Sign in / up

back to article ESPN sues Verizon: People picking their own TV channels? NOOoo!

Sports TV giant ESPN is suing Verizon after the telco invited its FiOS home subscribers to pick and choose their TV channels. ESPN has filed a lawsuit in New York State alleging breach of contract, and is seeking damages. ESPN reckons Verizon is "unfairly depriving" it of money by allowing people to drop unwanted channels, …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. O RLY

    Goodbye ESPN

    ESPN would be one of the networks I'd choose to leave out if I were a Verizon cable customer. When I canceled my cable, several friends said they'd miss live sport and ESPN SportsCenter and that's why they wouldn't cancel cable. For me, ESPN is one of the reasons I was happy to cancel.

    13 0 Reply
    1. Mark 85
      Reply Icon

      Re: Goodbye ESPN

      My sense is that ESPN feels that if given the choice, subscribers would not choose ESPN and their market share, prestige (uh-huh... poker...) and profit would drop. Hopefully the days of bullying from content providers will be coming to end industry wide.

      Our cable package came with a bunch ESPN channels. I asked about deleting them, since we don't watch them. Got a big fat "no... it's in their contract" answer. I wonder if their advertising revenue is based on the number of viewers it's available to, or the number of viewers who actually watch?

      14 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Goodbye ESPN

        I'm guessing it's users available to whatever region. But guessing at the other part, I would think in the U.S. that things like the Nielsen ratings would dictate certain 'prime' slots. But yeh, if you just rolled in and asked for a 1-off commercial to air that was bottom tier at 4 A.M., they are going to state there is X amount of users available. Now if you wanted that same piece to air at 8 P.M., that's X + $_PRIME_COST (or whatever).

        Regardless if I'm right or wrong, there has to be some similar mechanic to it. And it's that mechanic that makes the All-Or-Nothing bundle sweet for ESPN. They can use a median figure and sell it off as a whole, not to just you, but to advertisers as well. Now, do you want to pay for the All-Or-Nothing figure is obviously what Verizon is asking, but ESPN can't be bothered with the logical answer (They're too busy rolling in it).

        ESPN sucks anyhow, even if you're a sports fan. ESPN is basically what MTV turned into...Marketing Television. I'm not a sports fan, but I've seen it a few times and it's only real sport is racing...racing through commercials. And to shoe a bias, I almost never see women on it, and as a dude...well...yeh ESPN sucks.

        1 0 Reply
        1. Wade Burchette
          Reply Icon

          Re: Goodbye ESPN

          What is especially annoying is how much ESPN charges to carry their channel. It adds around $5 or $6 to a cable bill. ESPN makes a lot of money from ads and forced carry contracts. In turn they pay out a lot of money in TV contracts to different leagues, both professional and college. If ESPN loses this battle (and I hope they do) then they stand to lose a lot of money. They will have to raise their already high rates to pay for their TV contracts, which will probably turn some more people off ESPN.

          I, for one, have no need of ESPN over the summer. If Verizon wins and my cable company follows suit and lets me choose to have ESPN, then I would dump all the ESPN's until the autumn.

          "ESPN sucks anyhow, even if you're a sports fan."

          The network is filled with homers. They have favorite teams and they do not try to hide their bias. In professional football (American football for those across the pond) they love the 4 teams in the NFC East division. In college football, they love the SEC. In college basketball, they have earned the nickname DSPN for "Duke SPN" because they love Duke university. And I could go on. The homerism is sickening.

          1 0 Reply
  2. David Kelly 2

    Drop ESPN

    ESPN's terms stipulate the cable company will pay for ESPN for all customers or none. Ever since ESPN decided *poker* was a *sport* I realized I had totally lost interest in ESPN programming. Is not in my Dish favorites list at all. Have not watched since they last aired a Formula 1 race.

    By contract law Verizon is in the wrong. Morally, I have no respect for ESPN.

    9 0 Reply
    1. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: Drop ESPN

      Sounds to me like Verizon is looking to break the contract. Good for them.

      2 0 Reply
  3. Beachrider

    You CAN give up ESPN...

    There is NOTHING wrong with doing Verizon without ESPN. You just have an issue with anything beyond 'Broadcast Basic', under their current contract. Verizon is free to negotiate with ESPN after the current contract runs out. Buying channels by-the-drink is more expensive, but there is the opportunity to save money. You just need to find a cable provider that had-the-gumption to foresee this and get their contracts expired so they can offer it to you.

    4 0 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You CAN give up ESPN...

      Actually, there is. Disney (who owns ESPN) ALSO owns ABC, whose network pretty much covers the entire nation in terms of broadcast. This means Verizon MUST carry ABC channels (under FCC rules, any free-broadcast network MUST be carried by any non-broadcast provider covering the broadcast area--been that way since cable was introduced). So Disney can play hardball in terms of carriage. If they want to be FCC-compliant and carry the local ABC channels, then they must also include ESPN: all-or-nothing.

      1 6 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You CAN give up ESPN...

        Sorry, you misunderstand how must carry works. Must carry forces cable companies to carry channels only if they are freely offered - no cost and no strings attached. The minute they charge for carriage (and all the major network affiliates now do, because the networks now charge them for the programming they provide) they are freed from must carry.

        Additionally, most ABC affiliates are independent, and not owned by ABC. So Disney can't bundle your local ABC station with ESPN. The bundling Disney does is simply to lump ESPN in with the Disney channels and other channels they own like ABC Family. The only leverage Disney has here is to say "take all our channels, or you get none of them". Sure, half the subscribers might say "that's fine, I don't care about either channel, but for a big cable company with millions of subscribers, that's millions of customers fleeing because they consider not having ESPN a deal-breaker and to a lesser extent parents wanting Disney channel for their kids.

        6 1 Reply
      2. Dan Paul
        Reply Icon

        Re: You CAN give up ESPN...

        THAT would be unfair and likely a monopoly. You don't HAVE to carry anything but ABC legally.

        0 0 Reply
  4. TheProf
    Unhappy

    Not fine enough.

    'allows subscribers to get a few dozen basic channels'

    What? Whole channels? Can't I just pick the programmes I want to watch?

    I'll take Doctor Who. You can forget almost everything else.

    5 1 Reply
    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not fine enough.

      I don't remember the exact argument but I think buying only the TV programmes you want to watch supports terrorism

      13 2 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not fine enough.

      I have the Perfect TV /Film Package

      I get to chose what i want to watch

      Its Called Torrent Tv Snigger ( + no Adverts either )

      3 0 Reply
      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not fine enough.

        Torrents definitely fund terrorism AND pedophiles.

        While mix-tapes merely kill kittens

        8 0 Reply

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Mage Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Actually the reverse is a disgrace.

    The original reason of fixed selections was that only a few levels off encryption were available on Satellite and Cable.

    Now it's done so people think they are getting "value" when in reality most of their channels watched are Free To Air (Over 92% of viewing time on Sky in UK).

    A la Carte should be available on all Pay TV. The Technology now means it can be done and without phoning either, just web browser or internet connected Cable/Sat box.

    ESPN have a cheek!

    7 0 Reply
  6. Someone Else Silver badge
    Pirate

    Buffets

    While subscribers have been clamoring for an à la carte system for years, the networks are dead against the idea: they fear they will lose viewers and revenue should their channels be offered on an individual basis rather than as part of a larger service package.

    Who's running these networks, exiles from the RIAA or MPAA? Dudes, consider that if a subscriber doesn't want to watch your network, that subscriber isn't watching your network, dumbass!, regardless of whether it is in a bundle or à la carte. So any revenue you might be getting from advertisers (and remember, advertisers are the savior of any and all businesses in the 21st century) from said folks are nil. Now, I know that the cable/satellite carriers pay the networks for the "privilege" of carrying that network (which is stupid in and of itself, and is probably one of the drivers for companies like Comcast to create its own content), but carriers can (and do) remove networks from their service when the networks' demands become extortionate. (Dish Network, anyone?)

    The concept that the networks will lose viewers is pure bullshit, and the concept that they will lose revenue is ever-so-slightly processed bullshit. So back to your marketing department, ESPN; you'll just have to do better than that.

    (icon, because...well, it just seems appropriate)

    8 0 Reply
    1. Charles 9
      Reply Icon

      Re: Buffets

      "The concept that the networks will lose viewers is pure bullshit, and the concept that they will lose revenue is ever-so-slightly processed bullshit. So back to your marketing department, ESPN; you'll just have to do better than that."

      Except ESPN is a high-demand network. Otherwise, ABC would never have lost Monday Night Football. Say what you will about side sports when things get slow, but when the big sports come along, viewership is still high enough to draw ratings. Some channels you just cannot ignore if you're an advertiser.

      As for the channel blocks, remember that this system is analogous to the typical newspaper or magazine: most people buy them just for a section or two, yet one has to buy the whole thing to read them (Otherwise, why aren't newspapers partitioned? It wouldn't be worth the money otherwise). The idea is that of the impulse attraction: you pass by it in your flipping, see something interesting, and stick around. Sure it doesn't work all the time, but like TV ads and crime, they only have to be lucky ONCE.

      3 5 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Buffets

        "(Otherwise, why aren't newspapers partitioned? It wouldn't be worth the money otherwise)."

        I don't agree with that, the other stuff sure, but a newspaper to me really isn't comparable for 1 reason, reuse. You really can't reuse ESPN, unless you wait hours/days or are lucky enough for an encore (is there encores in sports...? But is that even reuse?). Regardless of that, you can just throw a paper on a table and anyone can pick it up without a "subscription". I do get what you are saying about how it is sold, but it is what is being sold that changes the scenario. It's like cereal, you might have to buy it for the boxed toy, but someone can still eat it...ESPN, not so much. (You can argue recordings/DVR, but those recordings are supposed to be for the "subscriber" ONLY...not for anyone who can consume).

        Either way, you did state that Monday Night Football is now on ESPN. I didn't know that, but it's all too fitting of the greedy to take interests away from the masses for corporate gain....it's just extra greedy. Of course, this is what kills sports viewing in the end. The less kids that can see sports on TV, the less they will have a grown interest in watching sports on TV, ultimately killing off sports viewing.

        1 0 Reply
        1. Charles 9
          Reply Icon

          Re: Buffets

          "I don't agree with that, the other stuff sure, but a newspaper to me really isn't comparable for 1 reason, reuse."

          Three letters: DVR (used to be VTR but you get the drift). This is what threw Nielsen into a hissyfit in the past because it means reuse with no way to measure it. Point is, if people like it enough, they'll record their shows and rewatch them at their leisure. Just as people save news articles they want to re-read. The secondhand viewing argument also applies to DVR or shared households.

          "Either way, you did state that Monday Night Football is now on ESPN. I didn't know that, but it's all too fitting of the greedy to take interests away from the masses for corporate gain....it's just extra greedy. Of course, this is what kills sports viewing in the end. The less kids that can see sports on TV, the less they will have a grown interest in watching sports on TV, ultimately killing off sports viewing."

          I say this because Disney took a calculated risk. ESPN used to carry their football on Sunday nights (so as not to interfere with ABC's Monday Night), but NBC outbid them for that right in the last round of negotiations (because they wanted back in the football business--smart move), so Disney was in a bit of a bind. They decided that, since ESPN is such a high-demand network that any cable company still standing would have it as part of their standard package and since households using only the over-the-air antenna would be exceedingly rare (due to the low amount of content), and since ABC as a whole at the time was on a bit of a skid, they can drop it from ABC, move it to ESPN, and not really suffer for it. It's been like this for a couple years now, and given there's been no plans to move it, you'd have to think Disney knew what they were thinking.

          0 0 Reply
    2. elDog
      Reply Icon

      Re: Buffets

      But are advertisers so stupid to pay a supplier just because their $100,000/min segment showed somewhere in the bundled package?

      I think they tend to be more sensitive to how many eyeballs are actually watching that segment, not just because it was available. Now, how to measure eyeballs. In the US, I sure wouldn't trust the cable companies or Nielson

      0 0 Reply
      1. Charles 9
        Reply Icon

        Re: Buffets

        Perhaps not so much stupid as "over a barrel". If it's a prerequisite to advertise on ESPN that you also have to advertise on ESPN2 and so on, what choice does the advertiser have to get in on one of the most-watched cable networks in the country?

        0 0 Reply
  7. cs94njw

    Reminds me of my bachelor days where we got Sky, and only wanted Sky One for Star Trek and other sci fi channels. Was gutted we had to take all the other crap as well :(

    4 0 Reply
    1. Captain Hogwash
      Reply Icon

      Re: Was gutted...

      I feel your pain. Was gutted to have to take any Sky channel when all I wanted was Film4 (it was £7/month on top on Sky subscription but not available standalone.)

      1 0 Reply
  8. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
    Megaphone

    Ah, this reminds me...

    ..of those halcyon days in the dim and dark past when the cable TV franchises were being awarded across the UK. It was touted as they new way to watch TV, "YOU pick the channels YOU want to watch". No we fucking don't. We get various packages and the channels most people want to watch are scattered across the packages so it's almost impossible to pick anything other than the all-you-eat package without missing a "must have" channel. It has NEVER been as the advertisers would have had us believe at the time.

    They did it again when digital came along and promised us crystal clear picture and crystal clear sound. No. They compress it to fuck and back again on most channels.

    Yes, yes, I know. The viewer is only the product being sold to the real customers, the advertisers.

    On the other hand, back in the day, Nickelodean tried to screw over the cableco with significantly higher prices and the cableco told them to piss off. The Nick channels went dark for about a month before they kissed and made up. Sadly, this is probably less likely to happen these days with the channels all being part of much larger merged operations now.

    2 0 Reply
  9. The Dim View

    Bring back the B.U.D.

    Back in the day I had a Big Ugly Dish. 8' (2.5 meter) diameter that scanned the skies for all the free to air content and the 35 dollars per year of subscription content to which I subscribed. Nearly everything was available ala carte. And truth be told most households watch less than a dozen channels on a regular basis.

    3 0 Reply
  10. thomas k.

    Nice change of pace

    Nice to see someone suing Verizon for a change. Turn about and all that.

    1 1 Reply
  11. Thorne
    Unhappy

    I hate watching sport

    So I'd never sign up for a package where half the damn channels are sport.

    7 0 Reply
    1. Charles 9
      Reply Icon

      Re: I hate watching sport

      You'd be noticeably in the minority.

      2 10 Reply
  12. The Vociferous Time Waster

    Quad play

    it's hard enough to get broadband without a TV package and two types of phone so picking your channels is a pipe dream

    1 1 Reply
  13. WalterAlter
    Pirate

    Ha Ha Retrograde Business Model

    Really tickles the shtick out of me to watch the Future march over antiquated business models like an army of alarm clocks. That's right, you cognitive trap jockeys, the Future is a serial killer loose in your house, and trying to stop the 4th dimension will necessarily be accompanied by a mosh pit symphony of snapping bones.

    In case you were wondering, my cable provider is GVTN, the Global Village Torrent Network. Oooh Pancho! Oooh Cisco!

    1 0 Reply
  14. JimboSmith Silver badge

    NESN

    First off I'm a Red Sox Fan and therefore NESN (New England Sports Network) is my home for sports, and is carried on basic cable. Never seriously bothered with ESPN and when I'm over in the states if what I want to watch sports wise is not on NESN I go to a bar/restaurant and watch the game there. Not going to pay for ESPN thank you very much and there are alternatives to the Disney Channel for the young ones.

    I do remember Yorkshire Cable back in the day promising me that they could supply all the channels I wanted to watch, only problem was they were insistent that I buy them in a bundle. I explained that there were only a few channels that I was likely to watch and could I create my own bundle - No! I had to buy loads to get the channels I wanted - mostly one in each bundle. So I told them I didn't want their TV service just the phone line (which they not only offered but which was very good value) and they installed just that. I then bought a satellite dish and watched the FTA channels including VH1 Germany with all the English bands on it. Couldn't use a Sky IRD on it though as they had set the encryption flag (so UK viewers couldn't watch it as they confirmed to me) and the box would just show a scrambled picture, you needed a FTA box.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Beachrider
      Reply Icon

      NESN in New England...

      NESN is grouped in a package of 'premium sports' (but not 'gold sports') in my area. The Cable provider has Broadcase Basic for $16/mo, no Sports basic-cable for $45/mo, basic-sports (and more) for $65/mo, premium sports for $75/mo. It isn't ideal, but you can choose how much SPAM you want in your spam-spam-spam-egg-spam sandwich.

      0 0 Reply
  15. earl grey
    Paris Hilton

    My only network is OBGYN

    Brought to me by the internet. Because Paris.

    0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like