ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles 329
Mr D from 63 writes: ESPN isn't a fan of Verizon's new way of offering cable channels under its Fios TV service — they're now suing Verizon for it. The lawsuit comes after Verizon unveiled new bundles that allow customers to choose specific packages of channels that can be swapped every 30 days. ESPN claims this offer is not in compliance with their agreements with Verizon. In the U.S., ESPN depends heavily on viewership during the football season, then basketball. "ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, but that must be done in compliance with our agreements," said an ESPN spokeswoman in a statement. "We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts."
well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
If Verizon is in fact breaking a contract it has with ESPN then all I can say is that it is a horrible contract.
I don't watch TV, haven't for more years than I can remember, I don't care for commercials and I don't care for the content. I have 0 (zero) interest in watching any sports on TV whatsoever, never had any interest in watching sports, never will have any interest in watching sports.
Just saying, forcing somebody like me to sign up for a service that provides sports information as part of the package is a 100% way to have me avoid that service.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Forced inclusion of expensive channels that I never watch was the primary driver of me dropping my cable sub. I was thinking about doing Dish's Sling TV, but it has guess what as part of the base package? ESPN. I don't want to give that fucking company a dime, even if Sling TV is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
I'd happily give up ESPN off sling to get something actually worthwhile. I haven't gone to ESPN even once on sling.
Re: (Score:3)
ESPN is great if
1. You're a fan of the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox
2. You're a fan of the New England Patriots
3. You're a fan of LeBron James
Otherwise, it sucks giant donkey dongs.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect Verizon is violating the contract. The only question is whether the contract holds up in court.
ESPN does this to prevent people signing up for just one season of sports. But it holds back the options the cable companies provide.
Re: (Score:3)
But how is this different from any other cable company? If I'm not under contract, I was under the impression that I could change my service level any time I wanted.
I thought the problem was the to get channels X, Y, and Z, I had to also agree to pay for channels A, B, and C. Not that I couldn't drop all of those as a whole whenever I wanted.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Informative)
Don't like it? Fine no Disney/ABC/ESPN channels for you! And no Marvel or Star Wars titles. And no Muppets while we're at it. You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Funny)
Why make your kids cry? www.thepiratebay...
Re: (Score:2)
You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?
- yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't like it? Fine no Disney/ABC/ESPN channels for you! And no Marvel or Star Wars titles. And no Muppets while we're at it.
And nothing of value was lost... (I was almost going to say "except for maybe the Marvel movies", but then I realized: outside of their initial theater runs, I've not watched a damn one of them aside from filler noise at friends houses, and I have no desire to.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Verizon is in fact breaking a contract it has with ESPN then all I can say is that it is a horrible contract.
I don't watch TV, haven't for more years than I can remember, I don't care for commercials and I don't care for the content. I have 0 (zero) interest in watching any sports on TV whatsoever, never had any interest in watching sports, never will have any interest in watching sports.
Just saying, forcing somebody like me to sign up for a service that provides sports information as part of the package is a 100% way to have me avoid that service.
If you're that picky about your carriers and contracts, I wonder how the hell you own a cell phone.
There are a lot of features on that device that I have no interest in running, never had any interest in running, and will never have any interest in whatsoever, and yet there it is, sucking my battery dry.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:4, Insightful)
If Verizon is in fact breaking a contract it has with ESPN then all I can say is that it is a horrible contract.
It's nothing new. The NFL Network did (and probably still does) something similar. They had a contractual requirement that they be part of the "basic cable" package and not a special sports tier, and at the same time wanted to get paid per viewer, which means that they get paid for every subscriber that a carrier has, regardless of whether they want the channel or not.
ESPN and Verizon both realize the same thing, lots of people don't care about sports and lots of people are aware that ESPN is one of the most expensive channels to carry. Consumers want out of paying for crap they don't care about, Verizon wants to hold onto video subscribers, and ESPN wants to keep their gravy train rolling.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Verizon for signing this "bad contract", blame Disney.
Disney refuses to sell ANY of its vast portfolio of content to ANY cable provider unless that provider agrees to put ESPN in the base package.
The problem for Disney is that if they allow cable companies to separate out ESPN (into a separate "sports" package, into a higher tier or on its own) then the number of ESPN customers drops dramatically (those who never watch it and those who watch it but wouldn't pay for it separately) which means they have to spread the cost of buying all that expensive sport across far fewer customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is when the choice is all or none. They have the end providers over a barrel in that regard. Just look what happened here in WV when Suddenlink got in a spat over the contract with Viacom. All the Viacom channels were removed hurting the business of that provider.
A contract by coercion is by definition a bad one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is when the choice is all or none. They have the end providers over a barrel in that regard.
Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion. Also, the "end providers" aren't over a barrel, the customers are. The providers provide what the customers want, and that usually includes ESPN, whether you like it or not. I hope that changes very soon, but too many people still want to watch sports. If ESPN can get providers to agree that their channel is a part of every base package because demand is so high, then good for the
Re: (Score:3)
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
The title of this should be something along the lines of: "ESPN sues because it doesn't think Verizon is meeting it's contract." Nothing much more about it. It doesn't matter what anyone else really thinks... if the two of them entered a contract, then both sides are legally required to oblige by it.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:4, Informative)
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Seriously? That's the best you have? It's OK for asshole cable companies to force you to buy something you don't want, and if you don't like that you're free to not have cable at all?
Complete and utter fucking nonsense.
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Yeah, sorry. fuck that.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:4, Insightful)
It's horrible to you, but illegal? Which law or case establishes that?
And yes, personal choice is the best that I have. I cut the cable cord years ago. How is that nonsense? At least in the US we have a choice about what we pay for (probably in other countries too, but you never know). Bundling is common with many things, and has been the standard in the cable industry since its inception. How is this any different? It's suddenly illegal and falls under RICO? How many legal dramas do you watch?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Isn't that all cable bundling? You pay for channels you don't want so you can watch the few channels you do want. Besides, TFA doesn't disclose what the Verizon-ESPN contract actually says.
This episode reminds me of when Steve Jobs claimed Apple was always against DRM in iTunes but had to roll with it so the record labels would sell on iTunes. Right. Just like I'm sure Verizon has always hated charging you for huge cable packages. They're just trying to find a way to secure revenue a little while longer be
Paying for channels we don't watch (Score:5, Informative)
You pay for channels you don't want so you can watch the few channels you do want.
The communications director at a local cable service provider once told me the problem with ESPN: it's the most expensive channel [consumerist.com] in their entire cable lineup. They would love to separate it out and treat it a-la-carte like HBO, but their agreements don't allow for it. Either everyone gets it, or no one does. And he said everyone gets it, because whenever the feed goes out for that channel, their switchboards light up like a Christmas tree. (He also mentioned that the other channel that customers most hate to lose is Lifetime, though that's not nearly as expensive.)
It's extortion, plain and simple. Though ESPN is only partly to blame...the NFL, NBA, and NCAA are also guilty for making game broadcasting rights so pricy.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Seriously? That's the best you have? It's OK for asshole cable companies to force you to buy something you don't want, and if you don't like that you're free to not have cable at all?
Complete and utter fucking nonsense.
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Yeah, sorry. fuck that.
I'm not sure what legal argument and case law you are using for your argument; but there is nothing illegal about a company offering a bundle of services on a take it or leave it basis. You might not like it, but they can offer their product in any way they chose; no one is forcing you to get a cable subscription. RICO? Seriously? Your argument is like saying McD's and their hamburger supplier are violating RICO laws since the burger maker gets a kickback overtime McD's sells a burger and you can't buy just the bun without paying for the burger as well. To make it a /. preferred car analogy, forcing you to do that through the drive through.
As for your "it's not good for the consumer" argument I'd counter argue that it is good because the bundle price is probably less than what it would cost to get a separate set of channels a la cart; since ether bundle spreads the cost around a lot of consumers. In auditor, it makes channels you may be interested in but have very low actual viewership sustainable since they get money form all subscribers, not just the 2 that actually watch them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Well, the contract doesn't require that consumers pay EPSN. The contract requires that Verizon pays ESPN. Verizon could theoretically offer ESPN to their customers for the 5 months of football season, and then drop the rates during the rest of the year. However, that wouldn't absolve Verizon from having to pay ESPN for the entire year. But that's Verizon's problem.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got this backwards. The consumer has no standing because they never contracted with ESPN. The contract is between ESPN and Verizon. Customers are never paying ESPN. Verizon is paying ESPN. Customers are paying Verizon, but that doesn't give them standing on a contract between ESPN and Verizon. Just like if you bought something from Walmart, that doesn't give you standing to modify Walmart's wages to their employees.
Legally, the proper solution is for Verizon to charge all customers enough so that they can fulfill their contractual obligation to ESPN. If their contract says they need to pay ESPN $10/mo per customer (regardless of whether they view ESPN), then Verizon just needs to pay that and they've satisfied the terms of their contract with ESPN.
If Verizon wants to then turn around and charge ESPN-viewing customers $20/mo to cover their shortfall (assuming half their customers don't want ESPN), then that is between Verizon and their customer, and ESPN has no standing. In fact that's probably what Verizon is going for here - they're trying to collect real data on exactly what percentage of their customers are willing to pay for ESPN and how much, so they can use those figures for negotiations with ESPN.
Totally different. Verizon isn't telling you to send a check to ESPN. They're offering you a price for your cable package, and you're agreeing to pay that price. If Verizon decides to use some of the money they received from you to pay ESPN or Vinnie or for hookers and blow, you have no standing. You got the cable package you wanted at a price you agreed to pay.
Re: (Score:3)
I once had to go with my wife to an Opera. That, I believe, qualifies as suffering.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it. It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable. I understand why ESPN would want that language in there because if I were interested only in football, I could subscribe for those five months and not the others. What ESPN wants is my money year-round, and it sounds like Verizon agreed to promise ESPN just that by signing the contract. Maybe it says something different as Verizon claims, but ultimately I fear there will just be some settlement and we'll go back to the status quo.
This is actually why I don't have cable TV. I do not want to pay for a hundred channels when I want to watch five, and given how so many of the channels that I used to enjoy like Discovery, History, Learning, Scifi, have all gone lowest-common-denominator for their programming, I don't have a lot of reason to watch those channels either anymore.
I was about ten years too late when I was free to make my own television choices; I would have loved C-band satellite where one could subscribe to the channels o
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
What planet are you on?
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Funny)
He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it doesn't apply, and that's the point. This person, like myself, avoids TV, because I simply don't want to pay for all this stuff. I might pay for/watch TV if companies offered me acceptable choices.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong, maybe I would subscribe and watch TV if and only if it was something I found entertaining, convenient and at a correct price.
Give me a service I want to buy and then I can be a customer again, but I voted with my money, so don't you fucking tell me what I can and cannot say.
Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a company doesn't operate in a way I like, the best way to express that... is to invest in them? I don't think you thought that one through completely.
ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely nothing innovative about what they do other than pick the pockets of every cable/satellite subscriber in the country. It is attitudes like theirs that are pushing more and more people to just cut the cord and build their own a-la-carte bundles from Netflix or Hulu.
awwww, poor sports, no game ball for YOU (Score:2)
what's going to eventually happen is dynamic channel switching, a return to the old days when youi "paid" for channel 6 while you watched it (in the 50s, by watching commercials and maybe trying the Swanson's dinner sponsoring the program.) in other words, customers either create their OWN bundles, or from the availiable channels, they pick what they want now, and are post-view billed for the usage. there will be no free rides in the 210-channel bundle for the Disney Outtakes Channel, or ESPN 17: pick-up
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that's where it's headed at least not in the way you describe. The trend is towards on demand streaming. Even HBO who I thought would be the last is one of the first with their no landline subscription needed access to their on demand service.
There may be usage based billing, but a set fee makes more sense so that even if people get really busy and barely watch anything for a while, companies still make their money.
Some cable companies are looking into turning essentially every channel int
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh, but I don't want to each sports. Ever. And even if I did, ESPN effectively only has basketball and football - if there are other sports you want you are almost always out of luck as well. And yet I have to pay for it whether I want it or not.
And what do they do with all of the money that they pick from our pockets? They overpay for the rights to televise sports. The scandals involving the huge amounts of money out there for both college football and basketball are directly related to how much TV money is floating around out there.
And I would venture a guess that there are a far more people out there who don't watch sports that you might think there are.
Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score:4, Interesting)
ESPN is the most expensive channel on cable, and it comprises probably close to HALF the cost of basic cable - ESPN charges cable providers around $12/month/subscriber.
Contrast with History or Discovery - you can get every channel on either network for under $1/month/subscriber - the amount you pay on basic cable for each amounts to under 50 cents. And practically all the cable channels are paid like that - well under a quarter each.
That's why ESPN is angry - because having every subscriber pay it tons of money every month is a great business model - including those who don't want it.
History repeats itself (Score:3)
A pox on both their mansions.
Re: (Score:3)
There's the rub though - if you are a sports fan, it is very very difficult to "cut the cord". ESPN knows this and unlike many other channels they have a ton of leverage because of it. In a very real sense, they are the sole remaining profit center for cable TV.
Re: (Score:3)
ESPN is by far the most expensive channel block... every subscriber pays about $5/month for ESPN, whether or not they watch any sports.
Bundling is what keeps most channels alive, via bundling subsidy. Anything that even remotely represents a la carte will be fought by the content providers.
Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that the home shopping and religious channels usually pay the cable company to be included. Those channels are subsidizing your other programming and your cost would be (slightly) higher without them.
Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 80's predicted cable would expand to thousands of channels. Hyper specific channels so at any one time you could find the exact programming you desire and keep your eyeballs glued to the screen. And ESPN, with their multiple channels, was the first to the gate. They fantasied for twenty years how much revenue they could pull with lots of channels serving hyper specific programming.
Too bad the prediction was off by a delivery mechanism. Hyper specific info streams are the norm, but it isn't the product of TV studios.
This is them getting pissy that reality keeps diverging more from their plan. They're fighting back as much as possible trying to salvage it.
ESPN delenda est (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ESPN delenda est (Score:5, Insightful)
I would gladly pay more for a bundle that did not include ESPN, or any of the other "sports" networks, or Empty-V or any of its myriad clones. Or the shopping channels.
Wait, you would gladly pay more for less?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, less *is* more... Many people pay for the exclusion of advertisements on websites.
Re: (Score:2)
I would gladly pay more for a bundle that did not include ESPN
WTF?! Save your money and just don't watch them. You can even set up a favorites list so you never even see them when channel surfing. Don't give Veromcast-warner any ideas that there are morons out there who would pay more for less just to make a statement or we'll all start seeing channel exclusion fees!
And who the hell gave you +4 for that?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ESPN delenda est (Score:4, Interesting)
[Citation needed]
I mean, that's true in theory, but in practice, since the [OTA] digital switchover, the cable company where I live has been getting away with downgrading stuff that would be 1080i with an antenna to 480p (unless you pay an extra bribe for them to leave it HD), and omitting broadcast subchannels entirely.
Why would a non-sports person have cable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I could have gotten a cable package without sports channels (which would have been much cheaper than anything actually offered), I might actually still have it. As it is, the cable company lost me as a customer in part because of their dumbass deal with ESPN.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yesss... I was also born without the "sports gene"... It puzzles me why otherwise seemingly normal people go absolutely bonkers over a bunch of guys on a field chasing a ball and beating each other senseless, better known as football... Or what passes for the other "national pastime", baseball... Which is why I'm really tired of getting charged a fairly large sum of money (~$5/mo) for that ESPN crap.. I'd gladly cut the cord, and do streaming of what few shows I care to watch over my 50/12 cable internet
Re: (Score:2)
I pay less than a third of what I did with cable for my streaming services and have an easier time finding the content I want when I want it. My sons enjoy it also but tend to complain when football season starts because none of the services I have do sports.
Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable? It's the only reason for having a TV anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The sports thing is only really important to me during college football season, other than that, I don't watch it.
But I would miss all the different cable news networks, I tend to default to them when nothing else is on, etc...
If I could stream and get all those, I'd likely cut the cable too. Right now I'm experimenting with an indoor HDTV OTA antenna and NF/Amazon streaming to see h
Re: (Score:2)
The sports thing is only really important to me during college football season, other than that, I don't watch it.
Ditto. That and Formula 1 as well. Those are really the only two sports I would regularly watch. When the World Cup comes around I would watch that as well.
Aside from that, don't really care to watch any other sports. As Homer said when he was at a baseball game after he had given up drinking beer, "I never realized how boring this game is."
Growing pains (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cue the whiners (Score:3, Insightful)
There's about to be way too many comments about how ESPN sucks and cable companies suck and everyone sucks for not giving me what I want. There's about to be not nearly enough comments about shutting up and voting with your dollars. Guess who enables this behavior? People who pay for it. Guess who has an option? People who pay for it. Guess who was never forced to pay for it? People who pay for it.
Aside from all that, Verizon still has to abide by the contracts. It's irrelevant how shitty the contract is for whom or what could be done which is better for consumers.
Re:Cue the whiners (Score:4, Insightful)
Well dude, It looks like Verizon was trying to give people the option to vote with their wallets, and ESPN is preventing that (or trying to.)
Re: (Score:2)
nope, you can still vote with your wallet. just convince enough people to make verizon's financial burden more costly for keeping ESPN and losing you than the other way around.
Just stop using verizon unless they drop ESPN.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a single cable or satellite provider that doesn't include ESPN as a part of the basic package. That's the whole point - ESPN insists that these terms be in the contract so that they can spread the costs to the myriad of people that don't watch sports.
The other thing that torques me about Verizon is that they recently dropped the Weather Channel in favor of McWeather. Most of the time TWC is boring and repetitive, but when there is a tropical storm or snowstorm, you can get very good and usefu
Re: (Score:2)
i'm saying, just convince people to stop watching TV altogether, you've always got that option. but ESPN is betting that they can dictate these terms because, at the end of the day, the people that want it, really really want and would stop watching TV without ESPN, and the people that don't want it, don't care enough to stop watching TV over it.
Re: (Score:3)
What are these multiple providers of which you speak?
Where I live we have the choice of Time-Warner cable or no cable, and there's no sign of that changing in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
NAILED IT!
Re:Cue the whiners (Score:4, Insightful)
In the United States, contracts are understood by the letter, so if it isn't explicitly written, then it isn't enforceable (as opposed to say high context cultures, where there's strong enforcement of "implied" language.)
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Also of note is that in the end even if ESPN wins in court, Verizon still does not have to do what ESPN wants them to do. In American contract law, it is always cold hard cash that makes the harmed party "whole." The court will put a dollar value on the contract breach and award it to the plaintiff if Verizon wants out of the contract.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> There's about to be not nearly enough comments about shutting up and voting with your dollars.
Why should you expect the two to be mutually exclusive?
You're just a jerk and a corporate toadie.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who apparently doesn't realize he can not pay for something he doesn't want.
Re:Cue the whiners (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the only real option you have is abstaining. You don't want this behaviour? No cable TV for you. Because there's no such thing as a "channel mix" that you want. Have you ever taken a look at the average "basic mix" of channels? Nobody, absolutely nobody, on this planet would choose these channels. No matter what his interests.
If you're not happy with this, your choice is to do without. Not only without the channels you don't want, but also the ones that you would want. Don't want Sports and Bible TV? Ok, no SciFi for you either.
And most people would rather grin and bear it than abstain. Essentially what it means to them is that they don't get the 100+ channels promised but actually just about 10, with 90+ more that could as well not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there are some shows that I have seen adverts for that look cool, but I'm not forking out a premium cable subscription for 1-2 shows a month.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the only real option you have is abstaining.
The problem here is that some people for some extremely bizarre reason think that stuff like cable television is a necessity. Because of this they think that abstaining causes them harm.
The facts are that if you are paying $150/month for your deluxe cable package, then you must think that its actually worth it. All the bitching about the cost is a dishonesty because its not a god damned necessity you god damned imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon still has to abide by the contracts.
And who claims they aren't, aside from ESPN? Abusing the court system to impede (otherwise legitimate) things isn't some rare phenomena one shouldn't suspect. Or Verizon may think it feasible to break the terms by having the terms found "anti-competitive," possibly on the basis of tying [wikipedia.org].
Getting wrapped around the contract dispute axle misses the point. The point of this story is that a major access provider is finally, at long last, breaking the logjam and at least starting to move in a desirable direc
Re: (Score:2)
No, the point is you can't get cable WITHOUT ESPN's nonsense. No cable at all is not a reasonable option just because you don't want to pay for sports channels you don't give a rats ass about....
Terms and Conditions. (Score:4, Informative)
"We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts."
Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.
Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them. Sure, I understand that a-la-carte programming *may* be expensive - at the moment - but I imagine business models and revenue streams will adapt as time goes on. In the mean time, Disney can kiss my shiny metal ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: And force people to pay for stuff they don't want.
Neither ESPN nor Verizon can force you to pay for things you don't want. Verizon can force you to pay the rate they set for the packages they sell, but they can't force you to buy one. And ESPN has even less control over what you buy or don't buy.
Personally, I've *never* (ever) watched any of the ESPN channels and am annoyed at having to pay for them.
Ok. There are channels I never watch, too.
But keep in mind that this is a contract dispute between Verizon and ESPN. Verizon entered this contract with ESPN to be able to sell ESPN content and has made quite a bit of money by doing so. You appear to be on the
30% (Score:2, Insightful)
People realize that 111 million people tuned in for the superbowl in the US right? out of a population of 320 million? a good portion of that 1 in 3 americans loves the hell out of their cable package with sports.
wow, go figure, slashdot is full of people who have no fondness of hand-egg ball and ball stick throw, and run run kick kick net.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the issue here is the people who want get the football channels in football season, but don't want the baseball channels in baseball season or the football channels not in football season for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Super Bowl XLIX was broadcast on NBC. What was your point? That people subscribe to ESPN for the Super Bowl?
Not. Reset. Try again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People realize that 111 million people tuned in for the superbowl in the US right? out of a population of 320 million? a good portion of that 1 in 3 americans loves the hell out of their cable package with sports.
Talk about a leap of logic. There's lots of people (myself included) for whom the Super Bowl is the only football game they're interested in watching.
To suggest that someone wants a year-round pay channel based on the viewership of a single night makes you sound like an ESPN shill.
Re:30% (Score:4, Informative)
Superbowl was on a OTA channel, no subscription required
All cable providers should try this (Score:5, Insightful)
I know if my mother-in-law had just the Hallmark channel, the game show network and one other she'd switch providers, even it only saved her 30%.
Alternatively, if there was a way to just get Netflix to stream random stuff in preselected genres all day I could get her off cable altogether - tens of millions of people just want the TV on all the time because they live alone, but can't stand the crap the broadcast networks have during the day and have no need for ESPN.
PseudoTV on XBMC (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been surprised to see how many people like this method of interfacing with their video content libraries more than selecting something they'd like to watch.
Hmmm ... (Score:2)
Is ESPN somehow asserting that Verizon signed a contract requiring all of its customers receive ESPN?
Because that sounds like a load of horseshit to me.
This is all about broadcasters acting like their service is intrinsic to receiving cable, and that consumers should be required to subsidize their revenues.
Fuck you, ESPN.
Begun, the content wars have (Score:4, Insightful)
All of these companies are just going to sue themselves into oblivion. They've been raping and pillaging for so long, they don't know how to run an honest business. Too bad they are going to cause so much collateral damage on the way down.
Piss on ESPN (Score:2)
Waste of money, if a customer doesn't want the Sprots package, shouldn't have to pay for it...
Re: (Score:2)
bloody typos...
Driving down the cost of content (Score:3)
This is another attempt at a Cable Company attempting to dictate the pricing that a content provider demands. Recently Verizon got rid of the Weather Channel. I for one applaud it because unlike a weather service, it's become a drama pump for all Comcast/NBC shit that the wouldn't put on the other channels. Especially during the evenings where instead of getting weather information you're getting "digging for rocks on mountains with pick axes" or "weather disasters that happened decades ago." Bah!
I think this is a double-ended play by VZ, one to squeeze the content providers and two to squeeze the consumers at some future point because they channels you had now are just going to cost you more because we "unbundled it for you" just like electricity providers unbundled the power generating services from the wires into your home. Yeah, that never works out well.
Those of us withOUT the "Sports Gene".... (Score:3)
Those of us who were born without the "sports gene" would seriously LOVE to be able to get a tv package withOUT that ESPN crap.. Of course, if it didnt heavily contribute to the cost of the tv package, I wouldn't care, but since it DOES add to the package cost, it could die a gruesome death as far as I'm concerned. You GO, Verizon... Kick those ESPN lawyers in the ass....
what if the consumer doesn't watch sports? (Score:3)
This is one of the reasons I no longer pay for cable. What I can't get off the antenna on the roof or streaming, I do without.
But just assuming I wanted to pay $100+ a month for TELEVISION, the thing that would grate on me more than anything else is to be paying for, subsidizing if you will, content in which I have not the slightest interest.
In cases like MSNBC, where real viewership has dropped to the point where it no longer justifies advertising dollars, and the only thing keeping the station (and others -- I'm unfairly picking on MSNBC) is the contracts that the cable providers are locked into. The thing is, sports are (so they tell me) POPULAR, people actually *want* to watch them, will pay extra for sports packages on cable and satellite, and can be furious when a game is blacked out in their area. This is the least likely content type to care about being subsidized by the cable industry. What am I missing here?
Re: (Score:2)
SOME people like sports. All I say is that those people who do should cover the 100% of the costs of what they watch, and not get need to get a subsidy from the rest of us.
Hooray for Verizon, kind of (Score:4, Insightful)
Hooray for Verizon for trying to challenge the fucked up cable system. Maybe, just maybe, they see end of "cable" as a thing when anything can be streamed instead and want to stave this off by making at least kind of sane channel choices available.
Well, kind of. I think they made a lot of this mess for themselves. I think the TV channel sources saw the cable companies successfully ratchet up the prices continuously and figured they needed to be in on that money bandwagon. Enter in all the must-carry bundles and tier requirements and all the bullshit that got us to 800 channels of nothing for $150/month (and not even HBO, damnit).
And the cable companies didn't care because they could just pass off the costs to their customers through ever higher prices and announce "Wow! We've added even more high value content, ESPN Classic 4 -- all those great historic bocce tournaments from the 1950s".
And both the channel providers and the cable companies got fat and sassy.
And now everyone hates cable, hates paying $150/month for a bunch of channels they never watch and is dropping it as fast as they can.
Re:first (Score:5, Insightful)
First what?
First time you'll ever see me actually root for Verizon? If so, yes. First.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is more "if you allow football fans to switch ESPN off outside of football season, we'll have to make all the money off him in, what, 6 months. So it'll look to double his monthly fee to see games. Which may cause him to turn it off.
Whereas, an annual membership to something that includes football feels different, even if you only happen to use it for football and only 1/2 the time.
I think it's a real concern for ESPN, and something that will make people's lives worse... but the later only beca
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, by giving everyone all channels, it enables channel drift, where a channel devoted to say Sci-Fi, slowly shifts away from science fiction to garbage. Why? Because people get the channel that don't want Sci-Fi.
Re: (Score:2)
We have purchases in bundles all the time. Buffets make you pay for all the foods; Gym memberships make you pay for all the machines; even Citizenship is a "yes/no" with tons of consequences. I disagree on face with your statement about how it's unfair.
That said, I personally do not want to pay for ESPN. I too want an option not to buy it. But that seems to be a sec