The Athletic: Rutgers Infrastructure is Way behind

[Wolv RU]

Some facts for this discussion:

Rutgers has been fully bought in since July 1, 2020.

Rutgers previously disclosed its expected distributions, taking into account the loan payments due. These numbers are listed below.

These numbers were made when the TV deal that just expired was known, but not the deal that is about to start, so the figures starting FY 2024 are likely higher.

Rutgers owes another ~$25 million in loan payments to the conference, which will be made over the next three years.

Year: B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution

(First number is other Big Ten schools, second number is Rutgers share; years begin on July 1, so as of today it is FY 2024)

• 2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
• 2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
• 2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
• 2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
• 2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
• 2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
• 2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
• 2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
• 2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
• 2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
• 2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
• 2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694

Conclusion: Rutgers will receive over $50 million from the Big Ten this year. This is more than every school in the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12, and has been comparable or better since July 1, 2020. We are actually in the fourth year now of Rutgers getting an amount that is close to other Big Ten schools. However, it is fair to point out that just as that happened, COVID messed up a year's worth of revenue (FY 2021).

 

[rutgersal]

Some facts for this discussion:

Rutgers has been fully bought in since July 1, 2020.

Rutgers previously disclosed its expected distributions, taking into account the loan payments due. These numbers are listed below.

These numbers were made when the TV deal that just expired was known, but not the deal that is about to start, so the figures starting FY 2024 are likely higher.

Rutgers owes another ~$25 million in loan payments to the conference, which will be made over the next three years.

Year: B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution

(First number is other Big Ten schools, second number is Rutgers share; years begin on July 1, so as of today it is FY 2024)

• 2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
• 2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
• 2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
• 2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
• 2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
• 2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
• 2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
• 2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
• 2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
• 2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
• 2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
• 2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694

Conclusion: Rutgers will receive over $50 million from the Big Ten this year. This is more than every school in the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12, and has been comparable or better since July 1, 2020. We are actually in the fourth year now of Rutgers getting an amount that is close to other Big Ten schools. However, it is fair to point out that just as that happened, COVID messed up a year's worth of revenue (FY 2021).

A good estimate for this year is to add $13M to all 2023 numbers, as payout will be roughly 70M. Next year, payout could go as high as $80M, but need confirmation on that. This is why USC and UCLA were brought in at full shares.

 

[NickRU714]

Slight diversion.
How did you like Metallica?
Night 1- traffic was a crap show-- missed half of Pantera.

Night 2- Ice 9 Kills needs to be killed. An emo band doing a cheap imitation of Alice Cooper.

Metallica was outstanding both nights.

Great shows!
Fri: Same traffic sucked. My friends were working so we left late. Missed Pantera (we weren't mad about it) because we were in parking lot.

Sun: left earlier but the sun sucked. Went in for FFDP - really good. I had never really listened to them before.

Metallica was awesome both shows.
Little mad they didn't play anything from St. Anger (don't at me - I like it haha).

6 worst words in the English language:
Let's play some more new stuff

Also could have done without the Kirk/Rob "jam". Not a "jam band" fan. Couldn't name a single Phish sing. Cherry Garcia ice cream is the top (and possibly only) contribution to humanity.

 

[TDIrish27]

Some facts for this discussion:

Rutgers has been fully bought in since July 1, 2020.

Rutgers previously disclosed its expected distributions, taking into account the loan payments due. These numbers are listed below.

These numbers were made when the TV deal that just expired was known, but not the deal that is about to start, so the figures starting FY 2024 are likely higher.

Rutgers owes another ~$25 million in loan payments to the conference, which will be made over the next three years.

Year: B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution

(First number is other Big Ten schools, second number is Rutgers share; years begin on July 1, so as of today it is FY 2024)

• 2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
• 2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
• 2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
• 2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
• 2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
• 2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
• 2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
• 2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
• 2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
• 2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
• 2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
• 2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694

Conclusion: Rutgers will receive over $50 million from the Big Ten this year. This is more than every school in the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12, and has been comparable or better since July 1, 2020. We are actually in the fourth year now of Rutgers getting an amount that is close to other Big Ten schools. However, it is fair to point out that just as that happened, COVID messed up a year's worth of revenue (FY 2021).

I believe within the next 3-4 years you'll see Pay by Performance levels in most conferences.

No way the super heavyweights are going to stand by and allow equal distribution to programs in the conference that are winning 3-4 games a year while they're playing for championships.

 

[RUTGERS95]

I believe within the next 3-4 years you'll see Pay by Performance levels in most conferences.

No way the super heavyweights are going to stand by and allow equal distribution to programs in the conference that are winning 3-4 games a year while they're playing for championships.

not in BIG you wont' given the bylaws

 

[NickRU714]

I believe within the next 3-4 years you'll see Pay by Performance levels in most conferences.

No way the super heavyweights are going to stand by and allow equal distribution to programs in the conference that are winning 3-4 games a year while they're playing for championships.

"Pay by performance" or "pay by value" add?
Winning ddoesn't necessarily equal money.

I would assume a losing Rutgers still adds more $/year to the Big Ten than other more "successful" programs that are in less populous states.

Problem is that "fans" only look at on-field performance while actual business executives look at value.

Take ND for example: they haven't performed as well as other "heavyweights". But they would still add as much or more money than most other schools.
Would ND get reduced payouts if they joined a conference?

 

[retired711]

not in BIG you wont' given the bylaws

You're assuming it takes a super-majority or unanimous vote to change the bylaws. I haven't read the bylaws, but your assumption may not be correct. It might be that the bylaws can be changed by simple majority vote, which would make it relatively easy to change them at the expense of the worst-performing schools.

 

[e5fdny]

You're assuming it takes a super-majority or unanimous vote to change the bylaws. I haven't read the bylaws, but your assumption may not be correct. It might be that the bylaws can be changed by simple majority vote, which would make it relatively easy to change them at the expense of the worst-performing schools.

Well, if the majority isn't winning like the top two or three...

 

[retired711]

Well, if the majority isn't winning like the top two or three...

Old-fashioned coalition politics: the ones who want a change the most will make a proposal that is good enough for others to build a majority at the expense of the consistent losers.

 

[e5fdny]

Old-fashioned coalition politics: the ones who want a change the most will make a proposal that is good enough for others to build a majority at the expense of the consistent losers.

And make less?

Because everyone has a down period. What's to say the next time it happens "that might be me" mentality by those left.

 

[motorb54]

Hey Al, considering how important he was to Rutgers do you think you might get his name right?
Jim Delany. Not Delaney.

 

[365Poster24Seven]

LOL. We'd be lucky to get 5000 people to donate $20.

It’s so sad that we have the cheapest fan base in the BIG by a mile. We are the best at giving opinions so that’s something.

 

[retired711]

And make less?

Because everyone has a down period. What's to say the next time it happens "that might be me" mentality by those left.

Depends how they would do if they do well. I'm not saying it would be easy to put together a deal -- just that there's no guarantee the bylaws can't be changed.

 

[TDIrish27]

"Pay by performance" or "pay by value" add?
Winning ddoesn't necessarily equal money.

I would assume a losing Rutgers still adds more $/year to the Big Ten than other more "successful" programs that are in less populous states.

Problem is that "fans" only look at on-field performance while actual business executives look at value.

Take ND for example: they haven't performed as well as other "heavyweights". But they would still add as much or more money than most other schools.
Would ND get reduced payouts if they joined a conference?

We've won 53 games in the last 5 years-----that puts us at 6th overall.

We made the Playoffs. We're not capable of much better than that in the environment of today.

Not many are better than that obviously.

This " value " premise of yours is interesting.

Do you really think that people watch Penn St , Ohio St and Michigan games because Rutgers is in the Big Ten ?

Seriously ?

 

[brgRC90]

It’s so sad that we have the cheapest fan base in the BIG by a mile. We are the best at giving opinions so that’s something.

Our fans haven't been given much to root for. "Give us tons of money and we'll win with it" isn't as good a sales pitch as "give us more money and we'll give you even more to root for."

 

[365Poster24Seven]

Our fans haven't been given much to root for.

I’m sure once we start winning things will change. 🙄

 

[NickRU714]

We've won 53 games in the last 5 years-----that puts us at 6th overall.

We made the Playoffs. We're not capable of much better than that in the environment of today.

Not many are better than that obviously.

This " value " premise of yours is interesting.

Do you really think that people watch Penn St , Ohio St and Michigan games because Rutgers is in the Big Ten ?

Seriously ?

Nope.
But when those people watch OSU, PSU and UM the BTN earns more money because Rutgers is in the Big Ten.

I think the Big Ten makes huge amounts of money from having Rutgers.
See every report on the massive increase in carriage fees the BTN makes since Rutgers joined (including the article itself that started this thread).

Suppose ND goes into a lull and goes 5-7 but their viewership numbers stay the same.
Should NBC pay ND less? Even though the value to NBC maintained the same?

Fans need to stop thinking value is based on athletics.
Value is based on money generated - first second and third.

 

[brgRC90]

I’m sure once we start winning things will change. 🙄

Basketball is on the road. If they continue to succeed and donations don't come in then you can start to say things about the fanbase.

 

[RUTGERS95]

We've won 53 games in the last 5 years-----that puts us at 6th overall.

We made the Playoffs. We're not capable of much better than that in the environment of today.

Not many are better than that obviously.

This " value " premise of yours is interesting.

Do you really think that people watch Penn St , Ohio St and Michigan games because Rutgers is in the Big Ten ?

Seriously ?

you clearly don't understand tv markets and dma's

 

[huskersalways]

Nope.
But when those people watch OSU, PSU and UM the BTN earns more money because Rutgers is in the Big Ten.

I think the Big Ten makes huge amounts of money from having Rutgers.
See every report on the massive increase in carriage fees the BTN makes since Rutgers joined (including the article itself that started this thread).

Suppose ND goes into a lull and goes 5-7 but their viewership numbers stay the same.
Should NBC pay ND less? Even though the value to NBC maintained the same?

Fans need to stop thinking value is based on athletics.
Value is based on money generated - first second and third.

The big cable companies dropped NYC from being Big 10 market like they consider other states. They used the “Rutgers is not in NY” reasoning. The BTN gets $.49 in carriage fees from them till I think 2026 and then it will drop. There also has been almost a 50% drop in subscribers to pay the carriage fees due to cord cutting and streaming. Now it’s about what teams are being watched more so than where is a team. Carriage fees will always be a part of the revenue but nothing like 5 years ago. It’s what teams are being watched vs where a team is. ND averages 3.3mil viewers per game. There value will do nothing but go up with the way the industry is turning.

 

[e5fdny]

The big cable companies dropped NYC from being Big 10 market like they consider other states. They used the “Rutgers is not in NY” reasoning. The BTN gets $.49 in carriage fees from them till I think 2026 and then it will drop. There also has been almost a 50% drop in subscribers to pay the carriage fees due to cord cutting and streaming. Now it’s about what teams are being watched more so than where is a team. Carriage fees will always be a part of the revenue but nothing like 5 years ago. It’s what teams are being watched vs where a team is. ND averages 3.3mil viewers per game. There value will do nothing but go up with the way the industry is turning.

This. Said the same earlier in the thread.

It’s not the where or where from its who’s who.

Match up > geography.

Paul Taglibue was wrong back then, but now…not so much.

So while we do have to win, maybe not now but soon, our win is the same as WIN elsewhere. And that’s were our location helps.

 

[Scarlet16E]

The big cable companies dropped NYC from being Big 10 market like they consider other states. They used the “Rutgers is not in NY” reasoning. The BTN gets $.49 in carriage fees from them till I think 2026 and then it will drop. There also has been almost a 50% drop in subscribers to pay the carriage fees due to cord cutting and streaming. Now it’s about what teams are being watched more so than where is a team. Carriage fees will always be a part of the revenue but nothing like 5 years ago. It’s what teams are being watched vs where a team is. ND averages 3.3mil viewers per game. There value will do nothing but go up with the way the industry is turning.

Interested in your sources.

Regardless, considering the population of NYC, .49 per sub would still be a huge amount of revenue for BTN.
The cable cos did the same thing with the Philly market well before Rutgers was in the conference, iirc. And likewise, still a huge revenue source even at a reduced carriage rate.

 

[rutgersal]

The big cable companies dropped NYC from being Big 10 market like they consider other states. They used the “Rutgers is not in NY” reasoning. The BTN gets $.49 in carriage fees from them till I think 2026 and then it will drop. There also has been almost a 50% drop in subscribers to pay the carriage fees due to cord cutting and streaming. Now it’s about what teams are being watched more so than where is a team. Carriage fees will always be a part of the revenue but nothing like 5 years ago. It’s what teams are being watched vs where a team is. ND averages 3.3mil viewers per game. There value will do nothing but go up with the way the industry is turning.

Carriage Feess will be replaced by streaming fees. Whether BTN gets its revenue from the cable company or YouTube TV, doesn’t matter. They’re going to get paid. And if cable doesn’t carry BTN, like comcast in Florida, people will pay 79.95 to stream BTN plus.

 

[retired711]

Carriage Feess will be replaced by streaming fees. Whether BTN gets its revenue from the cable company or YouTube TV, doesn’t matter. They’re going to get paid. And if cable doesn’t carry BTN, like comcast in Florida, people will pay 79.95 to stream BTN plus.

But I've always thought there was a key difference between carriage fees and streaming fees. With carriage fees, it doesn't matter how many New York City area viewers watch Rutgers football - the Big Ten gets its large carriage fees just by having a member in the New York City viewing area. With streaming fees, it definitely matters how many viewers there are for Rutgers because people won't pay to stream games they don't watch. The more popular Rutgers games are, the better the Big Ten does. So we need (and I know you agree with this) to produce a winning team NOW.

The shift from carriage fees to streaming fees also helps explain why the Big Ten doesn't want Stanford or Cal. Getting them would increase the carriage fees in the San Francisco Bay Area (a major media market, although of course not as large as NYC), but, as streaming becomes more important, the Big Ten cares more about actual viewership.

BTW, Disney just reported earnings and it lost almost half a *billion* dollars last quarter on streaming. At the same time, its "linear" channels (like National Geographic) are losing viewership. Only ESPN continues to be profitable, although less so than it was. Disney is expected to shutter its channels other than ESPN, and may sell a share of ESPN to raise money. Incidentally, Disney's response to losing money on streaming is going to be to increase streaming fees to viewers rather than seek more viewers That strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

 

[Scarlet16E]

But I've always thought there was a key difference between carriage fees and streaming fees. With carriage fees, it doesn't matter how many New York City area viewers watch Rutgers football - the Big Ten gets its large carriage fees just by having a member in the New York City viewing area. With streaming fees, it definitely matters how many viewers there are for Rutgers because people won't pay to stream games they don't watch. The more popular Rutgers games are, the better the Big Ten does. So we need (and I know you agree with this) to produce a winning team NOW.

The shift from carriage fees to streaming fees also helps explain why the Big Ten doesn't want Stanford or Cal. Getting them would increase the carriage fees in the San Francisco Bay Area (a major media market, although of course not as large as NYC), but, as streaming becomes more important, the Big Ten cares more about actual viewership.

BTW, Disney just reported earnings and it lost almost half a *billion* dollars last quarter on streaming. At the same time, its "linear" channels (like National Geographic) are losing viewership. Only ESPN continues to be profitable, although less so than it was. Disney is expected to shutter its channels other than ESPN, and may sell a share of ESPN to raise money. Incidentally, Disney's response to losing money on streaming is going to be to increase streaming fees to viewers rather than seek more viewers That strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

That was the oft repeated theory that streaming would lead to ala carte viewing.
The reality of streaming has trended toward bundled streaming services that are really no different than packages offered by traditional cable cos. So the traditional revenue model ain’t going away.
Maybe a bit more diverse, but it’s still going to be part of the picture.

 

[retired711]

That was the oft repeated theory that streaming would lead to ala carte viewing.
The reality of streaming has trended toward bundled streaming services that are really no different than packages offered by traditional cable cos. So the traditional revenue model ain’t going away.
Maybe a bit more diverse, but it’s still going to be part of the picture.

Very true . . . but whether you can attract viewers to a bundled service depends on the overall desirability of what is being offered, and so the service will prefer to offer games that people will watch. You can see this with cable companies: their service is bundled, but nonetheless they don't offer channels that they think no one will watch. Note also that streaming services are doing very poorly (Disney has lost $11 billion on streaming in the last several years). So it is hard to know whether bundled service really is the future.

 

[rutgersal]

But I've always thought there was a key difference between carriage fees and streaming fees. With carriage fees, it doesn't matter how many New York City area viewers watch Rutgers football - the Big Ten gets its large carriage fees just by having a member in the New York City viewing area. With streaming fees, it definitely matters how many viewers there are for Rutgers because people won't pay to stream games they don't watch. The more popular Rutgers games are, the better the Big Ten does. So we need (and I know you agree with this) to produce a winning team NOW.

The shift from carriage fees to streaming fees also helps explain why the Big Ten doesn't want Stanford or Cal. Getting them would increase the carriage fees in the San Francisco Bay Area (a major media market, although of course not as large as NYC), but, as streaming becomes more important, the Big Ten cares more about actual viewership.

BTW, Disney just reported earnings and it lost almost half a *billion* dollars last quarter on streaming. At the same time, its "linear" channels (like National Geographic) are losing viewership. Only ESPN continues to be profitable, although less so than it was. Disney is expected to shutter its channels other than ESPN, and may sell a share of ESPN to raise money. Incidentally, Disney's response to losing money on streaming is going to be to increase streaming fees to viewers rather than seek more viewers That strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

For a while, streaming fees were artificially low to attract a customers base. YouTube started out at roughly $55 per month. Now, it’s 72.99 a month to mostly pay for the increased cost of the channels it carries, like BTN. They’ve got an installed user base of 5 Million. Hulu is 2nd with 4.5 million. The streaming model is different, with networks compensated based on views, rather than a set amount per subscriber. Whereas with the carriage model, cable companies are compensated based on a set amount per subscriber.

Now, with time and an increased user base, streaming fees are increasing. And what’s interesting is that cable companies are now offering streaming packages.

With regards to Cal and Stanford, the Big Ten has already estimated whether the Marginal Benefit of bringing them on exceeds the marginal cost that will be required to pay them. My guess is that their analysis shows that it doesn’t, which is why they’ve been mentioned with the ACC. But I hope to see them in the Big Ten, as I like visiting the area, as I have a lot of friends who live there. It wouldn’t surprise be if there are a lot of negotiations going on, behind the scenes. Getting Stanford gives the conference the best shot at getting Notre Dame. Which at that point, the conference will be printing money.

 

[retired711]

For a while, streaming fees were artificially low to attract a customers base. YouTube started out at roughly $55 per month. Now, it’s 72.99 a month to mostly pay for the increased cost of the channels it carries, like BTN. They’ve got an installed user base of 5 Million. Hulu is 2nd with 4.5 million. The streaming model is different, with networks compensated based on views, rather than a set amount per subscriber. Whereas with the carriage model, cable companies are compensated based on a set amount per subscriber.

Now, with time and an increased user base, streaming fees are increasing. And what’s interesting is that cable companies are now offering streaming packages.

With regards to Cal and Stanford, the Big Ten has already estimated whether the Marginal Benefit of bringing them on exceeds the marginal cost that will be required to pay them. My guess is that their analysis shows that it doesn’t, which is why they’ve been mentioned with the ACC. But I hope to see them in the Big Ten, as I like visiting the area, as I have a lot of friends who live there. It wouldn’t surprise be if there are a lot of negotiations going on, behind the scenes. Getting Stanford gives the conference the best shot at getting Notre Dame. Which at that point, the conference will be printing money.

As you say, viewership is now more important with the growth of streaming. That makes it crucial that Rutgers games attract more viewers, which means the team has to get better.

Disney is increasing treaming fees because marketing campaigns cost too much relative to the number of subscribers that are attracted. That could be a disastrous decision, just as increasing fares on a mass transit system only results in fewer customers.

I would love to see Cal and Stanford in the Big Ten. But I think that if it was going to happen this year, it would have. Cal and Stanford don't yet have the votes to get into the ACC and may never. The economics aren't good enough.

BTW, I think many people exaggerate the importance of Stanford in getting Notre Dame.

 

[rutgersguy1]

For a while, streaming fees were artificially low to attract a customers base. YouTube started out at roughly $55 per month. Now, it’s 72.99 a month to mostly pay for the increased cost of the channels it carries, like BTN. They’ve got an installed user base of 5 Million. Hulu is 2nd with 4.5 million. The streaming model is different, with networks compensated based on views, rather than a set amount per subscriber. Whereas with the carriage model, cable companies are compensated based on a set amount per subscriber.

Now, with time and an increased user base, streaming fees are increasing. And what’s interesting is that cable companies are now offering streaming packages.

With regards to Cal and Stanford, the Big Ten has already estimated whether the Marginal Benefit of bringing them on exceeds the marginal cost that will be required to pay them. My guess is that their analysis shows that it doesn’t, which is why they’ve been mentioned with the ACC. But I hope to see them in the Big Ten, as I like visiting the area, as I have a lot of friends who live there. It wouldn’t surprise be if there are a lot of negotiations going on, behind the scenes. Getting Stanford gives the conference the best shot at getting Notre Dame. Which at that point, the conference will be printing money.

I don’t think that’s correct with regards to carriage rates and YouTubeTV, Hulu etc..

YouTubeTv has to pay carriage rates just like the cable companies. They even had a dispute with Disney over it a year or two ago.

 

[Morrischiano]

We raised roughly $1.5 M last year from what I can remember for NIL for all sports.

We’ll probably be a small player, with regards to NIL and the majority of kids we recruit will be Non NIL.

Which is why it’s important to have good facilities so that we can better compete with other schools who aren’t big NIL players.

TikTok-Savvy College Athletes Can Make Up to $25,000 a Post
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ng-in-money-at-up-to-25-000-for-a-tiktok-post

 

[retired711]

TikTok-Savvy College Athletes Can Make Up to $25,000 a Post
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ng-in-money-at-up-to-25-000-for-a-tiktok-post

Notice that boosters do not play a role in this. These are transactions between athletes and third parties -- exactly what NIL was intended to allow.

 

[NickRU714]

Notice that boosters do not play a role in this. These are transactions between athletes and third parties -- exactly what NIL was intended to allow.

Exactly.
And pre NIL athletes weren't allowed to do this.
Even though their following and financial opportunities have nothing to do with being an athlete.

Olivia Dunne isn't making huge amounts of money because she's an LSU gymnast.

I think many of the "anti NIL" people don't realize how prevalent the "social media influencer" busniess is for HS/college kids. These kids are very valuable to brands and it has nothing to do athletics.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

It’s so sad that we have the cheapest fan base in the BIG by a mile. We are the best at giving opinions so that’s something.

Speak for yourself cheapo

 

[rutgersal]

I don’t think that’s correct with regards to carriage rates and YouTubeTV, Hulu etc..

YouTubeTv has to pay carriage rates just like the cable companies. They even had a dispute with Disney over it a year or two ago.

YouTube pays rates which are based on views, so their fees are different.

 

[rutgersguy1]

YouTube pays rates which are based on views, so their fees are different.

I don’t think that’s right are you sure. YouTube yes but YouTubeTv is just like cable. All these digital carriers pay carriage rates to the networks just like the cable companies do.