As of today -- Sunday, Sept 9, 2007 -- the Big Ten Network has worked out deals with Dish Network, DirecTV and some "smaller" cable companies... but has failed to get on major cable systems within the Big Ten "area" such as TimeWarner, Mediacom, and Comcast.

Here in Ohio, the Big Ten Network and TimeWarner have taken to dualing full-page ads in the newspapers. The public may be fed up: Reportedly, when a BTN commercial was shown at the Ohio State game yesterday, the crowd boo'd. (Not sure if it's because the fans are disgusted with the Network, or with the Network-vs- Cable Giants battle.)

Now... do you think the Big Ten Network and the cable providers will come to some kind of deal by the start of wrestling season? Weigh in with this poll.

Thanks
Mark

I bet they are waiting to see the demand for it. They know they have a huge market share, and having to wait will only drive the price up (assuming it isn't something they would switch services for)

People are steaming mad about this crap in Chicago. There are a gajillion young alums from Big Ten schools living in the city, and they're mostly living in apartments and condos, places where you can't necessarily have a dish. (I can't have a dish in my apartment building.) I could care less about watching Big 10 football, but I'd really love to be able to catch some wrestling. I get all the Fox Sports channels, and Iowa Public TV (not quite sure why, but I do) so I get to see a fair amount of random matches, but there are a bunch of Big Ten matches I'd love to see and won't because of the BTN.

Well at least they might find their way onto YouTube...

Originally Posted by Ground&Pound

I went to a Pitt football game last week. There were people combing the tailgate parties handing out fliers advertising this website http://www.puttingfansfirst.org/

Yeah, this is done by a PR agency for Comcast.

Call me naive, but I figured this would all be sorted just in time for the first week's kickoffs... thinking it might be a game of brinkmanship, and, as "opening day" approached, the pressure would mount, and one side would cave. Hence my question.

In a somewhat related note -- as in "who's got the power" -- there was a long article about how Major League Baseball to a degree, and, to a much larger degree, the National Football League, are trying to control coverage of their games... for instance, NFL limiting who can be on the sidelines of one of their games (forcing newspaper and local TV station camerapeople to wear vests with corporate logos on them) and the amount of footage that a media outlet can show (45 seconds max). As a journalism-degree-carrying person that has "free press" drilled into his head -- and as a taxpayer paying for a half-billion stadium here for the Bengals -- I resent anyone limiting public (media) access to a public-financed facility.

In the NFL/MLB vs local media case -- and in the Big Ten Network vs cable corporations -- it's a battle of gigantic Goliaths. And we little Davids are the ones who get schrod.

Mark