ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

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."

Comments

well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Networks have all but got rid of commercials (most of them) and no one really carries sports anymore.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[ArmoredDragon]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[edawstwin]

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.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[ArhcAngel]

Disney (they own ESPN) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels. Oh, and if you offer it on your base tier package then you must offer all of it on the base tier package.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing your kid a favor by telling them they can't watch Disney channels.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Opportunist]

Why make your kids cry? www.thepiratebay...

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[JimFive]

The fact that both parties agreed to it does not mean that it isn't a horrible contract. People sometimes agree to things that turn out to be bad.
--
JimFive

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

What planet are you on?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[pnutjam]

They should vilify ESPN and make it seem like they won't ever agree to sane contracts and imply they are destroying the industry. Probably true in this case, but even if it's not, it worked on Unions.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[edawstwin]

It's not a bad contract as in no company is getting screwed over due to ignorance of the law (or some other reason). Teams of lawyers certainly went over it in detail and both parties knew exactly what they were getting into. If ESPN got Verizon to sign something saying "your customers must keep ESPN for twelve consecutive months" then Verizon must oblige. Again, this sucks for the customer, but it is not a bad contract.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[meglon]

... but it is still a contract.

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

[chipschap]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[gstoddart]

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it

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.

It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable

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

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to do things like that as kids in school: I had some special paper for maps, one of classmates needed just a sheet, but I told him either 3 or nothing. These parasitic MBA assholes are not inventing anything that has been known for ages.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[penix1]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[edawstwin]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[geekmux]

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

[SeaFox]

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

[edawstwin]

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 them.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[JimFive]

You seem to be using the term "bad contract" as if it is some sort of term of art in contract law. I don't think anyone is saying that the contract is bad as in unenforceable, I think they're saying it's bad as in it was a bad decision to agree to it.
--
JimFive

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

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

[TWX]

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 one wanted and only those channels, as opposed to being stuck with packages. If ESPN's business model collapses when consumers are not forced to pay for their service whether they use it or not, then their business model is flawed and deserves to collapse.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

>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?

Perhaps we can use this reasoning to force amusement parks and theaters to allow outside food and drinks.

On second thought, how about not. You're not going to suffer if you don't go to Cedar Point, you're not going to suffer if you don't see The Frail and The Feeble 13, you're not going to suffer if you don't subscribe to cable.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately for ESPN, you are still in the minority of US households. While I realize that for a minority of households a lack of a la carte programming is a deal-breaker, the majority still sign up for paid TV subscriptions.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

My phone is unlocked, I use it in many different countries, it runs exactly what I allow it to and at the end I need it to talk to people.

I don't need a TV, it's an optional entertainment channel, it's not the primary one, so I don't see how it is the same thing at all. If I had to use the TV to talk to people and had no choice but to pay for some idiotic football game I would never watch and have 0 interest in, that would be one thing, but I don't have to use my TV to talk to people! I use a phone to do it and I have many choices in phones, carriers, services I buy and programs I run.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

>Yes, let's teach our kids to take something which someone has spent time and money to produce without paying for it.

You're against taxes (and what they get spent on) then? Hey, I am too, but most people who are pro-copyright are pro-government, so it's odd to meet someone who wants copyright without government. Not sure how the hell that will work.

>I'm sure this will go over well when they're out taking products off the shelf and claiming their parents taught it was okay to steal something.

Sucks your parents failed so hard they couldn't educate you on the difference between taking someone's things and duplicating their things. I'll fill you in: One means the person can't ever use that thing again. The other means you both get one. As you can imagine, being that this distinction is so basic, even the law understands the difference and would never charge someone for theft if they made an illegal copy of something (since then they'd walk out of the courtroom a free man).

As for if duplication hurts someone, the only time I've seen proof of that is counterfeit goods being sold as the real deal at full price. Every single other time, the duplicates are sold as fakes at cheap prices, or simply given away free. Hard to gauge if George Lucas would have sold a boxed set of Star Wars to someone who pirated it without going into a very detailed breakdown of their finances and their opinion of the movie/produce pre-purchase.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[poetmatt]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?

- yes.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[RavenLrD20k]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be horrible for ISPs to provide you with high-throughput connections to Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and whatever else and charge you for it instead of allowing you to choose which interchanges you want to pay for? Or should they allow you to choose which ones you want to access in a speedy manor, possibly charging different amounts for each one based on demand for them? Don't be a hypocrite.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[chispito]

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it

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 before online distribution really loosens up.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[hackwrench]

Suffer, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering> The opposite of suffering is pleasure. So if he would experience pleasure if he could have those experiences on his terms, then perhaps since he can't, he is suffering?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Tha'ts a silly way to look at it. What does it matter where they send the rest of the money? You know your TV habits, you know what they charge you. Is it worth it to you? Looking at all the other stuff you get and don't use doesn't change the cost-to-entertainment value of the subscription. I mean, I think what you're trying to say is "Cable is too expensive and they don't have a good way for me to make it cheaper and still get the entertainment I want." That's totally reasonable. But saying it's because they give you other channels with the subscription you don't use is kind of a weird way to analyze the situation when deciding if you want to keep cable or not.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's teach our kids to take something which someone has spent time and money to produce without paying for it.

Not a problem if you only show them things subject to Mickey Mouse copyright. That way you also get to teach an important lesson about civil disobedience.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Ralph Wiggam]

Don't bother trying to bring logic into this. Here on Slashot, ESPN/Disney is evil and sports are evil.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't watch TV and don't care about sports, then neither Verizon nor ESPN give a shit about you or what you think. You are not their target audience / customer.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[LVSlushdat]

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.

*some* of us don't do cellphone contracts... In case you didn't know, theres all sorts of no-contract cellphone providers, where you actually pay ONLY for what you actually *use*, like http://ting.com/

And if you don't like the bloatware on your phone, chances are quite good you can root it, and remove that crap.... It isn't that hard..

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

Wrong. Anybody is a potential client, voting with your money to cancel a service you don't like is the best way to let a company know they may want to look at what they are selling and figure out why they are losing clients and revenue.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[MaskedSlacker]

He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[QuietLagoon]

At almost $7 per subscriber for the ESPN channels (four times the next most expensive channel group), that's a lot of money that ESPN is raking in from cable subscribers.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Registered Coward v2]

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it

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.

It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable

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:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's teach our kids to take something which someone has spent time and money to produce without paying for it.

So what? That is EXACTLY what Disney did with all of their classics. Re-writes of public domain classics... only the names have been changed to protect the profits.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

It's not just forced inclusion. If someone signs up to ESPN for 5 minutes (actually signs up for that time, not just an annulled error), then Verizon is supposed to pay ESPN for a minimum time for that customer.

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:well then it's a bad contract

[roc97007]

Why make your kids cry? www.thepiratebay...

eztv. Fewer porn ads.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[oh_my_080980980]

So you like paying for services you don't use. Nice. Most people aren't ass-holes like you and don't want to be ass-raped be the likes of ESPN. ESPN could easily be a paid tier service, whereby people who want to watch it can and those who don't don't and don't pay for the channel regardless.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[TemporalBeing]

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.

Mod parent up!

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[TemporalBeing]

Disney (they own ESPN) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels. Oh, and if you offer it on your base tier package then you must offer all of it on the base tier package. 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?

Yes, it gives me a point on which to teach them about responsible use of finances and how they can't have everything in life.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[jonwil]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[sconeu]

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:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a lot like people who don't drive, but use that as an excuse to turn their nose up at cars.

You are not their target market, and don't matter in this case. The people they get their bucks from are people who are almost always not as bright (and more conservative) than the parent... and ESPN to them is a must have no matter what since they can be spoon fed their entertainment. This is a lot of people.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Imagix]

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it

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

[Solandri]

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.
[...]
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.

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.

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".

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:well then it's a bad contract

[viperidaenz]

Sounds like a great contract from ESPN's point of view.
They get their product sold to people who don't want it. Those people have no other legal method of getting what they want without also paying for ESPN.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[hesiod]

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.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[edawstwin]

So you like paying for services you don't use.

I cut the cable cord years ago.

Most people aren't ass-holes like you...

Always nice to meet a fan.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion.

So threatening to shoot someone if they don't hand over their wallet isn't coercion because you are "free" to choose to comply or not. Like in the story above, failure to comply comes with negative side effects, but you ignore those when defining coercion.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Opportunist]

Let's teach our kids that if someone fucks with them, it's ok to fuck them back.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

So no cell phone contract is a "horrible contract"? Force is irrelevant to whether the contract is bad.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?

I have this slight nagging feeling that you aren't joking. Sure, you probably are. But you have to understand, there really are people as stupid as those whom you're making fun of. I don't think I have met any of them in real life, but on the Internet you will run into people who really seem to think the way that you're satirizing.

On the off chance that someone doesn't get your joke, or worse, they are living your joke (they are the very epitome of dumbfuckitude that you're jesting about in your quotation), here's my advice to those people.

Plan A: Next birthday, Christmas, Bastille Day, or whatever, your gift to your child shall be a moderately sized computer with two disks (raid1) and expansion capability for more drives later. Furthermore, you will pay for one year of either VPN or NNTP+index. Your kid's assignment is to become an expert at piracy. You will fund this hardware and initial subscription by canceling your cable TV, and then spend the leftover money on a several cases of beer for yourself.

If this plan doesn't appeal to you, then try Plan B: You shall advise your kid, "GET A JOB, HIPPIE," and let them pay for ESPN if Disney is so fucking important to their entitled little ass.

Both approaches lead to victory (for you). Each of the two plans teaches your kid a different strategy for dealing with the world's bullshit. (fight it vs eat it.) The important thing is that it doesn't reinforce the stupidest strategy ever, which is that their bullshit should become your bullshit. You job is to help them and guide them through life's bullshit, but obviously if your kid is walking along and decides to pick up a piece of shit, you never have to eat it. You either counsel them to put the turd back down, or live with the consequences of swallowing it.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Opportunist]

I'm ok with them watching porn, as long as they don't have to see that rampart violence that litters TV.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

My phone is unlocked,

Irrelevant to the question of whether it's under contract.

I don't need a TV,

So everyone should live exactly as you do? No freedom to define things as more or less necessary than you decree? Why do you hate freedom?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Streetlight]

Maybe the poster forgot the sarcasm code or swapped "commercials" for "sports".

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely!

It no doubt grew out of a desire to help cover the expense of hooking up the last mile. Now things have changed considerably and Verizon feel they can get more clients this way.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

For every person like you there are 10 that only have TV to watch sports. ESPN has a huge viewership and leveraged that into contracts with Verizon. ESPN is usually sold with an upgraded package on cable and satellite services. Usually these packages carry a lot of more popular channels and bring a bigger price that reflects their perceived value. I currently have Direct TV ultimate plus the HBO and other premium movie channels. I watch 3 TV shows a week plus a lot of concerts and music videos. Occasionally I might watch a cooking show or a show on History Channel or some other feature. My wife watches Bravo which I loathe and despise and A&E and some other "reality" heavy stuff. We're all over the place and to give up any tier is to lose something one of us likes to watch thus I pay too much money because I get 300 channels neither of us will ever watch. That's the way it is. HBO though is going away as soon as Game of Thrones finishes this year. 50 bucks a month for 98% crap.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

They don't really need you though. They have millions of people willing to pay and don't mind if you watch the grass grow. Personally I find most television is less intellectually challenging than watching the grass grow. Sadly I allowed myself to become addicted to Game of Thrones and then I got my wife hooked on it as well.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

It's called a package dummy. They package a bunch of channels together and sell them to viewers. If you buy a package then you bought all of it and if you don't want part of it you still bought it if you bought the package. Cable companies have been doing this since at least the early 80's when I first got cable. I remember bitching about a bunch of bullshit channels to COX asking if I could get rid of them and basically the answer was "it's all or nothing." If you don't want the package don't get it. If you want something in it then you'll just have to pay up. Quit whining. It's totally legal.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

Well, aren't you a swell troll? In my comment I am talking about myself (such pronouns as 'I' and 'My' and a clear lack of 'you' and 'your' should have made it clear, but obviously not for trolls) and not about you, so get your head out of your ass (now you see, I used 'you' and 'your' there, that is a call to action) and go troll somebody else.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Your.Master]

There's a difference between these three things:

- Thinking something isn't illegal
- Thinking something shouldn't be illegal
- Liking something

I really don't see the ethical problem. Cable television is not a fundamental need. It's not like they are bundling your only supply of water with a purchase of 1000 corn dogs. I can understand you not wanting to buy it, though.

Verizon wanted to offer better granularity of service to their customers, but ESPN claims it's in violation of their contracts. If ESPN is right, then Verizon backed themselves into a corner.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

They could but, wait for it.......they don't have to do that because they have such a huge demand they can get their way with the cable companies. If ESPN pulls their channels from Verizon it will cost Verizon a HUGE amount of subscribers. There are lots, and I mean a lot, of people that watch almost nothing but ESPN. I fucking hate the Kardashians to the point I almost break the button on the remote anytime the cunts come on my TV getting rid of them but even I am not stupid enough to think that they aren't hugely popular. Just because you hate something means nothing to anyone but you.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Your.Master]

No, I think you have a deviant definition for suffering. And for opposite.

For instance, the opposite of "too cold" is "too hot". But there is such a thing as being neither too hot nor too cold.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

He is a fanatic actually.....just in a different way.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

I once had to go with my wife to an Opera. That, I believe, qualifies as suffering.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

It's actually okay to copy a video camera for your own use. I bet I could make a copy of a Chevrolet Camaro for my own use and that would be okay too. If I take one it's stealing but making a copy is not stealing. Downloading Disney movies is not stealing it's a violation of their right to sell the item. There is a difference and it's a fairly clear one.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

5 words, one url ... and we have a comment that is both funny and insightful.

ESPN/Disney needs to realize what they're up against, and it's not Verizon.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't want crackers in my Lunchables, so they should make cracker-less Lunchables or I'll sue!

See how silly that gets?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

They get their product sold to people who don't want it.

- Ok, I disagree, I am a person "who doesn't want it" and I am not buying it.

I also disagree with all the ACs posting comments, saying how I am irrelevant since I am not the target audience since I stopped watching TV a while back. That's also incorrect, anybody is a target audience, the question is are you selling something that people are willing to buy or not? If you are not selling a product I am interested in, then you are preventing me from being target audience.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, Verizon could buy and sell ESPN's sorry ass.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Defenestrar]

Hey - go light on the ACs here. It's easy to mistake Netflix and network. They both start the same way and it's hard to imagine a media delivery service surviving which doesn't function like the first ;)

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that both parties agreed to it does not mean that it isn't a horrible contract. People sometimes agree to things that turn out to be bad.
--
JimFive

You mean like my marriage contract?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

I'm saying that if you want to change them, that's the *only* option. I never said it was good. But yes, since it's the only option, it would, by default, be the "best" and the "worst" idea. Waiting 100 years for the shareholders to figure it out without any outside help is not doing anything, and that's the suggestion.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

You were asked a clear question about your phone. 3 posts later, you still haven't answered. I can only presume because the answer is the opposite of what you are recommending.

The "troll" here was me calling you on a non-answer. Yes, I use my phone with 3 SIMs for 3 continents, 2 non-contract, but the "home" plan is contracted because it gives the best value for the money.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Krishnoid]

You 'expressed' it yourself -- buy just one share of Planet Kajigger and you can complain during their shareholder meetings.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[radarskiy]

When you buy stock on the market, the company sees none of that money.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. The argument that cable is a luxury certainly holds water. Many folks (myself included) simply use an antenna these days.

your analogy about paying "cousin vinnie" doesn't fly either. It's completely legal for a company to charge for a service, and then turn around and give that money to whomever they like.

I'm not saying any of them will win them any friends or customers, but It kind of bothers me that your reaction is a +5 insightful when so many people on this forum pile onto flying as a luxury they can "Take or leave" if they don't like security policy. Nevermind that employers force employees to fly, and that bereavement flights might be free and necessary for someone who can't afford another mode of transport. Seriously, you can live without cable without being so emotional about it, no employers require you to have it in your home, to my knowledge.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a fan of putting sports on TV at all. Why should high school drop-outs get to make millions per year just for playing kids games? If you don't think baseball, basketball, football and hockey are kids games, look up the history of said games.

Back when I had cable TV, I always wished that I could just get and pay for the channels that I wanted instead of the packages that always had a bunch of channels I didn't want. I also can't stand commercials. I am much happier with streaming services like Netflix!

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

I have no contract with anybody on any of my phone numbers and haven't had a phone contract since about 2005, is that satisfactory for you? Now go away, troll.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[wyattstorch516]

4. You're a fan of Christian Laettner and want to watch the documentary about him 25 times in one week.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[bondsbw]

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

[bondsbw]

No joke, even Safari is better.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[TWX]

I'm saying that I don't want to pay for channels that I won't watch. I also believe with the package-based approach that the networks take with the carrier, there's a lot of garbage channels and garbage TV that wouldn't exist if customers weren't forced into an all-or-nothing model. We may need more than three networks, but do we need dozens of networks with hundreds or thousands of shows, with most of those shows simply existing to fill timeslots on barely-watched networks?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[sjames]

Personally, I enjoy baseball, but I find ESPNs coverage of it lacking.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Only I can just about guarantee you that the contract does NOT say that they need to pay by the year because not 100% of customers are on contract (and are in fact free to drop ESPN and add it three months later), and customer contracts don't all have the same renewal dates. Thus the Verizon-ESPN needs to be based on actual customers, which is probably determined monthly (or daily). An ESPN contract that said all customers had to be on contract would be unworkable (since Verizon couldn't legally let people go off contract, they'd have to drop customers). ESPN probably does say how Verizon should push their contracts (like how long), but they do allow people to change plans in the middle (since verizon already does allow this, I can add remove stuff, just can't drop things). Verizon is just abusing the hole, if changing plans is ok, then why not encourage it, and point out that changing off ESPN will save you $10/mo.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's not the complaint here. The complaint is that ESPN is requiring that Verizon customers get their service. Verizon can certainly require that ESPN be in the bundle, but they aren't. ESPN is requiring that Verizon bundle ESPN with the channels that I want. That's just as illegal as when Microsoft tried to require that all PC buyers pay for Windows or Apple insisted that Amazon charge the same prices for books as they did. Contracts can't be imposed on people who don't participate in the contract.

A side issue here may be that it's not just the broadcast payment that ESPN wants. ESPN could also want access to the advertising revenue from showing their channels to Verizon customers. That part may be on better legal footing although I don't know that it helps if there's a fee per customer channel regardless.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[ubercam]

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.

Actually you can. When I was in school, a classmate got a job at McDonalds. They handed out photocopies of the till buttons to people who were going to be cashiers and told them to go practice a bit with their friends & family.

I had a look at this sheet, there were buttons for everything.. no bun, no pickle, no patty, even a button for socks if you can believe it. We worked out that it was possible to order a hamburger with no bun, no patty, no pickle, no condiments, no onions, nothing. Technically I guess you'd still be charged for it and you'd end up with an empty wrapper. I have no idea if their actual till would allow such a thing, but there were certainly all the right buttons required to fulfil the order.

This was probably about 15 years ago now but I'm sure it hasn't changed that much.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[rahvin112]

I just wish one of the cable companies would stand up to them. Disney has far more to lose than they think. Viacom tried to do their annual bend them over and fuck them with Suddenlink. The cable company replaced the channels and when Viacom was suddenly willing to do a deal after Suddenlink replaced the channels SL told Viacom to go pound sand. SL lost about 100K subscribers. Viacom lost millions in revenue basically forever.

If more of the cable companies were willing to stand up to the content companies and simply pull the channels and replace them there would be competition. Right now the only choice a discerning customer has is to cut the cord completely. I can guarantee that if Comcast decided to dump NBC during their next negotiation NBC would be willing to do any deal Comcast wanted a couple weeks later. The cable companies need to just play hardball and take the subscriber losses in the short term. The lower prices will win them more customers long term and their lack of competition would give them an advantage in the negotiations.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem for Disney will be that nobody is going to sign up for cable and we don't give a shit at that point. If we want Disney's 'vast' portfolio of stuff we'll just purchase DVDs or some such nonsense. Overall cheaper in the end. We probably could get all the Disney content we want for the cost of one year of cable subscription at 125-140 dollars a month, which is about 1500-1700 a year. That will buy you a lot of DVDs. Problem solved. 1500-1700 a year is a car payment, maybe a quad copter. Lots of great stuff I can get for that much money.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[jrumney]

Sport is only "expensive" because cable sports channels have upped the bidding stakes.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of those "magic of the market" idiots. I thought the last of you got knocked straight after the bailouts.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't let my children watch Disney regardless of ESPN. It's wrong to expose your children to the warped morals espoused by Disney cartoons.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA doesn't provide details, but this sounds like a violation of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts:

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14);

BTW this was one of the things that Microsoft was found guilty of doing in the '90s, in the antitrust suit brought by the US DOJ. For example, MS would make PC OEMs sign contracts that would charge them an MS-DOS or Windows license for *every* PC that shipped, regardless of whether it had Windows or some other OS (OS/2, DR-DOS) installed.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, does TV have its dick so far up your ass that you just can't let go of it? You sound like a raving loon who just can't live without his junk entertainment. What a waste.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[geekmux]

I have no contract with anybody on any of my phone numbers and haven't had a phone contract since about 2005, is that satisfactory for you? Now go away, troll.

I'm glad that you feel that a lack of a contract somehow makes you feel secure about what is streaming to and from the phone that is assigned to you.

In the end, you likely still don't have a damn clue who is abusing the information coming from this device. It is not anonymous. It is not selective. It is not even controlled by you.

But hey, you haven't been held to a contract since 2005, so you know...you've got that going for you...

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[rfunches]

I can guarantee that if Comcast decided to dump NBC during their next negotiation NBC would be willing to do any deal Comcast wanted a couple weeks later.

Your example actually disproves your point. NBC is owned by NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast Corporation, which happens to be the elephant in the room for both U.S. TV and broadband service. Until last week, Comcast thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of buying up even more market share (Time Warner Cable) and put even more of the cable companies in the same bed as the content companies. Clearly the business model is working for Comcast -- no reason to think it won't stop any of the publicly-traded cable companies (e.g. Charter, Cablevision) from merging with one of the publicly-traded content companies (e.g. AMC Networks, Starz, Fox).

If Verizon can afford to drop The Weather Channel (a NBCUniversal property) from FiOS TV without warning, without lowering the monthly price for subscribers, replacing it with an inferior product (Accuweather, and I can't figure out which is more useless, their TV channel or their inaccurate forecasts), and with barely a fight from Comcast, that's a win for consumers, right? Bueller?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[mikeiver1]

Could not agree more. We cut the cord over 8 years ago and time shift every program we take off air to delete the commercials. Only thing we have is internet, not even basic cable. It is via legal streaming services like Netflix and Amazon prime as well as off air that we partake of any entertainment. No Hulu since they expect that we pay for the service and endure commercials to boot, What a racket that one is! Off air programming in HD is far and away better than that delivered by the cable companies too. Sports, never watch them unless you consider F1 cars and bikes a sport, which I don't. More of a Nerd VS. Nerd competition with backing by really wealthy companies. Point is this, when I can choose the channels, AND ONLY THE CHANNELS, I want for a reasonable price then I may be enticed back. Now we all know this is not really going to happen from the cable and satellite companies. Sooner or later though the content providers will figure it out and simply bypass the cable and satellite companies completely by having the likes of Netflix or others host and serve up the content. The NFL, the NBA, the NHL, are all milking everyone for all they can get right now and this includes ESPN who in turn does that same the cable/satellite providers who in turn do the same to the average stupid subscriber to their crappy sub par service. In the end it is likely that if those that actually watch the sports now have to fit the vast majority of bill for the service at the ridiculously elevated rates charged right now, the viewership would fall very quickly indeed. If more were to cut the cord, really more of a paring down as it were, they all would have to adapt to the desires of the consumer.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[...]

Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.

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.

 

Sorry but that is not accurate. Third party beneficiaries have standing to sue on a contract under certain circumstances. It may be the case here that a customer could sue ESPN over the contract between ESPN and Verizon but without more details it is difficult to know.

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer but this does not constitute legal advice.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[wasteoid]

How many legal dramas do you watch?

None, because he dropped his subscription to cable.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like it's a bubble, and you've just described the way to pop it. Poor teams won't be able to afford a new pitcher at $8 million per year. Boo fucking hoo.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

> spread the cost of buying all that expensive sport

chicken and egg and totally anti-market... sport is only expensive content to purchase broadcast rights for because the audience is 'so huge' but when that hugeness is borne of bundling you have to wonder about the actual size of the market. now that unbundling is happening we'll start to see what the true value is... and it ain't much.

OB (outside broadcast) trucks and crew are cheap compared to other forms of content production... the real cost is in licensing rights from organisations that would otherwise be classified as an illegal cartel (I'm looking at you NFL)... that and having to pay outrageous salaries to atheletes whose justification for said salary is audience size... unbundle and watch the money evaporate.... however, that money won't be not-spent, it'll just be spent elsewhere, stimulating some other part of the economy.

BTW, I love watching sport, it will be sad when my personal choices are not being subsidised by those who don't but I can hardly complain as the flip side of the coin is that I won't be subsidising channels I don't watch... things will be unsettled for a while and then will find a new balance, sort of like an invisible hand is guiding the market.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[dywolf]

a bad contract is one that is overly one-sided or favors one party too much.
it's a somewhat subjective definition, and depends on the ability of lawyers to advocate for their clients in court.

this doesn't really seem to fall into that category.

Consumers aren't the ones paying ESPN (you don't seem to understand the situation in that regard). Verizon is, for the rights to broadcast ESPN content. And apparently as part of that contract ESPN stipulated that all of Verizon's channel package offerings will include ESPN. ESPN isn't even communicating with consumers, nor are they forcing consumers to buy anything.

So now when Verizon, in response to consumer demand, wants to offer some a la carte packages that merely have the potential to not have include ESPN, ESPN is throwing a flag because of the contract Verizon signed. Verizon apparently was of the opinion that these package wouldn't be included by that language of the contract, but ESPN disagrees. And now they will settle it in court.

The consumer's rights in this aren't even a factor.
It's a dispute between ESPN and Verizon, not ESPN and consumers.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[omnichad]

They have ESPN, because that's the only way ABC will license Disney Channel. They ALWAYS have to be bundled.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[omnichad]

If Verizon can afford to drop The Weather Channel (a NBCUniversal property) from FiOS TV without warning, without lowering the monthly price for subscribers, replacing it with an inferior product (Accuweather, and I can't figure out which is more useless, their TV channel or their inaccurate forecasts)

I've never found Accuweather as a data source to be that inaccurate (I use the app), but I see The Weather Channel as being pretty useless. 90% of the channel's content is reality programming. And the other 10% is generated at the local cable office's headend. Really, I generally trust the NWS and their web site and have no use for a dedicated channel, but it's a small market that does care about seeing it on a TV on-demand. Anyone else can use their phone or computer. Not worth that many subscriber dollars to keep TWC.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdIXrF34Bz0

Dupea: I'd like a, uh, plain omelette, uh, no potatoes, tomatoes instead, a cup of coffee, and wheat toast.
Waitress: No substitutions.
Dupea: What do you mean? You don't have any tomatoes?
Waitress: Only what's on the menu. You can have a number two - a plain omelette. It comes with cottage fries and rolls.
Dupea: Yeah, I know what it comes with, but it's not what I want.
Waitress: Well, I'll come back when you make up your mind.
Dupea: Wait a minute. I have made up my mind. I'd like a plain omelette, no potatoes on the plate, a cup of coffee, and a side order of wheat toast.
Waitress: I'm sorry. We don't have any side orders of toast. I'll give you an English muffin or a coffee roll.
Dupea: What do you mean you don't make side orders of toast? You make sandwiches, don't you?
Waitress: Would you like to talk to the manager?
Palm Apodaca: Hey, Mac . . .
Dupea: [to Apodaca] Shut up. [to the waitress] You've got bread and a toaster of some kind?
Waitress: I don't make the rules.
Dupea: Okay, I'll make it as easy for you as I can. I'd like an omelette, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce, and a cup of coffee.
Waitress: A number two, chicken sal san, hold the butter, the lettuce, and the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?
Dupea: Yeah. Now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven't broken any rules.
Waitress: You want me to hold the chicken, huh?
Dupea: I want you to hold it between your knees. [Palm and Terry smirk]
Waitress: You see that sign, sir? Yes, you'll all have to leave. I'm not taking any more of your smartness and sarcasm.
Dupea: You see this sign? [sweeps all the water glasses and menus off the table]

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sure it is, it's called a tax, and as a totally unintended side effect of a certain supreme court ruling it's also legal for the government to force you to pay up.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Wycliffe]

So you bought stock in the company, then went to the shareholder meeting? Not buying isn't "voting". At best it's abstaining. And when 90% of the country abstains, the winner only needs 5% of the vote, so abstaining makes the problem worse, not better.
 

That might be how voting works but that's not how economics works. How economics work is when people stop buying your product you get less money.
If they can only get 5% of the population then they will likely go out of business and even if they don't, they are going to do customer surveys to try to
figure out how to get more people to subscribe and start to realize that their business model is driving away 90% of their customers. If they don't realize
this then there is a good chance that some other company will and will steal their market share. Yes, you definitely can vote with your money by abstaining.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not different than cable. Because the medium is internet rather than cable tv they people somehow think its a better deal to use Sling. When in reality you get less channels than you would with cable and you still cannot choose what you want to watch. It amazes me more people don't see that eventually we'll just switch from getting content over a cable connection to an ethernet connection and its no better.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is in the bundling. Verizon is contractually REQUIRED to carry (force) ESPN's programming, especially if there are any competing channels in the lineup. Note that this not only includes ESPN (the Poker channel), ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, and whatever else they seem to come up with, but also all of the DIsney and other ABC channels. These other channels are more in line with what most households want, but they cannot be unbundled from the ESPN channels. ESPN even dictates to the operator where in the numerical lineup their channels will be (before any competing sports networks, etc.) Also, ESPN has notoriously the most expensive contracts in the biz, by a HUGE margin (like, 3 to 1), which is why cable, satellite, and IPTV rates jump annually. But, shhhh, that's not supposed to be talked about.

À la carte programming is not illegal according to the FCC, but an operator will never get any contracts signed to carry anything (including local network programming) if they are going to do À la carte. So, in essence, the operator will have no channels to offer to a consumer, contractually. And if they find a way to do it anyway, it's theft of service, or possibly copyright infringement, or both... IANAL.

The problem is that the programmers have what the consumer wants, and they are leveraging their positions. It's a business thing. But it's easier to blame the operator rather than the programmer, even though the operator has absolutely no control over the situation, because you can CALL someone at the operator. Who the hell you gonna call at ESPN? And why would they care?

Posting A/C because of my job...

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[lsatenstein]

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.

The handwriting is on the wall. In Canada, it has been legislated that the ISPs (BELL, and the others) have to cancel only offering packages, and let the consumer choose the channels she/he wants to see. One option they are trying, in order to retain revenue, is allow the subscriber to rewatch or watch a show up to three hours back. So, what we in EST zone can do is defer our watching until the same show is presented in the PST zone.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

monopoly abuse of antitrust/collusion.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[roman_mir]

I completely disagree with every business regulation by any government, this is not a problem that government needs to be involved with at all.

Of-course in Canada Bell is a 'crown corporation', an oppressive concept that is incompatible with individual freedoms of people, creating pseudo-government agencies that are imposed upon individuals and that prevent and destroy competition (that's the only way monopolies are dangerous - when they are government created and protected monopolies), so where it comes to such monstrosities as far as I am concerned the only correct course of action is to disband them, liquidate the assets and let the market deal with the industry that the monstrosity was involved in.

Once you have government created, imposed, protected monopolies no amount of regulation will help to fix the underlying problem: they should not exist, the market cannot function with them around. But the same problem (only to a much greater extent) exists in every transaction, half of every transaction is money and government controls/prints money, which is the real issue for the economies around the world.

The real writing is on the wall of-course, that writing being that as long as people don't learn from history and don't stop governments from meddling with business, their economies will be inefficient and their living standards will suffer.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[AK Marc]

A single person boycotting for obscure and unpopular reasons will have no effect on the bottom line of a company. I remember when the 7th day adventists organized a "large" boycott of Chrysler. Had something to do with animal products in the lube used in the cars. Chrysler's official response was "we don't care", though some time later, they complied with the requests, but I don't remember how many years that was. In the mean time, Chrysler gained market share while being boycotted by a whole lot more than one Internet nutjob.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want the package don't get it. If you want something in it then you'll just have to pay up. Quit whining. It's totally legal.

Actually, it's an abuse of the monopoly granted under copyright law. Since copyright is granted by the public in the expectation that overall benefit will accrue to the public (this is required under the 9th Amendment as a right retained by the people), the public has an interest in ensuring that monopoly is not abused. A bundle of products that are not covered by copyright (or similar laws, such as patent or even trademark) has a very different legal status than one that is simply generic.

Putting this in different terms, the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land. Contract and copyright law are both subordinate. If you attempt to view this matter solely in terms of the subordinate laws, you are ignoring the reality of how things are supposed to work in the US legal system.

Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to determining the scope of contract and copyright law. If the legal profession decides that contract and/or copyright law can be written so as to allow monopoly owners to abuse public rights, that's unethical practice of law and a violation of rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment.

Forcing people to pay for something they don't want, when it is simple with current technology to sell things without such bundling (something that might not have been the case a few decades ago), is certainly abusive, and thus both the contract parties (and writers) and the copyright holders are in violation of the Bill of Rights for having created a legal arrangement that permits this.

Evolving technology changes what is reasonable in law, and the legal system is slow to catch up or acknowledge this, or this suit would never have been brought. The ESPN lawyers should have been professional enough to understand this. Even from a marketing perspective, the negative publicity alone will do their customer considerable harm, and that's a point they should have been smart enough to make to their customer.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[bingoUV]

A single person "voting" in the traditional sense of the word also won't typically achieve anything. So voting with one's dollar is a valid analogy, and figure of speech. Your problem if you don't understand it.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Rakarra]

ESPN is the bottom-barrel of all the sports-reporting networks when it comes to baseball.

They never leave their cozy home of New York and Boston unless it's to cover the Dodgers (whom they inexplicably like).

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Rakarra]

I'd happily go to the opera over watching ESPN.
And I like most sports.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Rakarra]

You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?

Jesus, that's the easy part. It's telling your neighbor he can't get ESPN that is the hard part.

Disney (they own ESPN [wikipedia.org]) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels

I have never seen that to be the case. At least where I live, ESPN is on Comcast's extended cable package, but you have to purchase one of the many extra sports packages if you want to get ESPN2 or any other ESPN-affliated channel.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[Rakarra]

Yes, let's teach our kids to take something which someone has spent time and money to produce without paying for it.

So what? That is EXACTLY what Disney did with all of their classics. Re-writes of public domain classics... only the names have been changed to protect the profits.

What's wrong with that?

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[stealth_finger]

They don't really need you though. They have millions of people willing to pay and don't mind if you watch the grass grow. Personally I find most television is less intellectually challenging than watching the grass grow. Sadly I allowed myself to become addicted to Game of Thrones and then I got my wife hooked on it as well.

They do and that's the point. Well ESPN anyway, that's why they're shitting themselves people might be able to get cable without them getting a cut.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[sjames]

Gotta agree. Sometimes the announcers seem as if they've never watched a baseball game before. They seem mystified by basic strategies.

It's also annoying when they throw their weight around to get afternoon games re-scheduled for 8P.M. on a getaway day. Somehow other sports channels manage to cover the game when it is actually scheduled.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[MoarSauce123]

They also package the shopping channels and Fox News in...nobody in their right mind watches that either. Fact is that many like sports on TV or the web. There is no other outlet to watch some European soccer than ESPN3. Anyhow, I loathe Verizon's TV packages for other reasons. Recently upgrade to a higher priced package and did get more channels, but also lost some. In which universe does that make sense? In order to get those channels back I have to go to the next higher package that is 50$ more per month...I don't miss those channels that much. I'm fine with commercials, a few are entertaining and the rest is providing the needed break to go to the loo and not miss anything. Overall, TV service is rather expensive. What is sorely needed is more competition on the same last mile technology. I would have signed up with a satellite provider, but they do not allow me to use my own equipment...and their flimsy garbage that is constantly mounted wrong looks like more trouble than it is worth.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[houghi]

They both signed it, so I blame both. That is unless you can show me that one was forced, which would mean the contract is null and void.

Re:well then it's a bad contract

[amiga3D]

ESPN isn't that bad as long as I don't have to see or hear Chris Berman, the most obnoxious person on TV with the possible exception of Kim Kardashian.

ESPN can go eff themselves.

[toonces33]

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.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[GeekHillbilly]

I give less than a rat's ass what ESPN wants.I don't want their programming,the same goes for the home shopping and religious channels.That is the reason I don't have cable or satellite.I stream in what I want to watch.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, PHUCK ESPN. I removed ESPN and all the other "crap" channels from my channel setup so I don't even see them when surfing with the remote. Out of 300+ channels I get stuck with, I only watch about 15 of them, but can't get those without the other 300. I can't wait for the day when I only have to pay for the channels I want, but that'll probably never happen with Cocks cable.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually basic cable from Cox where I live doesn't include ESPN. I debated on getting it until I saw it wasn't in the cheapest package. So online streaming it is.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Adriax]

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.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you didn't even understand what they said.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[edawstwin]

Who wants a sports channel to be innovative? You watch a sports channel to watch sports. And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases. Maybe that will change sooner rather than later, but I doubt it. Sports are the only thing most people still watch live, so those types of channels are still valuable.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[SirAudioMan]

Yup and it's this conclusion and a few others that lead me to ditch my cable almost 2 years ago. I used to work for the local cable company and got 85% of their hundreds of channels for almost free (taxable benefit unfortunately), but when I left the company I found myself with a $20/month moving to $250/month. I figured I probably watched only a dozen or so anyhow so we moved to OTA, Netflix and Unlimited Internet. Haven't looked back either. I do miss the occasional big sporting event, but I can usually find those streaming online.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[cshay]

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:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[toonces33]

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.

[Dracos]

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.

[tlhIngan]

And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases.

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.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

ESPN is by far the most expensive channel block... every subscriber pays about $5/month for ESPN, whether or not they watch any sports.

You are right, but wrong. Every subscriber on most systems pay from $12.50 to $15.00 per month for ESPN. ...whether or not they watch any sports.

You know what else is expensive on cable? Your LOCAL OVER-THE-AIR NETWORKS!! I just canceled my cable 2 months ago when the local "retransmission consent" fees went from $5.95 up to $9.78 per subscriber. That's almost $10 per month added to your bill for crap you can get for FREE with an antenna.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Thelasko]

ESPN charges cable providers around $12/month/subscriber.

The number I've been hearing is $30/month/subscriber. However, it's tricky to nail that figure down, because Disney sells ESPN as a package with all of its other channels. That's the problem. Once it becomes unbundled, you find out how much it really costs.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Where is The Ocho when you need it.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[j2.718ff]

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.

I think all this packaging is exactly why we don't have such channels (on TV). If all channels were ala carte, then there would be motivation to produce the sort of content that each group of people want. Instead, everything is grouped into packages. This prevents individuals from making their preferences known with their wallets, thus the programming we see is the drab sort of thing that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[rahvin112]

You sports fans like being fucked. ESPN is going to keep lubing you up and fucking you as long as you are willing to pay whatever it costs to watch your sports team.

You should consider being willing to protest and teaching both your sports team and ESPN a lesson. Maybe just maybe you won't get fucked quite as hard or rough.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard of Philips ITV? ISDN Video? No? That's because nobody implemented it, but the reality is technology to implement this video on demand was invented in the late 80s, more technology was invented in the 90s, more technology was invented in the 00s (Heard of Real Networks?), Finally in the 10s another round of technology was invented to do the same thing, but the shrinking costs and the pressure from internet piracy finally made it economically viable (well, we'll see in the longterm).

This stuff was all conceived in the 70s, and prototypes and failed commercial ventures were spun again and again until it finally caught hold.

What we have now is basically what was envisioned way back when, the only substantial technical difference is that it's delivered over packet switched data, rather than circuit switched data. The codecs are better, and they use HTTP instead of Realmedia, but the fundamentals are the same.

As a side note, I just wish Netflix could do frame sync like the old RealPlayer. The unsynced jerkmotion (or tearing if you disable Aero) is really a step backwards from the genlocked crisp video that you got back with Realplayer 9 on a PIII. Unfortunately the problem you got back then was that while the technology worked well, the content available on the network was pitifully limited. Now the catalog is less pitifully limited (but still pathetic) but the technology has regressed to being like watching a slideshow.

How about companies like Netflix release a dedicated player app that makes use of native video APIs to get 90s quality motion video instead of jerkmotion bullshit? Too much to ask?

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

SERIOUSLY. Think about how much money they could make if they went the micro route:

"Greetings, customers. Pick what channels you want from our selection of 10,000 (and growing!) channels. Your monthly bill will be $1 per channel you pick. Go. *too busy rolling in money to say much else*

WHY DOESNT THIS HAPPEN?

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Phreakiture]

There is actually a broadcast TV station locally that makes some of their income by carrying three home shopping networks on their subchannels. They have the bitrate cranked way down on them so that it's not a significant burden on their main channel.

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

now on the Ocho! Dodgeball!

Re:ESPN can go eff themselves.

[Rakarra]

I think all this packaging is exactly why we don't have such channels (on TV). If all channels were ala carte, then there would be motivation to produce the sort of content that each group of people want. Instead, everything is grouped into packages. This prevents individuals from making their preferences known with their wallets, thus the programming we see is the drab sort of thing that appeals to as wide an audience as possible.

If your channel gets included as part of basic cable anyway, then you tend to tailor your programming towards what cable users (or at least the right demographic) in general want to see (reality TV, CSI and wrestling on A&E) and channels invariable. However, if people have to choose to subscribe to your channel, you need to stand out rather than become bland like all the others.

ESPN delenda est

[Mike Van Pelt]

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.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[OctoberSky]

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:ESPN delenda est

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the shopping channels get on your cable system though having a local TV transmitter. Cable companies are "required to carry" any and all local over the air stations. It was the "deal" that was made to allow cable systems to exist, many decades ago. So you are going to get those no matter what.

The sports channel thing is really more of a money grab. Verizon charges you for the sports channels, then tacks on a RSF (Regional Sports Fee) above that for about $8/month. This makes their $75/month advertisement (with tax, equipment and fees) really turn into $110+ in actual fees.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Anonymous Coward]

totally agree.

One reason I loved Voom was that it did not have all the shopping channel bloat and ESPN channel-mania. It also helped that they had awesome HD video.

Of course they did not survive. Obviously proves that Americans wanted more shopping channels and channels of Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[mrchaotica]

Most of the shopping channels get on your cable system though having a local TV transmitter. Cable companies are "required to carry" any and all local over the air stations. It was the "deal" that was made to allow cable systems to exist, many decades ago. So you are going to get those no matter what.

[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.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[CaptainLard]

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:ESPN delenda est

[Mike Van Pelt]

I've done that -- I don't watch them, and they aren't on my favorites list. Still, I am personally offended that several dollars per month of my cable bill goes to them. Removing that offense is worth some (smallish) amount of money to me.

Re: ESPN delenda est

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the nature of a la carte. Since the other channels are not subsidizing what you enjoy done you won't ever see their ads, you pay more or of pocket. Think utensils from Wal-Mart and a set of specialty knives. "You paid more for just knives?" Yes, but these knives are specifically tailored to my needs.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Anonymous Coward]

Write an FCC complaint on the subchannels. Downsampling and overcompression, though I can't help you with.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[ebyrob]

Sometimes, less *is* more... Many people pay for the exclusion of advertisements on websites.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about money. It's about sending a message.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[gameboyhippo]

You are going to pay less for less. If one really needed all of those channels, they should subscribe to a traditional package. To put it in perspective, let's say you use a small jar's worth of mayo each month and mayo expires in 30 days. Should you really buy a 5 gallon container of mayo just because the cost per ounce of mayo is less? Obviously not since most of it would go to waste. Likewise, a guy like me wouldn't want to pay for a bunch of extra channels just to bring the cost per channel down. Instead I'll buy what I want and pay a higher cost per channel, but ultimately pay less.

To drive this home, I actually purchase every season of every current series I watch from Amazon rather than buy cable. It is cheaper for me to buy a season of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D", "Once Upon a Time", and "Doctor Who" every year rather than pay the cost of a season every month just to watch three shows. Is cable's cost per show cheaper? Yes. But I care more about my total cost.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Coren22]

I'm not sure of what you speak.

I checked my Verizon channel list, and ESPN is extra, not included in my package. It is not included in the base package.

So, I pay less for no ESPN, not more.

Re: ESPN delenda est

[jmac_the_man]

Of note, "must carry" is the broacaster's option. The broadcaster can demand a cable operator carry a broadcast network, OR the broadcaster can waive that right and ask for payment/consideration.

Disney invented the practice of waiving must carry. Every ABC station in the country waives must carry, but will give a cable company the signal for free if they put the whole ESPN thing on basic cable.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[AnalogDiehard]

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.

I cut the cord since 2000 waiting for ala carte. Until it is offered bundle-free, the cable companies are not getting another dime from me.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[bondsbw]

But that's because advertisements are intrusive and may allow external companies to track you.

Channels are different, since the only way you ever see a channel is to change to it. (And many set-top boxes let you block or otherwise unlist any channel you want, if bothers you that you even see it in the guide.)

Re:ESPN delenda est

[OctoberSky]

I too buy less mayo, but that's a matter of trying not to waste things I'm never going to eat. I do see a drastic difference with food and cable channels going unused though.

Regarding the other aspect, you still end up paying less. Sure you get less, but you get everything you want. I don't pay my cable bill, so I have no idea what it costs, but lets settle at an arbitrary $50 per month. At $600 a year, you'd get the shows you want (the three you listed) and a ton of stuff you're never going to watch. Now, what if Amazon or whoever placed those shows at $201 per season. You can get them for $603 for the year, and you get everything you want, and nothing you don't but it costs not even a penny a day more. But would you? No, you buy them for about $30-40 each season. That's about $120 a year (at most). Still a tremendous savings under $600. But what if Amazon did jack the prices? Would you pay $80 each a season? Would you pay $100? $120? $150? $200 to exactly equal a full years worth of cable? I can't imagine anyone would bite. I can imagine that Amazon negotiated a price range which allows A) the studio to be happy, B) Amazon to grab a profit, and C) the consumer to actually pay for just three shows.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Mike Van Pelt]

Yeah, that's what ESPN is apparently suing Verizon for. Comcast, if you want the most basic of basic cable, you have to pay ESPN a few bucks a month for the privilege.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[Coren22]

My understanding of the issue is that someone could subscribe for only a month (or 5) and cancel for the rest of the year. My plan predates the new choose your own plans, so wouldn't be covered under this dispute.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[godefroi]

Y'know, there's this impressive upsampling technology known as an "antenna". It converts your horrible-quality cable-delivered local channels to crisp, clear, 1080i.

Add an HDHomerun, a Raspberry Pi 2, MythTV (or TVHeadend or whatever...) and Kodi, and you're all set.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[mrchaotica]

Of course. But if I'm going to use an antenna, then what the fuck would I be paying the cable company for?!

More to the point, I think the situation violates at least the spirit (if not the letter) of the FCC's must-carry rules.

Re:ESPN delenda est

[godefroi]

Of course. But if I'm going to use an antenna, then what the fuck would I be paying the cable company for?!

Indeed. I stopped paying them a couple years ago. Antenna for up-to-date local channels (where nearly everything I want to watch is), Netflix for the rest. HBO Now is tempting, though. I might look into it.

I can subscribe to a lot of VOD services, as well as buy many BD movies for the price I was paying for my television before.

Heavens forbid

[Anonymous Coward]

That someone doesn't want sports channels.

Re:Heavens forbid

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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 because people are not rational. It doesn't make it less real though.

Re:Heavens forbid

[gurps_npc]

The thing some people NEVER watch ESPN. Not everyone likes sports. It's not fair to charge me for access to things I have no desire to see.

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:Heavens forbid

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The thing some people NEVER watch ESPN. Not everyone likes sports. It's not fair to charge me for access to things I have no desire to see.

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 secondary consideration. This is about allowing ESPN subscribers to only subscribe for the months that their favorite sport is on, as opposed to ESPN's current granularity of "annual". I think it's pretty obvious that there is some benefit to avoiding an "a la carte" menu when it comes to specific shows/games. But that's a different argument.

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.

That's an excellent point. Also, in that case, because too many assholes now say "it's cool to like SciFi" but hate SciFi and instead love B movies.

Re:Heavens forbid

[Coren22]

ESPN isn't included in Verizon's base package, so you already have your wish.

Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[netsavior]

I thought that was the only reason anyone had cable anymore, for the sportsing. Especially since HBONow is finally a thing.

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[mrchaotica]

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:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[pr0fessor]

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?

[Opportunist]

Cable? It's the only reason for having a TV anymore.

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Zordak]

I have to pay for a monthly subscription to DirecTV because my wife wants HGTV. I would gladly pay for the "Binge Watch House Hunters and Fixer Upper Online On Demand" subscription if it existed.

Re: Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as we've transitioned to a DVR, Catch Up, and torrent culture there are still some of us who want to watch shows live.

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[cayenne8]

I thought that was the only reason anyone had cable anymore, for the sportsing. Especially since HBONow is finally a thing.

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 how much I can deal with that and not miss UVerse......right now it is mostly the missing the cable news shows, and the fact I don't have a mythtv box set up to act as DVR and distribution to all the TVs in my house.

That is one of my next projects, but until then...uverse stays.

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I agree: I stopped paying for cable and or satellite service years ago because I couldn't stand knowing that I was paying an enormous amount of money to subsidize the sports fans when I have no interest in sports. It's bad enough that I have to put up with people constantly assuming that I want to hear what they think about some team or player. Sports fans refuse to even acknowledge that anyone has different interests they they do. At least several times week I have some one try to engage me in conversation about foot ball, and when I tell them I don't follow sports, the rest of the conversation goes like this:

You're not a football fan, so you're a baseball fan:
I don't understand, what sports do you watch?
***blank stare***

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[smooth wombat]

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."

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

i want cable with sports but no ESPN. in NYC we have a bunch of RSN's for all our teams and ESPN is crap sports news, high school and college games for crazy sports fans who live it 24x7 and want to stalk kids as they grow up, and world sports most americans don't watch. and now you have Fox and other sports channels with almost no sports, all talk and they want money for being in the basic tier

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[LVSlushdat]

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 connection, but wifey won't budge.. Oh well..

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sling TV has HGTV

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[Zordak]

I've never used sling. Does it have a DVR function?

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[wasteoid]

If your wife watches HGTV or your kid watches Disney or Sprouts. That stuff isn't available on piratebay.

Re:Why would a non-sports person have cable?

[houghi]

I have a 54" TV and I bought it when I already gave up on cable. Basicaly it is just a big monitor, but technicaly it is a TV.

I am even cutting down on other 'tv like content' like torrents. I do not have netflix or the like. I basically use it to watch Youtube and other (legal) online content.

I can easily imagine that people use it for gaming or other things, as they are just big cheap screens.

TV Bloatware

[Lokaj]

Paying $60 for channels I watch vs. $60 for channels I don't watch makes a lot of sense. I love how companies "love competition" except when it actually starts to affect them. ESPN, I see no reason to have 14 drone coverage and ultimately you've created the bloated mess that is the college sports. Time to step away and let people speak for what they really want on TV.

Pay Us, we don't care if you want it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, whether the the customer wants it or not.

Growing pains

[grimmjeeper]

Sadly, the evolution of media distribution away from cable TV to direct streaming is going to cause growing pains like this. While I'm sure it's lucrative for them to be in everyone's "basic" package, the fact that you have to pay for channels you don't watch is exactly why cable TV is on the decline. What ESPN needs to do is to get on the ball and get with the 21st century. There's plenty of revenue stream out there for them selling a streaming service and bypassing broadcast TV altogether.

Re:Growing pains

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is though, I'm SURE ESPN is prohibited from allowing streaming by non-subscribers by the contracts they have with the cable companies.

Re:Growing pains

[itsenrique]

ESPN makes so much because of the crazy model that's currently in place. It is doubtful they could make as much money "getting on the ball", because a big part of their profits right now are customers that dont even want to be customers. In other words, lock in.

Re:Growing pains

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as true as you imply.

ESPN needs all subscribers to pony up a fairly high amount of money in order to bid ever increasing amounts to lock up more sports. If only the sports geeks had to pay it, or if it could be added and dropped on a monthly basis, a lot less people would pay the now higher cost. Better for ESPN to get 98% of the subscribers at $10 than $45% of the subscribers at $20.

I would be in favor of breaking it out of the "Basic" or "Standard" cable group. Also get rid of Disney Channel. High cost channels or packages should not be in the standard package.

Unfortunately we no longer have 4DTV to give us a clearer idea of the cost of channel packages that make up most "Standard" cable packages.

Cue the whiners

[John Napkintosh]

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

[rogoshen1]

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:Cue the whiners

[Ravaldy]

NAILED IT!

Re:Cue the whiners

[ArmoredDragon]

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:Cue the whiners

[jedidiah]

> 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:Cue the whiners

[Triklyn]

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:Cue the whiners

[Opportunist]

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:Cue the whiners

[John Napkintosh]

Says the guy who apparently doesn't realize he can not pay for something he doesn't want.

Re:Cue the whiners

[toonces33]

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 useful information. I didn't have a choice about that either. And the only way to get that back is to switch providers and in the process give up some other channels that those other providers don't offer.

So then what do you do? Sign up with multiple providers (and pay the ESPN tax for each of them)?

Re:Cue the whiners

[SirAudioMan]

Unless I am mistaken the US still is based on Common Law. Just because a contract has something written in it, doesn't necessary make it legally binding. For example, your employer can't have you sign your federal, state/province, or constitutional rights away. Also, with my understanding of contract law, generally ambiguity benefits the person who didn't write the contract.

Of course, I am far from very knowledgeable about law but I have taken a few courses in employment law, contract law, etc and how it applies to Canada, which also is based on Common Law.

Re:Cue the whiners

[Tailhook]

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.

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 direction. The ESPN lawsuit is a sideshow that isn't particularly important in the long run because contracts expire.

Re:Cue the whiners

[MitchDev]

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....

Re:Cue the whiners

[Triklyn]

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:Cue the whiners

[Rockoon]

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:Cue the whiners

[Lodlaiden]

Abstinence from real time cable and a whole lot of missed commercials. Going on 5 years now. ~$16/month for Netflix and Hulu.

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:Cue the whiners

[Rockoon]

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:Cue the whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

The facepalm here is so deep and hard that I can't even.

Re:Cue the whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah well, while you "vote with your wallet", I'm going to vote with my shotgun. I get shit done, while you sit around trying to suck your own cock.

Re:Cue the whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who has an option?

Last I checked I didn't have any option between television content with ESPN and television content without. So, no, I did not have a realistic option. Would you ever tell a Libertarian they should stop working to limit government regulation and vote with their dollars by moving somewhere else? I bet not and for the same reasons.

Re:Cue the whiners

[unitron]

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:Cue the whiners

[Opportunist]

It is not a necessity. Not any more than a computer, an internet connection or a dishwasher. It's a matter of convenience and enjoyment. People want to watch their shows. And to watch them, they need to be able to do just that. They don't care that they get channels they don't want to get. What difference does it make for them?

Re:Cue the whiners

[ArmoredDragon]

For example, your employer can't have you sign your federal, state/province, or constitutional rights away. Also, with my understanding of contract law, generally ambiguity benefits the person who didn't write the contract.

IANAL, but afaik that is correct on both counts. Namely, the person who didn't write the contract can easily misconstrue what was written, so the burden is on the party that wrote it to iron out those ambiguities.

That said, I could easily see a situation where ESPN left something out.

Re:Cue the whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

I am voting with my dollars. I wish I could vote more specifically, though.

Right now I have free-to-air DVB-S2 and terrestrial ATSC systems, for which I pay $0 in subscriptions. If I want more live TV than that, the _cheapest_ possible package (on the cable monopoly or one of the two premium satellite providers) is $40/month and includes a giant pile of my money going to Murdoch and Disney.

I've already got the equipment to receive digital satellite broadcasts - I'd gladly pay a few bucks a-la-carte to get Comedy Central, Discovery, CSPAN, VH-1, Cartoon Network, etc. They won't let me, though, so I just have to grab that content from the Pirate Bay.

Re:Cue the whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the Bible channels don't cost anything. You can get them in the clear using around $250 of satellite TV equipment. You also get the Iranian channels and a 24/7 view of Mecca. It's not the greatest entertainment.

Terms and Conditions.

[fahrbot-bot]

"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:Terms and Conditions.

[Obfuscant]

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 side of Verizon, who is breaking the contract by not selling ESPN because it has found people who will buy other things but not ESPN. Now keep in mind that if you are a Verizon customer, you have a contract for service with them, too. Would you be as supportive of Verizon if they were breaking the terms of their contract with you? Say, you had a plan with 50Gbps down speeds and they decided you would only get 5?

Re:Terms and Conditions.

[fahrbot-bot]

Verizon entered this contract with ESPN to be able to sell ESPN content ...

Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc ... basically saying that if they want the more desirable channels Verizon must carry the less desirable channels - because Disney has sunk a fuck-ton of money into ESPN ...

I also don't see your analogy as being the same. Customers pay Verizon for the bandwidth and Verizon is a customer paying Disney for Disney, ABC, ABC Family and ESPN* but with the added bonus of being required to buy them all to get the ones Verizon and its customers actually want.

You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.

Re:Terms and Conditions.

[Obfuscant]

Typically, these contracts are of the sort where Disney says if Verizon wants to carry the Disney channel, they must also carry all the ESPN channels @ a certain rate etc ...

I know. It's called "bundling". Verizon agreed to it.

I also don't see your analogy as being the same.

Analogies are typically NOT the same. That's why they are analogies and not identities. The concept is the same, however. If you support Verizon for breaking a contract they accepted when it was profitable for them, then you should also support them if they break another contract that was profitable when they agreed to it.

You're correct in that it's a contract dispute between Verizon and Disney, but w/o actually seeing the contract we don't actually know who's in the right. My guess is that Verizon found a loophole and Disney isn't happy about it.

My guess is that Verizon THINKS they found a loophole, OR that they THINK the public will support them breaking the contract and ESPN will back down, but I KNOW they think it will be more profitable for them to break the contract, including the legal costs. Just as it is more profitable for them to break contracts with their customers instead of honoring them.

These contracts have been in place for quite some time, so it would be amazing if a lawyer just now found a loophole and it wasn't a changing economic landscape that rebalanced the equation.

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll make the SportsCenter highlight reel!

They should like it

[nowayout99]

The FiOS Custom package replaces FiOS Select, which didn't have ESPN or a lot of Disney channels in the first place. ESPN should be neutral-to-happy that they are now an option at a more affordable price.

Re:They should like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it is the fact that they don't get money all year from those that want football/basketball during those 3-4 months and would rather have something else the other 8-9. Currently they have to move up a tier and keep that year round rather than just flexing in/out some other package during the off season.

The customer is always .. screwed

[Rastl]

Verizon finally got the clue that people don't want to be told what's in the bundles. So they decided to offer at least one that didn't have sports channels. Oh my the world is going to end if ESPN can't be on everyone's lineup.

I don't have cable at all. I don't need shopping channels, Spanish language channels, soap opera channels, Disney channels, sports channels, etc. Seems like I don't need cable or forced broadcasting at all. Maybe, just maybe, if I could find a bundle that had the channels I would watch then I might be tempted back but until then they can look longingly at my dollars and know they're not getting any of them.

terms of our contracts...

[Anonymous Coward]

...which is against the law.
A la carte is the law; it's about time
a company is actually going to comply with it.

Only Hillary gets to break the law in this country, sir!

Re: terms of our contracts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did that make sense in your head?

Re: terms of our contracts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Consumers were supposed to get a la carte _years_ ago,
but the industry stonewalled like a pro and now we have hundreds
of worhtless channels that we have to pay.

Re: terms of our contracts...

[viperidaenz]

According to what menu?

30%

[Triklyn]

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:30%

[Anonymous Coward]

People tune into it because it's a cultural event. Similar to the way that a lot of people watch the world cup, but not soccer/football regularly.

I do watch some sports, but I don't have a TV. What I do is go out to one of the many bars, and have food and drink. It's more social, and even adding it up, it's cheaper, by far. Probably 2 months worth of cable (considering the cost others quote for cable here,,but I haven't verified it.) probably pays for that year round.

Re:30%

[nedlohs]

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:30%

[rickb928]

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:30%

[SeaFox]

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%

[MitchDev]

Superbowl was on a OTA channel, no subscription required

Re:30%

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. 111 million people tuned in for the SuperBowl because it has become a tradition; another reason to get together with family and friends. The just takes place in the background, with many paying no attention whatsoever to what is going - which, given the nature of football, is not very much long stretches.

Re:30%

[Anonymous Coward]

Selection bias aside, it's odd that you comment when you don't understand how supply and demand works and how markets work generally.

Re:30%

[blue9steel]

Right, which works out to 2/3rds of the rest subsidizing the experience for the 1/3rd that like it. That's why I dumped cable completely, I got tired of paying outrageous bills for channels I don't even use.

Re: 30%

[jmac_the_man]

The Super Bowl isn't on cable.

Re:30%

[wcrowe]

I don't think the super bowl statistic is meaningful. The only reason I watched the superbowl this year is because I was invited to a party in which the event was featured. I went to the party to socialize and have fun -- an endeavor in which I was successful. I didn't give a crap about either team and, in fact, do not even remember who was playing.

Re:30%

[TheSync]

ESPN averages 2.28 million million viewers in primetime, making it the #1 cable network.

ESPN coverage of the college football championship game was last year's most-watched cable telecast at 25.75 million viewers.

NFL Monday Night Football on ESPN averages 13.23 million viewers.

Re:30%

[T-ice]

Most games are.

In fact, I don't recall ever watching a game on ESPN. It's all sports highlights. The previous day's games summarized into a 15 minute loop that plays all day long. I really don't see why they should charge $10 per customer per month. They seriously only produce 15 minutes worth of content, to use the term loosely, per day. How do you like my coverage of ESPN's coverage of anything. Did I mention they loop the same 15 minutes of highlights all day long?

Re:30%

[MitchDev]

No argument on this summary will I offer, in agreement we are.

Re:first

[Andy Dodd]

First what?

First time you'll ever see me actually root for Verizon? If so, yes. First.

All cable providers should try this

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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.

Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR; Fuck You, ESPN

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a matter of how long they are locked in to their channel selections - if you want ESPN during [sport x]'s season, you have to stay subscribed to the package that includes it now, whereas Verizon is trying to allow customers the option to choose ESPN during e.g. football or college basketball seasons and something else during the off season of the sport you care about. Seeing as I just cancelled my auto recordings from sports news shows now that the NCAA Tournament is over, I can see why Verizon would offer this and why ESPN wouldn't like it.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys can't change your TV packages once a month? This has been standard for years here in Canada...

awwww, poor sports, no game ball for YOU

[swschrad]

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 soccer at Evanston South Elementary School.

at that point, you won't have 210 channels. but of the 100 you do have, they will be one ones that got watched historically, and are not vampires positioned in provider contracts because "I don't want to be the guy with only 6 slots on the satellite, I need 20 to get ads."

Re:awwww, poor sports, no game ball for YOU

[div_2n]

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 into nearly on-demand with features such as rewinding any show back to the beginning even if you didn't record it on your DVR or have it playing with the real-time buffer to go back on.

The future is trending towards what customers want and when they want it. The holdouts run the risk of having an upstart that full-on embraces new tech replace them.

Re:awwww, poor sports, no game ball for YOU

[swb]

I think the biggest problem with usage billing would be "I fell asleep watching ... and now I have to pay for what I didn't see."

It wouldn't surprise me to see a mix of base fee for regular content and then an on-demand fee for "premium" content. Heck. HBO could do that now and sell HBO Now for non-current seasons for some price less than what they would sell it for past seasons and the current new programs.

Re:awwww, poor sports, no game ball for YOU

[div_2n]

If you move to an on-demand model, there is no such thing as leaving on the TV and the meter keeps running.

I suppose they could try to keep the outdated "scheduled" way of showing movies or other programming and stream that, but why would you do that? And if you aren't doing that, how are you going to monitor usage?

Just charge a premium for a scheduled non-stop stream and be done with it.

Long view or short view?

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon sees the writing on the wall. People only watch about 17 channels. In my house we watch a total of 24 channels (between 5 people):

OTA channels:
4, 5, 7, 25, 38, 56.

Cable channels:
USA - 0.71
TNT - 1.33
TBS - 0.62
The Weather Channel - 0.34
Discovery - 0.37
History - 0.30
H2 - 0.30
A&E - 0.30
AMC - 0.23
NatGeo - 0.22
Sci - 0.26
HGTV - 0.18
SyFi - 0.27
BBC - 0.12

Total: less than $10 in carriage fees for the non-paytv channels. x2 for retail and my bill would look more like $20/month for this.

Pay:
HBO, STARS, Showtime, Cinimax

Retale for this pack is $25/month.

Total cable bill would be less than $50/month (plus internet). Half my bill.

Not on the list:
ESPN ~ $5.54/month
ESPN2 - 0.75/month
Disney - 1.15/month
NFL - $1.13
FOX News - 0.94
Nick - 0.65
These add up to more than the cost of the ones I do watch.

Lawyers at ten paces...

[Anonymous Coward]

In this corner, ESPN aka Disney, whose legal department rivals the Nazgul of IBM in sheer numbers.

In the other corner, Verizon, spawn of the Deathstar, whose legal department.... Oh wait.

Break out the popcorn, this is gonna be good.

PseudoTV on XBMC

[MaizeMan]

I don't know if it is integrated with Netflix yet (or ever) but it address the exact use case you're describing. Picking random stuff from the set of all videos I have access to, group them logically into thematic clusters and just keep throwing content on the screen without the user having to invest any mental energy in choosing what to watch beyond "I feel like switching from the comedy channel to the science fiction drama channel."

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.

Re:PseudoTV on XBMC

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, my wife and I tend to just watch two shows at a time on Netflix (one 30m on 60m) because we found that if one of us said, lets find a movie to watch, we spent the next 30m looking for a movie, and then realized we didn't have time to watch a movie anymore so we just went to our default shows anyway.

Re:PseudoTV on XBMC

[blue9steel]

Yeah, I'm amazed Netflix doesn't have a "Show me something you think I'd like" button. I mean you're already rating stuff, it would be pretty trivial for them to add.

Re:PseudoTV on XBMC

[kimvette]

They do have "because you liked $foo[n] you might like $bar[*]" groups

History repeats itself

[ThatsNotPudding]

Just like Google after them, ESPN was once the plucky, decent, little engine that could. But once the money started rolling in, they both turned into rapacious, black-hearted juggernauts with out-sized influence at every level including regulatory capture.

A pox on both their mansions.

Begun, the content wars have

[MetalliQaZ]

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.

Re:Begun, the content wars have

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, no. Monopoly #1 will negotiate a deal with Monopoly #2 that makes them both more (of my) money.

Piss on ESPN

[MitchDev]

Waste of money, if a customer doesn't want the Sprots package, shouldn't have to pay for it...

Re:Piss on ESPN

[MitchDev]

bloody typos...

why I dumped cable

[Anonymous Coward]

ESPN is why I dumped cable. I told Comcast i want a package without ESPN. They told me they couldn't. I told them they were fired.

Driving down the cost of content

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Driving down the cost of content

[Anonymous Coward]

No business in the history of capitalism is trying to figure out how to make less money from you. Just keep that in mind whenever you're trying to determine whether a business is acting in your interest. Unless your interest is in giving them more money they are not acting in your interest.

Re:Driving down the cost of content

[Streetlight]

I haven't heard here anything about what ESPN pays the various sports leagues for their content. ESPN is willing to pay the USGA more than NBC for the rights to broadcast the US Open Golf championship or it's willing to pay more than some other network for tennis or college football, NFL football, etc. The high cost to ESPN for the right to broadcast sports entertainment is likely the reason for extracting high fees from pay TV providers and ultimately for those who subscribe to pay TV. Some of these costs are also attributable to the expense of running the individual teams in the leagues including high salaries for players, coaches or prize money in golf or tennis. As most of us know the highest paid employee of a major university is a sports head coach, sometimes in the millions of dollars per year. The university has to get that money back somewhere and TV revenue is an important source of those funds. It's a never ending bidding war: teams pay high salaries because they know they can get the money from some broadcaster and the broadcasters know they can get the money from over the air or pay TV channels, and round-and-round it goes. The only way to break the circle is for one of the radii spokes to refuse to pay and viewers to forgo sports entertainment for awhile.

Re:Driving down the cost of content

[toonces33]

When there is a hurricane or severe storm, then TWC is 2nd to none. The McWeather thing they replaced it with is total crap. Their comment was that most people get their weather from the internet, and now that they dropped TWC, I really do.

Honestly I think they should drop those other programs that they have in the evening as well. Note however that they will drop them in an instant when there is severe weather out there somewhere, and switch over to live coverage.

Re:Driving down the cost of content

[TheSync]

Forbes says "ESPN's sports rights costs jumped from $2.8 billion in 2009 to $4.1 billion last year [2013]."

That is $35/year per US television household (but obviously ESPN is paying for more than just US rights).

Re:Driving down the cost of content

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds about right. I think ESPN probably costs $5/month with profit for each subscription.

I imagine The Weather Channel only costs a $0.25/month or so.

ESPN greed aside, I don't mind paying for something I rarely use personally (maybe someone in my household benefits) if it means other people benefit. However, I do think cable providers need to have "cord-cutters" package.

Re:Why ... Cause of airplanes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplanes...I would have cut the cord long ago if I wasn't in the path of landing airplanes. Every time one passes over I get interference and the picture and sounds break up. You can't actually watch a show that gets interrupted every few minutes on busy nights. It's annoying but barring a change in the local FAA flight patterns that isn't going to change anytime soon.

How does that phrase go?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Felony infringement on a business model"?

You know they'd screwed when they've fallen back to suing because they can't make a profit the way they always used to.

Captcha: mismatch

Those of us withOUT the "Sports Gene"....

[LVSlushdat]

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?

[roc97007]

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:what if the consumer doesn't watch sports?

[toonces33]

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.

Re:what if the consumer doesn't watch sports?

[roc97007]

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.

I agree, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason why that shouldn't be true for all content.

Re:what if the consumer doesn't watch sports?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing just how greedy they are.

Neckbeard geeks hate ESPN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tune in at 11:00!

Hooray for Verizon, kind of

[swb]

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.

Cable cutting incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the high cost of cable is partly driven by the contract to force subscriptions to include the sports channels. Because pay TV can't offer lower cost alternatives, Netflix is eating their lunch. Cable cutting is very popular and gaining speed.

A phone company should stop trying to be a cable company and sell internet. ESPN then can try to sell to customers that actually will want to pay for their content.

The deal I want is a good internet connection. Bundles are just extra overhead.

VOIP phone service can be under $15/mo for unlimited minutes for all of US and Canada. Not interested in bundles, including sports.

FU ESPN

[oh_my_080980980]

Go fuck you self.

Re:FU ESPN

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Did you forget the comma between you and self? There, that makes sense now.

sports free bundle

[johnwerneken]

A sports free bundle and I might consider cable TV!

Paying for channels we don't watch

[Pollux]

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 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.

sports-free bundles please!

[kimvette]

Yes, I'd pay for bundles which exclude the sports channels. The only sport I've any interest in watching on television is hockey, and I'd pay for that a la carte if I could, and not get the rest... and it would be even better if I could edit the guide to remove them so I don't have to skip over 50-100 channels to get to the next group. :)

I can't believe how many sports channels I blocked

[msobkow]

I'm stunned at how many sports channels I had to block even with basic IPTV from SaskTel here in Saskatchewan, Canada. I have ZERO interest in sports, and I'm kind of pissed off that some of the money I pay is going to support that crap, which I do not and will never watch.

I'd much rather have something like BBC News or BBC1 than a bazillion sports channels.

I like ESPN

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I just want ESPN, ROOT SPORTS, FS1, TNT, NBCS, NFL Network, and the NBA Network. (Plus my free OTA local channels) I hate having to pay for those other crap channels in order to get the ones I mentioned. So I feel for you guys. We are both getting screwed.

Re:I like ESPN

[DewDude]

Your "free OTA local channels" aren't free; your provider has to pay to carry them. You, in turn, pay to get them. You cannot opt-out of this either.

No sports--cool!

[Ron Goodman]

I would love to be able to opt out of paying for any sports channels. It's one type of programming I absolutely never watch.

this has been a choice for some time

[perotbot]

The Verizon "Select" bundle has been ESPN free (sports tier free actually) for over 2 years, so ESPN wasn't paying attention before?

Re:first

[bondsbw]

Really you are just rooting for better choice. The fact that it is Verizon who would happen to gain from your happiness this time should not deter your hatred of them.

Re:ESPN Still Gets $ From You

[Pauldow]

Ever hear of ESPN3? If you can access it, that means your ISP is paying ESPN to allow you access to that site, and the ISP isn't doing that out of their profits. That cost is built in to your internet charge even if you never go to that site, or subscribe to any television services.
Naturally ESPN tells the ISP that they will give them a break on their television services (Won't raise their tariff a humungous amount) if they carry ESPN3.

Monopoly Control

[Anonymous Coward]

In most markets, Comcast is a licensed monopoly. If I don't like McD's, I can cross the street to BK or several other alternatives. If I want TV, or broadband, there usually isn't much choice.

Re:ESPN Still Gets $ From You

[nolife]

I have Comcast internet without Comcast cable. I can not watch ESPN3. It must come out of the cable TV subscribers bill, not the internet side, or I am paying for it AND can't watch it.

Just stop with the "analysis!"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't insist on pre-game banter, mid-game banality, and post-game time wasting, and the constant armchair quarterbacking, I wouldn't care if ESPN was there or not. I even enjoy watching the occasional baseball game, but I don't want to talk about it for hours, I don't want to hear about it for hours, and I don't care about what washed up athletes think about it.

So instead I rely on antenna TV.

When ESPN ...

[Anonymous Coward]

sends over a goon squad of 145 armored police with Louisville Sluggers to kill a Verison Rat-Shake full of 360 low-lives maybe then I will watch ESPN.

Ha ha

College football

[tepples]

Unlike the Super Bowl, the NCAA College Football Championship Game is on cable. Source

So, I need to contact Verizon

[whitroth]

... to come in on their side. I resent having to pay for a ton of channels that I will NEVER, EVER watch.

                      mark "interest in sports approaches zero as a limit"

Re:first

[DriveDog]

Yeah, seeing something about ESPN vs Verizon triggered a "why should I care, I hope they both go down in flames" knee jerk reaction. So if Verizon tries to do something that benefits customers as well as themselves, they get smacked for it. Hmmm.

mind=blooown

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that for the first time in Slashdot history a sick, repulsive, utterly disgusting comment that is sure to offend many, incite violence, and maybe even run off some long time readers was successfully thwarted with a gay dick joke.

Simple solution.

[vandamme]

We've never had cable.

Since 1974.

Satellite

[tepples]

The other major providers of multichannel subscription television are DirecTV and Dish Network.

For Internet

[tepples]

Someone would have cable Internet because dial-up is unusably slow, fiber to the home is unavailable in his location, DSL is either of the above, satellite and cellular are cost prohibitive with their $5-$10 per GB quota, and moving is also cost prohibitive. Someone would have cable TV if the double play from the local cable company is cheaper than Internet service alone.

Does anyone here care?

[leadsling]

Hard to imagine more than one percent of Slashdot readers giving a lick about this. Although ESPN is about the only thing on cable or satellite that you can't get elsewhere.

Also IPTV

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to satellite, many areas have an option for IPTV through AT&T U-Verse or CenturyLink Prism or something similar. We've had Prism before, and it was pretty good, better than cable in that area.

- T