[NU Sports] TV and sports

[Dennis W. Brandt]

> There are lots of channels in the basic package that far less than 39% of 
> the subscribers view.

That is precisely my point.  Even an ultra-high viewership translates to 
nearly two-thirds of cable/satellite subscribers NEVER watching.  With the 
unrelenting addition of channel after channel, the cost of cable and 
satellite continues to climb.  The availability of so many channels is 
great, but the industry must start addressing a la carte subscription, at 
least on a tier basis.  If you want the sports channels, Discovery/History 
Channels, shopping networks, etc, pay for them.  Otherwise, don't.  The cost 
of individual channels will go up, but the overall cost for many subscribers 
will drop.  If the industry doesn't do it, Congress will.  That necessarily 
flows back to cable/satellite's contracts with program providers, which 
leads to their contracts with sports franchises, and in the case of pros, 
teams reexamining salaries.  I believe the scale has become grossly 
imbalanced toward those who earn more.  It's time for the playing field to 
tilt back toward those who want to pay less and have a choice.  If we did 
that, you wouldn't be having a Big Ten Network vs. cable battle going on.