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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[MaskedSlacker]

He's from Uranus you insensitive clod!

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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.