapplc
International Man of Mystery
This increase would be consistent with most other contracts, wouldn't it? The Pac-12 signed a bigger, better deal, so did the Big XII, so did the SEC, etc. This isn't "holding TimeWarner hostage," it's the current state of the market. TimeWarner expecting to get the same deal they got three years ago is not supported by current market standards.Why blame the Big Ten for TimeWarner's greed? Or phrased differently, why blame the Big Ten for TimeWarner treating Nebraska different than they treat any other Big Ten market? There isn't a single Big Ten market where the BTN is not on a basic tier - except, for the moment, Nebraska. Who's to blame for that? Not the Big Ten.I pay for BTN, and I'll be pretty damn upset with the Big Ten if their pissing match in Lincoln spills over into KC and I can't watch Husker games - because as of now that's what it is looking like. Back to Minsky's I guess...could be worse, love that pizza.
EDIT - Chris, do you get cable through TimeWarner?
You are assuming that BTN is asking for the same deal as they did in the other areas, that deal was signed 3 years ago. I would imagine the BTN network is now asking for more per sub than before, estimates i've seen said the original deals were $.90 per sub before, they are now asking for closer to $1.15 per sub. It wouldn't shock me if the Big Ten Network was trying to hold Time Warner hostage for higher fees across the entire base of subscribers rather than just allow them to add Nebraska. This would be a million dollar plus per month hit on Time Warner's bottom line, possibly even far more depending on what the BTN is really asking for.