Big Ten Network and AT&T: Political Bedfellows

We saw this coming last week. After last Thursday's visit to the State Journal by the UW's Barry Alvarez, and the Big Ten's Jim Delaney, Scott Milfred in Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal takes two bad ideas and connects them:

...I'm not about to tell Charter how it should negotiate a complicated business deal. But I am willing to state the obvious: If Charter had more competition in the Madison area, this wouldn't even be an issue.

If, for example, AT&T could easily offer a package of channels to customers across south-central Wisconsin, tuning in Badger games would be a snap. That's because AT&T's U-verse video system has a deal to offer the Big Ten Network as one of its regular channels.

But AT&T doesn't offer its video service to most of Wisconsin because state law discourages such competition. Under current law, AT&T would have to go through the tedious and difficult task of negotiating individual contracts with hundreds of local municipalities in which it wanted to provide video service.

A video competition bill moving through the Legislature would remove this out-of-date, bureaucratic obstacle. It would make it much easier for AT&T and other competitors to enter markets all over Wisconsin by following a uniform set of statewide rules.

It's AT&T's same, tired, talking points, again regurgitated by the State Journal word-for-word, with Bucky Badger thrown in to get the sports fans' attention. But here's the best part:

And when the first big Badger game can't be easily viewed across Wisconsin, fans should complain to state lawmakers. They're the ones who can open up the market.

In a reader forum attached to Jeff Richgel's balanced Cap Times story Friday on the BTN negotiations, reader "Football Fan" suggested that the legislature simply mandate basic carriage of the BTN. That's a great idea. If anything would throw a monkey wrench into the works, that would. I can see the press release now: "Rep. Lasee amends state budget bill to mandate cable carriage of Big Ten Network, cut funding for UW Law School and forbid carriage of Court TV."

- Barry Orton

Comments

[Jon]

Mr. Orton,

I would be very interested in you providing a new post about what happened at last Saturday's UW Football game. The crowd's loudest boos was not for an errant Tyler Donavan pass, not for the Washington State team coming on the field, but by far was loudest when the announcer played an advertisement for the Big Ten network. I was very impressed by how widespread the hatred of the network was by fans at the game. I suspect people don't like having to pay extra to watch the teams their taxes are paying for......

[Norma Boutwell]

I am really upset that we cannot get the Big Ten Channel. We are in an area that frowns on dish so we put in the Charter digital thinking we would get the Big Ten. They thought so too. Now we still find it in negoiation and so the basketball gamers will also be missed. We are big fans and at our age it's one of our biggest entertainments. I can understand why cable doesn't want to charge customers that don't watch sports. Why oh why can't the Big Ten let them charge just the fans. You are doing us all an injustice. Thank you