Tuesday 's guest column by Steven Bornstein is all about helping his NFL Network make even more money and shows a callous disregard for what cable, dish and telephone TV customers should really have.

Instead of having cable subscribers vote with their feet, as Bornstein suggests, they should vote with e-mails, letters and phone calls to their state senators and representatives requesting a really level playing field. What is really needed is for the state to pass a bill requiring the companies that provide television options to offer cafeteria-style choices.

For example, the customer pays so much for 15 channels, more for 25 channels, yet more for 35 channels and so on. And, excluding pay-per-view channels, the customer gets to choose which 15, 25 or 35 channels they want. If some channels can 't survive under this approach, then they go out of business -- that 's what a level playing field means. I am tired of paying for 50 to 100 channels that I will never watch.

I suspect that the Big 10 Network and the NFL Network would not have enough subscribers to survive. I also suspect that our legislators are far too beholden to the television industry to ever pass such a bill, because I don 't believe that cable company investors and CEOs are the only people getting paid under the current system of delivering cable television.

-- Robert E. Miller, Madison

NFL greed makes us appreciate cable TV

Regarding Steven Bornstein 's column on the NFL Network and cable companies, let me get this straight. The already mega-rich NFL creates a special channel for important NFL games and NFL Films material -- both of which had been widely available to loyal fans for decades -- and asks cable companies to pay to place it in their regular packages.

The cable companies agree to carry the NFL Network, but want to place it in a special sports tier so that their many customers who don 't care for sports don 't have to pay higher regular rates. (This is a problem because sports channels like NFL and ESPN are much more expensive than the channels Bornstein makes fun of in his column.) Just who is the real villain?

Also, Bornstein calls for cable companies to respect the free market, yet he boasts of the NFL 's efforts to get politicians to pressure the cable companies. Come again? Such shenanigans are symptomatic of the money hunger undermining both college and professional sports.

The NFL has managed to make a miracle happen: It has made me and many like me sympathetic to cable companies.

-- Don Downs, Verona

More of the same for cable customer service

I do not believe that the NFL Network and Big Ten Network have totally clean hands in the fiasco that is now making key games unavailable on local cable. However, Steven Bornstein is right on the mark in exposing the disingenuous actions of big cable companies such as Charter.

The way Charter treats its customers has always been sorry, but their resistance to negotiating in good faith with these independent programmers redefines the term "public be damned. "

The latest example: In the midst of trying to tell the public why we can 't have the NFL and Big Ten Networks, Charter has the audacity to send a letter to subscribers announcing yet another rate increase.

Since there will be no additional programs that anyone really wants, this increase will simply add to Charter 's earnings, or perhaps start to make up the revenue they 're losing from their growing number of disconnects.

As someone who has spent most of his professional life lobbying in favor of a competitive open market for business, it is difficult for me to say this, but the time has indeed arrived for Charter to receive stringent new government regulation.

-- Harry J. Argue, Middleton

Cable competition may solve problem

After reading the advertisement in a recent State Journal sports section, I 'll bet thousands of Madison-area sports fans are crying big crocodile tears for Charter Communications.

They really want to put the NFL Network on their service, and the Big Ten Network, too -- on their sports tier, of course, where they can charge extra. Charter misses the point entirely in their ad. You don 't have to be an "ardent sports fan " to want to see the Badgers and Packers play.

Fortunately, I live in a community where we have real cable competition. I left Charter more than a year ago for Genuine Telecom, a newer local service. When the NFL Network fired up, it appeared on our expanded basic service. The same thing happened with the Big Ten Network earlier this year. No hassle, no muss, no fuss -- and no extra charges.

I now have more cable channels, my telephone service is included, and my Internet service is faster. Plus, I save about $35 a month.

With all of its faults, the new cable competition bill may address this issue for communities in the state by allowing real cable competition. I just wish they would have built in protection for local access, a valuable community asset which we may still stand to lose.

-- Rod Perry, Richland Center

Network 's premise makes no sense

Regarding Steven Bornstein 's column, the NFL Network is, in effect, asking an admittedly monopolistic utility to pay it for content while prohibiting that same utility from passing on some or all of these costs to their monthly service subscribers. Do you know of any other suppliers dictating that kind of deal?

It sounds like insurance with no co-pay. You create potentially infinite consumption at no incremental cost. And the more the subscribers feast (for free), the more the utility pays the supplier per consumer.

Pay me, but give it away free? What kind of economic model -- or fantasy -- is that?

-- Brad Taylor, Madison

Both sides whine; consumers pay the bill

Steven Bornstein 's guest column is a lot of bunk. The issues with the NFL Network and Big Ten Network are the same.

On one side are the greedy NFL and Big Ten networks, along with the UW Athletic Department who wants to charge more for their games. Bornstein and the UW Athletic Department have long-term financial interests in selling these networks.

On the other side are the greedy satellite TV and big cable services who want to minimize their costs and maximize what they can charge consumers. Both sides know that both sides will win. They will come to some agreement and the consumers will pay more -- again. The word conspiracy comes to mind.

The flurry of self-righteous indignation in recent weeks by the networks, the athletic department and the TV service providers is best characterized as a Kabuki dance, a somewhat meaningless, tragicomedy with stylized action, performed by males only. It is a sad example of exploiting the public and getting away with it.

-- Bill Brown, Wisconsin Dells

Drop confrontational ads and make a deal

The ongoing dispute between the NFL and the large cable companies is an annoying and unproductive battle that has hurt fans across the country.

The NFL has done an excellent job of highlighting their case, but the fact of the matter is that the NFL is equally to blame in this dispute. Their asking price for the channel is high, given the very few number of live games.

In fact, if they saved all their "drop cable " advertising dollars and just cut the price, we 'd probably have a deal by now.

-- Brian Hellmer, Fitchburg

Be careful -- football fans may revolt, too

Tuesday 's guest column by Steven Bornstein, CEO of the NFL Network, was disingenuous, to say the least, just as disingenuous as spokespeople for the Big Ten Network have been.

In Bornstein 's haste to brand Comcast, Time Warner and Charter as the heavies, he overlooks one salient point: Until the NFL and Big Ten Networks came along, I was able to see virtually every game, Packers and Badgers, courtesy of Charter Communications or "free TV. "

Because the NFL Network and Big Ten Network start-ups occurred prior to successful negotiations with the major cable companies, it was the former entities that took these games away from the fans, not Charter.

But Charter is not blameless, at least when it comes to negotiating with the new sports networks. For Charter to say that subscribers don 't want to pay more for their favorite teams is ludicrous. Charter gives me the Food Channel, the Travel Channel, the Oprah Channel... I don 't want them. I want my Badgers and Packers!

The current impasse is reminiscent of the 1994 Major League Baseball strike during which millionaire owners squabbled with millionaire players. It might behoove both sides to remember the result: Millions of fans were disillusioned when they realized the owners and players cared not for them but only for their own already swollen wallets. Fans left the game for other pursuits for years.

So a pox on all -- the NFL Network, the Big Ten Network and Charter. Your greed turns my stomach, and I believe in capitalism.

-- Bill Sumner, Madison