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

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.

[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 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: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: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.