Redneksioux Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 The cable company that is charging people to upgrade to a higher tier at $25/month is at fault for taking advantage of the situation. That is not Midco's fault. As far as the exposure, that issue has been discussed to death. Much of the exposure you talk about was lost because of the NCHC contract with CBS Sports. UND and Midco have worked on supplying alternatives, and will continue to work on the issue. No one that complains about the change to Midco has ever addressed the $200,000 per year that Midco is paying UND, money that the athletic department didn't have before. If you don't believe that the money was a significant factor in the decision, you don't know a lot about the finances of college athletics. And they don't address the addition of HD this year, something that wouldn't have happened with the old set-up. Besides, this is the second year of the deal. The only people losing access to the games this year are people that used to watch on FSC and don't have access to Midco. That isn't a huge number within the state of North Dakota. Many of them probably have access by going to a bar or another location in their area. It is a bigger factor in other parts of the country. It is a much bigger issue in other parts of the country I agree. And I can tell you the affiliate company is not accepting fault. they are telling customers their hands are tied on on this due to what midco is charging for the full time channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 It is a much bigger issue in other parts of the country I agree. And I can tell you the affiliate company is not accepting fault. they are telling customers their hands are tied on on this due to what midco is charging for the full time channel. Since this is the only report I've read or heard of anyone doing such a thing, I'm guessing that Midco isn't charging $25 per subscriber for the channel. I would be surprised if they are charging $2.50 per subscriber. I hope that customers aren't believing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 It is a much bigger issue in other parts of the country I agree. And I can tell you the affiliate company is not accepting fault. they are telling customers their hands are tied on on this due to what midco is charging for the full time channel. ESPN charges $5.05 per customer to the cable company. Midco sports net would be crazy to charge even half of that. It's not Midco's fault certain cable companies are pricing out their customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 ESPN charges $5.05 per customer to the cable company. Midco sports net would be crazy to charge even half of that. It's not Midco's fault certain cable companies are pricing out their customers. ESPN's number has gone up. It doesn't seem like that long ago they were getting around $2 per customer. I think it was in that range when the Twins were trying to start Victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Since this is the only report I've read or heard of anyone doing such a thing, I'm guessing that Midco isn't charging $25 per subscriber for the channel. I would be surprised if they are charging $2.50 per subscriber. I hope that customers aren't believing them. I can't tell you what midco is charging per customer because I don't know for certain. But it's still difficult to believe they are not at fault because the affiliate cable company's message is coming from their employees who are local. Also it is midco that is now requiring their channel be aired full time in order to receive the und games rather than simply allowing und games to be picked up on a community type channel. I understand they want to sell their sports channel and that is their right. I also understand the hd conversion cost them extra money they need to recoup. I just struggle with the fact that these are more reasons that will leave more und fans in the dark starting this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The cable company that is charging people to upgrade to a higher tier at $25/month is at fault for taking advantage of the situation. Not entirely true; the cable co in nwnd is doing the same, not due to taking advantage, but to upgrade to digital hd, the next tier package is needed, along with a new more expensive hd receiver (one for each tv), etc, etc. Total additional cost is more in the 35-over 50/month range, depending on number of tv's and the receiver you want. The basic package people will no longer get UND sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Not entirely true; the cable co in nwnd is doing the same, not due to taking advantage, but to upgrade to digital hd, the next tier package is needed, along with a new more expensive hd receiver (one for each tv), etc, etc. Total additional cost is more in the 35-over 50/month range, depending on number of tv's and the receiver you want. The basic package people will no longer get UND sports. Very similar situation with the cable company I speak of. Last year they picked up the games with a satellite. This year the only option is through fibre from a city south of grand forks. This is the only option midco is giving now and the affiliate's customers are required to upgrade to the digital tier in order to receive the midco sn programming. In this instance it's and extra 20 per month for the digital tier plus and extra 5 per month per receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Very similar situation with the cable company I speak of. Last year they picked up the games with a satellite. This year the only option is through fibre from a city south of grand forks. This is the only option midco is giving now and the affiliate's customers are required to upgrade to the digital tier in order to receive the midco sn programming. In this instance it's and extra 20 per month for the digital tier plus and extra 5 per month per receiver. This sounds like a different problem than what Midco is charging. This issue sounds like it is caused by the conversion to HD. And possibly by a change in how they are sending the signal. I am definitely not an expert on cable television, but I still think that the locals are, at least in part, using the situation to force people to upgrade. I'm not sure that Midco is telling these companies what tier the channel has to be on. I get that the customers probably need a HD receiver to get the HD signal, and that might be an upgrade. Midco is probably sending the signal in a different way because of the HD. Those are the hazards of changing to a new technology. But digital signals allow the cable companies to customize their offerings even easier. They should be able to offer the Midco Sports Channel without having to include it in a Digital HD package. Midco offers 3 versions of the sports channel with its Limited package, which is 1 step up from the real Basic cable package. So I understand the $5 per receiver charge, but not the $20 for a special tier. If the cable companies wanted, they could set up a lesser tier that included Midco and maybe something else for $5 a month or at least a lesser amount than $20. Most of this rate increase that both of you are talking about goes back to the individual cable companies, unless Midco is forcing them to put the channel on a special digital tier. I have strong doubts that Midco is forcing them to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 This sounds like a different problem than what Midco is charging. This issue sounds like it is caused by the conversion to HD. And possibly by a change in how they are sending the signal. I am definitely not an expert on cable television, but I still think that the locals are, at least in part, using the situation to force people to upgrade. I'm not sure that Midco is telling these companies what tier the channel has to be on. I get that the customers probably need a HD receiver to get the HD signal, and that might be an upgrade. Midco is probably sending the signal in a different way because of the HD. Those are the hazards of changing to a new technology. But digital signals allow the cable companies to customize their offerings even easier. They should be able to offer the Midco Sports Channel without having to include it in a Digital HD package. Midco offers 3 versions of the sports channel with its Limited package, which is 1 step up from the real Basic cable package. So I understand the $5 per receiver charge, but not the $20 for a special tier. If the cable companies wanted, they could set up a lesser tier that included Midco and maybe something else for $5 a month or at least a lesser amount than $20. Most of this rate increase that both of you are talking about goes back to the individual cable companies, unless Midco is forcing them to put the channel on a special digital tier. I have strong doubts that Midco is forcing them to do that. It would be dumb of Midco to request to be put on a special tier. Despite what some may think, Midco's goal is to be in as many homes as possible. That means trying to be on the basic cable channels. The local cable companies are the ones assigning them to a tier. Midco has no control over that and most likely isn't a fan of it. Midco gets its money regardless if its on a tier or not, they just get more money if its not because then they have more subscribers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 It would be dumb of Midco to request to be put on a special tier. Despite what some may think, Midco's goal is to be in as many homes as possible. That means trying to be on the basic cable channels. The local cable companies are the ones assigning them to a tier. Midco has no control over that and most likely isn't a fan of it. Midco gets its money regardless if its on a tier or not, they just get more money if its not because then they have more subscribers. That was my feeling, also. These independent cable companies are using the Midco Sports Channel excuse to push customers to a higher level. And customers blame Midco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 That was my feeling, also. These independent cable companies are using the Midco Sports Channel excuse to push customers to a higher level. And customers blame Midco. It's the affiliates that are blaming midco. It's a fact that midco is requiring a different delivery method of the channel this year and the affiliate that I know of is using this as the reason for the required upgrade to their digital package. And hd signal can easily be uplinked and down linked thru satellite so this can't be midco's excuse for switching to fibre. I haven't checked with all the affiliates picking up midcosn but I haven't heard of any that are charging as little as $2.50 a month for the channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The cable co out here had the former undsportsnet and last year's midcosportsnet games in a package they call their "basic analog" package. Not sure whey it's called that, or if they can and do "dumb down" digital signals to an analog package, but the package did not require a receiver at all, just a cable hookup. Possibly they could have left the midcosportsnet 24/7 package in the basic tier (and dumbed it down or whatever they do) or perhaps they couldn't, I have no idea. But to get HD they'd obviously have to require customers to move up and get a receiver for each TV. Lots of added cost, many that got this channel will choose not to get it, reducing exposure of UND sports, which is just in ND, and pales in comparison to exposure lost nationally (unless dish/directv adds the channel). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 It's the affiliates that are blaming midco. It's a fact that midco is requiring a different delivery method of the channel this year and the affiliate that I know of is using this as the reason for the required upgrade to their digital package. I haven't checked with all the affiliates picking up midcosn but I haven't heard of any that are charging as little as $2.50 a month for the channel. The different delivery method may be because of the change to HD. Or it may be that Midco is trying to save money by eliminating a delivery system that they don't use for anything else. That change in delivery system does not require that the cable systems put Midco Sports Net on a different tier. That is the choice of the cable system. HD may require the use of different receivers, but the cable system could still put the channel on a lesser package. The cable systems are using the addition of Midco Sports Net as an excuse to increase prices so they can make more money, and are blaming the entire price increase on Midco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The cable co out here had the former undsportsnet and last year's midcosportsnet games in a package they call their "basic analog" package. Not sure whey it's called that, or if they can and do "dumb down" digital signals to an analog package, but the package did not require a receiver at all, just a cable hookup. Possibly they could have left the midcosportsnet 24/7 package in the basic tier (and dumbed it down or whatever they do) or perhaps they couldn't, I have no idea. But to get HD they'd obviously have to require customers to move up and get a receiver for each TV. Lots of added cost, many that got this channel will choose not to get it, reducing exposure of UND sports, which is just in ND, and pales in comparison to exposure lost nationally (unless dish/directv adds the channel). I understand needing a new receiver for any TV that they want to have access to the HD channels. But I don't think the customers would need an HD receiver on every TV to get the basic channels. Are you advocating that Midco shouldn't have gone to HD? HD seems to be what has driven much of the change from last year. I'm pretty sure that most people want the HD signal. Also, the channel is available in North Dakota, South Dakota and part of Minnesota, not just in North Dakota. At least be honest about that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I understand needing a new receiver for any TV that they want to have access to the HD channels. But I don't think the customers would need an HD receiver on every TV to get the basic channels. Are you advocating that Midco shouldn't have gone to HD? HD seems to be what has driven much of the change from last year. I'm pretty sure that most people want the HD signal. Also, the channel is available in North Dakota, South Dakota and part of Minnesota, not just in North Dakota. At least be honest about that part. I'm not advocating anything concerning midco, merely that the deal with midco and cbssports has cut off thousands of Sioux fans from UND sports. While it was worth quite a bit of short term money to UND, I'm not sure it's a good deal for UND in the long term. Maybe the stream will be so good that the TV deal won't make a difference in alumni donations. Or maybe the demand for the channel by dish/directv subscribers will be so great they'll have to eventually add it. Midco is only available in areas of the three states you mentioned if: 1. the cable co pays for it and 2. the customer of that cable co pays for it. Not saying that's wrong for midco nor the cable co's that pay, just that it ultimately reduces exposure for UND athletics nationwide, as well as in the 3 states where it may or may not be available via cable. Additionally, some/maybe most of the nonmidco cable markets that pay for the channel do not offer cbssports, which, if they're talked into it, will be another additional charge to subscribers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I understand needing a new receiver for any TV that they want to have access to the HD channels. But I don't think the customers would need an HD receiver on every TV to get the basic channels. Are you advocating that Midco shouldn't have gone to HD? HD seems to be what has driven much of the change from last year. I'm pretty sure that most people want the HD signal. Also, the channel is available in North Dakota, South Dakota and part of Minnesota, not just in North Dakota. At least be honest about that part. Hd is a big change from last year but the another big change from last year is midco requiring the affiliates to pick their channel up full time. I guess it's all a business and money talks. It's just too bad that many local people without midco cable will be left in the dark because of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 I'm not advocating anything concerning midco, merely that the deal with midco and cbssports has cut off thousands of Sioux fans from UND sports. While it was worth quite a bit of short term money to UND, I'm not sure it's a good deal for UND in the long term. Maybe the stream will be so good that the TV deal won't make a difference in alumni donations. Or maybe the demand for the channel by dish/directv subscribers will be so great they'll have to eventually add it. Midco is only available in areas of the three states you mentioned if: 1. the cable co pays for it and 2. the customer of that cable co pays for it. Not saying that's wrong for midco nor the cable co's that pay, just that it ultimately reduces exposure for UND athletics nationwide, as well as in the 3 states where it may or may not be available via cable. Additionally, some/maybe most of the nonmidco cable markets that pay for the channel do not offer cbssports, which, if they're talked into it, will be another additional charge to subscribers. The people that are paid to make the decisions on broadcasting believe that this was the best option available. These are the same people that set up the deal with FCS. They know a whole lot more about these things than any of us on an internet forum. They believe that selling the rights to Midco was what was best for UND overall. I am going to trust those people, they have done a pretty good job so far. There are a lot of options for getting UND sports, people that are interested will get access in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Just checked my DirecTV lineup, tonight's game against SDSU is on Channel 623 FCS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The people that are paid to make the decisions on broadcasting believe that this was the best option available. These are the same people that set up the deal with FCS. They know a whole lot more about these things than any of us on an internet forum. They believe that selling the rights to Midco was what was best for UND overall. I am going to trust those people, they have done a pretty good job so far. There are a lot of options for getting UND sports, people that are interested will get access in some way. Well these same people that made this decision left many North Dakotans in the dark to und's football game tonight. All while ndsu's game was on NBC statewide in hd and available on satellite nationwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Well these same people that made this decision left many North Dakotans in the dark to und's football game tonight. All while ndsu's game was on NBC statewide in hd and available on satellite nationwide. How many schools have their own in-house production companies to do all of their live sports? How many instead have contacts with regional or conference broadcast entities that do the games? There's a reason there aren't a whole lot of the first one and a dozen of the other. Pick three home games this year and that's all ANYONE wouild have been able to watch if the FSSN was still in operation. What three do you pick? How much whining would be doing if it didn't happen to be one you wanted to watch? NDSU has an agreement with the local NBC affiliates. UND has an agreement with Midco. Guess which one reaches more households? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoSiouxFan Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The FCS broadcast had technical problems tonight and the broadcast down here in Kansas City was very poor. I was glad to be able to get the game, but it wasn't in HD as advertised and the picture was compressed so that it didn't take up the whole screen (there was space above and below the picture). Maybe we can chalk it up to the first-time HD production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The FCS broadcast had technical problems tonight and the broadcast down here in Kansas City was very poor. I was glad to be able to get the game, but it wasn't in HD as advertised and the picture was compressed so that it didn't take up the whole screen (there was space above and below the picture). Maybe we can chalk it up to the first-time HD production. That's not Midco's fault. Unless you're one of the few places that receive the HD FCS channels then there's no way you could have watched the game in HD. The game won't be in HD unless you're watching on the web, on a Midco HD channel or on one of the HD FCS channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 How many schools have their own in-house production companies to do all of their live sports? How many instead have contacts with regional or conference broadcast entities that do the games? There's a reason there aren't a whole lot of the first one and a dozen of the other. Pick three home games this year and that's all ANYONE wouild have been able to watch if the FSSN was still in operation. What three do you pick? How much whining would be doing if it didn't happen to be one you wanted to watch? NDSU has an agreement with the local NBC affiliates. UND has an agreement with Midco. Guess which one reaches more households? Sorry did I hit a nerve? I realize that you have interest in the midco situation. Great. But guess which production today had more viewers? We are moving in the wrong direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Sorry did I hit a nerve? I realize that you have interest in the midco situation. Great. But guess which production today had more viewers? We are moving in the wrong direction. I just get tired of people having such short memories about how "great" things used to be. I live in Colorado but I do live broadcasts for sporting events, including an FBS school. I don't defend Midco because I have a blind love for them or even any sort of affiliation. I know some of the people on the crew, but they are all freelancers who aren't tied to Midco other than during the broadcasts themselves. I defend Midco because I know more than nearly everybody on this board about TV coverage for college sports. I don't have to live in North Dakota to understand that Midco isn't forcing TV companies to put it on a separate tier. That's just idiotic to believe Midco would force itself into a place where there are fewer viewers. Midco is going to charge what it believes is a fair market price for its channels. Feel free to believe that is why prices are jumping $25 but why isn't that happening at every single cable company in MN/ND/SD? Why are there some markets that don't jack the bill for their customers but there are others that do? If you think it's because of some higher power that Midco holds, you're wrong. UND gets $200,000 per year from Midcontinent to broadcast more games to more people than FSSN. UND also doesn't have to deal with the hassle of running its own productions which takes several full time staff members to do so. UND's exposure in the region (that's more than just North Dakota) has increased in football. UND football is expected to have more games on FCS this year than the last two years of FSSN combined. Both Midco channels and the webcast quality have been upgraded to HD, which means better viewing for a significant number of people in the region and throughout the U.S. That would not have happened in the foreseeable future had FSSN still been in operation. They couldn't afford a $25,000 graphics system that could run a penalty clock. They sure as heck aren't going to upgrade to full HD at close to $400,000 for a renovated truck. I watched the first part of the UND football game online, watched the second quarter on my phone and then caught the second half on FCS. There are very few FCS schools who can offer up the same thing. The deal with CBSSN for hockey sucks for UND. I'm not too happy about it myself but I understand it wasn't UND's decision so I'm not angry at them. It also has nothing to do with Midco. FSSN would have the same restrictions that Midco will. There are 8 teams in the conference, UND is just one of them. Every other team in the conference is getting more exposure. I doubt UND is happy to be giving up their deal with FCS but it is what it is. They'll figure out a way to get the exposure back up. You may believe UND is moving in the wrong direction but you're wrong. I understand you're frustrated that the channels are not affordable in every town in the state. Cable companies can easily add channels to their basic lineup. They just don't want to do it without trying to cover the costs associated with buying that channel themselves. However, the popularity of UND sports means those cable companies try and take advantage of their customers to earn more money. The only way it should be $25 a month is if you're going from the lowest basic tier to the highest HD tier. In which case, the cable company is screwing over the customers who want to watch Midco in HD. A regional HD channel should be on the lowest tier of HD, just like a regional SD channel should be on the lowest (or at least second lowest) tier. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The FCS broadcast had technical problems tonight and the broadcast down here in Kansas City was very poor. I was glad to be able to get the game, but it wasn't in HD as advertised and the picture was compressed so that it didn't take up the whole screen (there was space above and below the picture). Maybe we can chalk it up to the first-time HD production. An HD program or channel that is shown on a SD broadcast channel will have black space above and below the picture. The HD picture is a different aspect ratio (size) than SD. As southpaw said, almost all of the Fox College Sports channels are SD. You aren't going to get HD quality on a SD broadcast channel. You won't see any of the UND games in HD while watching FCS, unless they decide to put one on an HD channel. If there were other technical problems, I would guess at least some of them may have been caused by the first time using the new equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.