Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
It's a horrible contract if it purports to require that consumers pay ESPN even if they don't want it. In fact, that's arguably illegal.
Seriously? That's the best you have? It's OK for asshole cable companies to force you to buy something you don't want, and if you don't like that you're free to not have cable at all?
Complete and utter fucking nonsense.
Sorry, but ESPN has no legal standing to force the consumers of Verizon to essentially have a package which kicks back to ESPN.
That should get you a RICO conviction. Because if someone says "oh, sorry, but we have a contract with my cousin Vinnie, and you have to pay him every time you buy something from us".
Yeah, sorry. fuck that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Superbowl was on a OTA channel, no subscription required
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.