Cable Providers Battle With Sports Channels: What It Means For The LHN

by srr50 on Dec 22, 2025 8:05 PM CST in Texas Longhorns and Other Football

Earlier this week, an FCC judge ruled in favor of the Tennis Channel against Comcast, and yes dear Longhorn fans, you actually should care about the Tennis Channel and how this ruling could eventually relate to the Longhorn Network.

Richard L. Sippel, the FCC's chief administrative law judge, ruled that Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator, discriminated against the Tennis Channel by having it on the premium sports tier (available to approximately 2 million viewers) and said that it must put it on the same basic digital level that Comcast’s own networks, Versus and the Golf Channel also appear on – making it available to almost 25 million customers.

The full FCC must vote on the matter before Sippel's decision becomes final.

On the face of it, this seems like a good thing for niche channels such as the LHN but there is a larger battle about to be joined over just where sports channels should be slotted on your cable bill.

Right now in New York, Time Warner Cable (TWC) and Madison Square Garden (MSG) are waging a high stakes public relations war over their contract negotiations.

MSG carries the Rangers and Knicks games and they want a 53% increase over the current $2.73 monthly subscription they are getting for TWC’s 2 million customers. TWC cable has offered a 6% increase and has said they will pull the plug on the MSG network Jan. 1st if a deal is not reached.

We will get to the LHN in a moment, but this TWC fight in New York is instructive when you look at the impasse over getting the LHN on the major cable outlets in Texas and the surrounding states. Time Warner loves sports programming (they are becoming partners with the L.A. Lakers for their own cable networks) – they just don’t like to pay the skyrocketing costs of all the sports channels out there.

The last time there was a dispute over subscription fees, TWC took the MSG channel off its cable outlets for a couple of months before it was settled.

At the heart of all of the battles is the billions being spent on sports programming, with the belief that live sports — especially football – and especially the NFL -- is programming gold.

Sports continues to deliver a dedicated audience that still watches in big numbers, often without the DVR.

Cable and Satellite providers fear that the cost of sports programming rising at such a rapid rate will soon begin to drive away consumers who have no interest in sports but are paying for the channels right now.

As far as cable operators are concerned ESPN is "Public Enemy #1."

Right now ESPN is able to command up to $4.69 monthly per-subscriber fees for the flagship channel, as well as other fees for ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic. In the past, cable executives have promoted the "one-price" for all basic services, but now the idea of some form of A La Carte pricing is making headway in the cable industry.

Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Glenn Britt said sports channels should be sold separately from the main cable-TV package of channels. Britt believes that by placing the sports channels on a higher-cost tier, cable providers could shift the costs to sports fans – and cut cable bills for non-sports fans. Entertainment outlets such as Disney (which owns ESPN) don’t like that idea one bit.

There is a debate as to whether the standard cable bill would drop that much if everyone was able to pick and choose, and obviously some networks would be driven out of business. But there is no doubt that transparency in the marketplace would be increased, and if you don’t want to pay for the "Home Shopping Network," you wouldn’t have to.

ESPN doesn’t like the idea of all of its channels on a premiere tier for obvious reasons – they are making so much money right now that they are spending like a drunken sailor for sports programming, and they like having their "bundle" of channels on the basic tier.

In order to understand the impasse over distribution negotiations for the LHN, the first item that needs to be taken into account is just what place the LHN has in the overall process for its owner (ESPN)

Longhorn fans see the LHN as this wonderful toy, full of all sorts of bells and whistles, and just the thought of the Longhorn Nation having such a toy has already made all the other kids in the neighborhood green with envy.

WE WANT TO OPEN OUR CHRISTMAS PRESENT NOW DAMMIT!!!!

For ESPN, the Longhorn Network is a "test tube baby," an experiment on a potential revenue source that could be expanded in the future. They are more concerned with the template being placed into action by the LHN. They want to see how it will fit into the "TV Everywhere" concept that is coming (when you will get such channels via any mobile device you have) -- they are also more concerned about establishing placement and price point for the LHN and other such individual channels in the future.

The fact that we can hear our nicely wrapped toy whirring and moving under the shiny wrapping paper – but we can’t see it or touch it just yet – isn’t a real concern for ESPN right now.

But, you say, "What about their $300 Million investment?"

Now I must admit that $300 Million over 20 years sounds like some serious jack to me.

To ESPN? Not so much.

Right now when ESPN needs to pay UT for the Longhorn Network, they just reach into their "Mad Money" jar.

As long as they have the dual revenue streams pumping in money at the level they are right now, they are more than willing to sit at the poker table and play Texas Hold ‘Em. with the LHN.

Time Warner vs. ESPN (and just about any other programmer)

The reports are that ESPN is asking for at least 40 cents per subscriber per month AND placement on the basic digital package for the Longhorn Network in the Dominant Market Area (DMA), which in this case would be Texas and (supposedly) other states with Big 12 programs. Since TWC is the big dog cable provider in Texas, just about every other company is waiting to have them set the bar for the standard cost and placement of the LHN.

As mentioned before, TWC likes a fight, and they are very stubborn. Time Warner Cable is the only one of the top eight distributors that has still has not signed a deal to carry NFL Network. It has been holding out on regional sports networks in North Carolina for years. It held out for more than a year on the Big 10 Network before finally reaching an agreement.

ESPN likes a fight just as much as TWC, and I expect both sides to glare at each other well into 2012.

There is a lot at stake for both sides, and right now, the Longhorn Network is simply a minor battle in the war for the hearts, minds – and wallets – of future cable sports fans everywhere.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

thanks srr… really appreciate your expertise in these interesting times

by The Bobs on Dec 22, 2025 8:11 PM CST reply actions

Screw TWC. I want LHN on Dish.

by Texan in Oregon on Dec 22, 2025 8:13 PM CST reply actions

This might be a great deal for ESPN, and it’s definitely a good financial deal for UT. But to date, it’s been a pretty crappy deal for everyone else.

by TexanNick on Dec 22, 2025 8:31 PM CST reply actions

Fantastic explanation. Thanks, srr.

by Sasha is a Longhorn Dog on Dec 22, 2025 8:34 PM CST reply actions

I switched to AT&T and get NFL network and cut my bill in half. I’m done worrying about getting LHN. Not having it has lowered my interest level in our hoops team though.

by Savage Henry on Dec 22, 2025 8:55 PM CST reply actions

What I dont like is not having a wireless/streaming option for the LHN. It would seem that would drive demand for the channel.

by Average Fan on Dec 22, 2025 10:31 PM CST reply actions

When or if, the LHN becomes relevant, let me know.

by utexex on Dec 22, 2025 10:54 PM CST reply actions

I have never have had cable TV. Every time some company calls to sell it to me I tell them I’m holding out for “a la carte” pricing or a cable package that has only sports channels and all of them that I care about in one place. They always tell me it will never happen. So I’ll never sign up. I figure it will come some day, hopefully before I die.

by Nevets on Dec 22, 2025 11:02 PM CST reply actions

I never worried about LHN. Fortuitously, I was already diversifying my college basketball viewing/interest portfolio for other reasons (not related to LHN) so LHN not being available has had little impact on my college basketball viewing. I’ve been watching KU, Duke, and other good programs more and Texas much less. It is working out OK for me.

by Kafka on Dec 22, 2025 11:31 PM CST reply actions

“Al A Carte”???

Either a pornstache or a visit from Louie and Fingers in the near future?

by Tex Long on Dec 22, 2025 11:40 PM CST reply actions

How dumb are we Americans? We pay top dollar for cable/satellite/etc., and don’t demand commercial-free content. Media corporations get to double-dip, and they are laughing at us.

by JoeT63 on Dec 23, 2025 7:53 AM CST reply actions

Earlier reports stated that Direct TV’s contract with ESPN ends in 2012.

Does this mean ESPN will have the upper hand in forcing Direct TV to accept all ESPN programming, including the LHN ? If so, that could be the first domino to fall and force others to accept ESPN’s terms for the LHN ?

by torre on Dec 23, 2025 8:55 AM CST reply actions

Thanks, SRR, very illuminating. Please call me when in Houston. Merry Christmas! PT

by Texas Tornado on Dec 23, 2025 10:45 AM CST reply actions

ESPN wants to be on DTV as well. Lot of subscribers out there.

DTV is not fighting the same battle as TWC. There are local channels on DTV but they don’t really have a local tier outside of what is broadcast over the air. Big Ten Network is available through the Sports Pack. I’d be surprised if LHN didn’t end up there.

by Bob in Houston on Dec 23, 2025 10:51 AM CST reply actions

Why doesn’t EsecPN just make the LHN part of a package that includes ESPNU and LHN and raise the price .40 per household. Cable providers want drop ESPNU due to that and if people want college coverage they have to buy the package which includes both networks. Pretty simple solution to me.

by BEVOCALHORNS on Dec 23, 2025 11:13 AM CST reply actions

srr50, I knew you wouldn’t make it through a whole posting on LHN without saying “dual revenue streams!”

by hoju on Dec 23, 2025 11:20 AM CST reply actions

bobs, sasha, TT — thanks, it isn’t easy to try and look at the long-term picture and try to ignore the start-up bumps that have been hit.

utexex — the LHN is relevant right now in terms of its influence on the program’s future strength, and if you don’t understand that, we can’t help you.

kafa — there is no reason to worry about it, but when it becomes readily available it will be more than ok for you and others.

hoju — but of course. I have that mantra hanging over my computer desk.

by srr50 on Dec 23, 2025 11:36 AM CST reply actions

Thanks, srr50.

The Tennis Channel grew, and grew up, more quickly than any other station I’ve watched.
Within a year or two from launch, it went from endlessly looping matches from the mid-1970s to having inside access to today’s top players, and creating content based on that access. I don’t have access to the numbers, but I’d guess it’s been a financial success as well as a driver for the sport.

by parlin on Dec 23, 2025 3:13 PM CST reply actions

I no longer believe that cable is worth the cost. Comcast’s claim for hundred of channels is based on counting channels like 12, 112, 312, 612 and 712 as if they did not carry the same content in different formats.

If I were the cable channels, I would charge a lower total monthly rate to the subscribers and include any and all channels that did not ask for fees. Let all these specialty channels including the LHN stand on their own merits and advertising revenue.

by Flash on Dec 23, 2025 3:49 PM CST reply actions

srr50,

Isn’t true that for the first time ever in the US that cable cancelations have exceeded new subscriptions? If so, that ought tell them something.

by Flash on Dec 23, 2025 3:51 PM CST reply actions

Flash:
Cable subscriptions are down, but people who are “cutting the cord” apparently are doing so for economic reasons more than switching to a competitor. The cable industry as a whole saw fewer losses in the third quarter of 2011 than it did during the same quarter a year ago.

Competition from AT&T and Verizon has obviously had an impact, but neither has anything close to wide penetration in many of the markets and given the expense of building their networks, they are expected to reach their market share level soon. Satellite continues to be a big competitor to cable as well.

But again the economy has even slowed down the phone companies expansion into video services.

The phone companies’ biggest weapon in the broadband fight has been their new fiber-based networks: U-verse for AT&T and Fios for Verizon. These services have competed head-to-head with cable in markets where they’re available. But neither AT&T nor Verizon is covering its entire territory with these expensive network upgrades.

As a matter of fact the most recent quarterly reported shows that cable had 90 percent of all new broadband additions. consumers watching TV over broadband instead of paid cable services is probably coming, but it is moving very slowly in that direction.

by srr50 on Dec 23, 2025 6:49 PM CST reply actions

I am sure that our economy will eventually recover, but I suspect there will be some permanent demand destruction in many area of our economy. Gasoline, electricity, subsciber TV of all kinds, land line and cell telephone services, internet provider services, and many other electronic devices new and future. As the battle for almost fixed markets progresses, prices have to either come down or those actual markets will fade from memory.

by Flash on Dec 23, 2025 7:11 PM CST reply actions

What kind of world is it where in Austin, TX, I get the BYU network but can’t get LHN? I thought maybe Mormonvision was just a placeholder for LHN when I ran across it on U-Verse, but I’m still enjoying BYU’s idea of TV and waiting for the day the world is set right.

by JimmySlim on Dec 23, 2025 8:25 PM CST reply actions

the future is the internet and a la carte.

However, just like the music industry 10 years ago, cable providers are clinging to the old ways and they will get burned for doing this. I’m guessing it’s about 5 years down the road.

Every time, and I mean every single time I search my cable channels I am disgusted at how little of the 100s of channels appeal to me, and how often there’s nothing I want to watch.

Even with kids, I think we watch about 10% of what we pay for.

by Texoz on Dec 24, 2025 10:06 AM CST reply actions

just wanted to add what keeps us hooked to cable. (my provider is Grande)

It’s a small selection of HD programming and sports. We get the LHN and I’m liking it.

However, as soon as we think we can get our programming via the web, we’re dropping cable.

by Texoz on Dec 24, 2025 10:10 AM CST reply actions

More people than you might think are leaving cable and dish. Many are going back to broad cast tv only. In the slums there is now a growing illegal industry of providing free cable service for a one time illicit hookup fee (and electricity too btw).

The faux cable or electric ulitility worker shows up in semi-official garb including hard hat and bright vest, takes a $100 - $200 fee, and makes a stealth cable drop or by-passes the electric power meter. This has been extremely common in the third world slums (Mexico, Brazil, etc) for decades and has arrived in this country with a vengance. No way the cable companies or the utilities can police this effectively.

by Flash on Dec 24, 2025 10:29 AM CST reply actions

I would guess most of the readers here would drop cable if it weren’t for live sports. I know I would.

All my friends that don’t care about sports dropped cable in the last year or so.

by Savage Henry on Dec 24, 2025 8:39 PM CST reply actions

Savage,
ESPN realizes that point about sports being the only content keeping many thousands, if not millions, of subscribers tethered to cable/satellite. I don’t know if this a tacit point, or readily acknowledged, but at some time in the near future the internet and it’s free-wheeling, porous environment will provide too much pressure to shift the paradigm just like it did to the music industry.

by Texoz on Dec 25, 2025 11:05 AM CST reply actions

Wow, marvelous blog layout! How lengthy have you been running a blog for? you made running a blog glance easy. The overall glance of your site is magnificent, let alone the content!

by satellitedirecttm's on Dec 26, 2025 7:57 AM CST reply actions

how does direct tv fit in? as i understood, direct tv’s contract w espn was over this december & the two parties have been negotiating a new contract. i presume the lhn has been part of the negotiation. does anyone have inssight into when & how this will end up?