ESPN Sues Verizon Over Customizable FiOS TV Plans

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's not like we didn't see this coming, we just didn't expect it to be ESPN.

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. We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts.
Click to expand...
 
First (and likely only time) I will root for Verizon here. Give me the ability to drop ESPN from my channel line up, and see how fast it happens!


This is why ESPN is scared, the have been sucking off the teets of those who don't care for far too long, and are by far the MOST expensive channel to carry in any lineup.
 
Because EVERYONE needs to have 37 ESPN channels bundled in. Even if, like me, they could give two shits about sports.

espn8-sm.jpg
 
I think out of all the major networks ESPN is the one that has the most to lose. That is why they're doing this.
 
FTFY

ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to pillage consumer's wallets on multiple platforms and our agreements are designed to ensure that everyone must pay us even if they don't want to watch sports. We simply ask that Verizon continue to help us in this pillaging.
Click to expand...
 
Not surprised it's ESPN actually. They have the most leverage and are some of the most aggressive at pricing and attaching requirements to be able to access their content.
 
The ESPN campus is huge as they must have millions and millions of dollars coming in. With as many people enthusiastic about sports, does ESPN really need to worry? I don't ever watch ESPN but almost everyone I know watches sports and it's on in every tire shop and mechanics shop I have ever been to.
 
And in other news, ESPN goes black on Verizon FIOS customers TV's....... Probably.....
 
Chas said:
Because EVERYONE needs to have 37 ESPN channels bundled in. Even if, like me, they could give two shits about sports.
Click to expand...

Same here. I would love to not have to pay for the sports channels I NEVER watch.
 
mcravenufo said:
The ESPN campus is huge as they must have millions and millions of dollars coming in. With as many people enthusiastic about sports, does ESPN really need to worry? I don't ever watch ESPN but almost everyone I know watches sports and it's on in every tire shop and mechanics shop I have ever been to.
Click to expand...

I think you would find the number who are interested in sports in general, and ESPN specifically, would be much lower then you seem to expect.

I'm sure huge numbers of people would continue to include ESPN in their cable package, but every single person who drops it would be a loss for them as now every subsriber is forced to pay for them.
 
TechLarry said:
And in other news, ESPN goes black on Verizon FIOS customers TV's....... Probably.....
Click to expand...

depends on what their contract says ... if it requires they be in the highest or core consumption tier then they don't need to pull anything (they just need to back a truck up to Verizon headquarters to hold all the money they will collect for breach of contract) ... if it doesn't say that then expect aggressive renegotiation's when the contract comes up for renewal ;)
 
ESPN knows that as soon as people realize how much they are paying just for ESPN that customers will start to drop it.
 
Don't care about most sports (aside from UFC) so I'd drop it in a heartbeat if it weren't in the "bundle" with iai bunch of other channels I never watch only to get the (few) that I do enjoy.
 
the companies at risk the most are small niche channels which there are many.
a. all the sports guys are upset, dont care about national geo
b. nat geo is upset, those people dont care about espn

in the end all of these networks may go underfunded (or some today may be over funded) and we may lose content.

I would like to see "larger chunks":
a. I want sports > chunk goes to sports
b. I want animal/natural/education
c. I want it all
 
Personally I don't see how they can dictate what another company sells or force a company to sell their products to said companies customers. That's what it sounds like this is coming down to. You would think any contact that has that type of wording would be unenforceable, like a non-compete clause for sandwich makers.
 
underfunded?

why the fuck should I have to pay for sports or for the 100s of channels of bullshit I don't watch. You know why ESPN costs so much? It is part of what sport franchises charge them. It's a big goddamn pie going to support overpaid athletes and wealthy owners. even more of my tax money is being spent to fund their stadiums. Fuck them all.
 
jroe52 said:
the companies at risk the most are small niche channels which there are many.
a. all the sports guys are upset, dont care about national geo
b. nat geo is upset, those people dont care about espn

in the end all of these networks may go underfunded (or some today may be over funded) and we may lose content.

I would like to see "larger chunks":
a. I want sports > chunk goes to sports
b. I want animal/natural/education
c. I want it all
Click to expand...

Why should subscribers be forced to pay for any channel they aren't interested in, niche or not?

It would make it harder for new channels to gain a foothold, but that doesn't mean they should be able to force consumers to pay for it even if they don't want it.
 
embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers

What part of forcing people to take channels they don't want represents value or innovation?
 
One more thing, as for "loosing content" I have a couple hundred channels via DirecTV but there are probably less then a dozen that I've watch anything on int he past several years, so obviously I am not interested in their content, so loosing it will be no loss for me.
 
Tak Ne said:
embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers

What part of forcing people to take channels they don't want represents value or innovation?
Click to expand...

Well it's very innovated, I mean normally only the government can extort money in this type of manner.
 
ESPN is one of the reasons I refuse to subscribe. It's ridiculously expensive, I never watch it, yet it is 'required' to get things I would watch like BBC America, the Discovery networks, and movie channels. Cable is an antiquated dinosaur and will either adapt or go extinct and that's why they're running scared as they know it.
 
You guys have to remember, ESPN is The Mouse. They may be coming at this from an angle instead of a frontal assault, but Disney has lots of interest in making sure their 30 or so network brands are included in packaged deals. They may be looking at old (pre-GO/Disney) contract agreements that have ESPN's lesser wanted stations and using that as basis of their fight for lesser wanted ABC stations.
 
I just get chills. No more Fox news, or MSNBC news channels, no more shopping channels! Ohhh lordy me. No more spanish channels since nobody in my household could give two shits about watching something in spanish.

No more sports channels, because.. damn those are boring to watch at home alone.

then I can put those subscription dollars to something more meaningful like perhaps an anime network, or Aljazeera news or something like that. Finally I don't have to have every damn channel in the world just so I can watch BBC America.

things like this are why I have any sports channels or any of the above unwanted channels.
 
Grimlaking said:
I just get chills. No more Fox news, or MSNBC news channels, no more shopping channels! Ohhh lordy me. No more spanish channels since nobody in my household could give two shits about watching something in spanish.

No more sports channels, because.. damn those are boring to watch at home alone.

then I can put those subscription dollars to something more meaningful like perhaps an anime network, or Aljazeera news or something like that. Finally I don't have to have every damn channel in the world just so I can watch BBC America.

things like this are why I have any sports channels or any of the above unwanted channels.
Click to expand...

If this ever comes to pass don't expect to save much, if anything, as I'm sure the individual channels that people actually want will cost almost as much as the bundles they were in.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
If this ever comes to pass don't expect to save much, if anything, as I'm sure the individual channels that people actually want will cost almost as much as the bundles they were in.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm seeing. Bundling is going away, and you're simply going to get less at the same price.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That's what I'm seeing. Bundling is going away, and you're simply going to get less at the same price.
Click to expand...

Actually they should charge you more for the convenience of giving you less ... just like diet food tends to be more than regular food :p :D
 
kbrickley said:
Actually they should charge you more for the convenience of giving you less ... just like diet food tends to be more than regular food :p :D
Click to expand...

Sad part is that this will probably be what happens and since the cable companies wont be paying nearly as much for channels their profits will grow astronomically.
 
jroe52 said:
the companies at risk the most are small niche channels which there are many.
a. all the sports guys are upset, dont care about national geo
b. nat geo is upset, those people dont care about espn

in the end all of these networks may go underfunded (or some today may be over funded) and we may lose content.

I would like to see "larger chunks":
a. I want sports > chunk goes to sports
b. I want animal/natural/education
c. I want it all
Click to expand...

While, as the consumer who has to PAY for all those extra channels, I give not one singular lackadaisical fuck about that.

Realistically though, I understand. Single-channel a la carte is probably not desirable from either direction. As it would give the cable companies and the conglomerates license to nickel and dime us to death.

But more granularity in channel packaging would be wonderful.
 
There's really only like 20 channels my family watches. I only have four or five that I watch and none are ESPN. However....I have to purchase 200+ channels to get those that I do want to watch.

So...Fuck off ESPN. I hope the courts hand your ass to you. :mad:
 
If ESPN is suing over this pathetic "skinny bundle" thing Verizon has going on, what everyone wants, true unbundling, doesn't stand a chance.

I mean, Verizon's skinny bundles are just as bad a deal (if notnworse) than their trditonal bundles...
 
And corporate America continues to be as clueless as possible. Change is coming whether they like it or not.
 
Getting rid of pay tv is one of the best things I've ever done, next to quitting following sports.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
Same here. I would love to not have to pay for the sports channels I NEVER watch.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The problems with cable are more with the media providers than they are with the cable companies.

Forced carry clauses should be considered illegal, and the media companies should be required to offer the channels separately at similar pricing to the bundles.
 
timta2 said:
Getting rid of pay tv is one of the best things I've ever done, next to quitting following sports.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I haven't had TV since my current landlords booted Comcast from the building.

Honestly, outside of Doctor Who, I pretty much don't miss TV at all.

Of course, the TV-fiend child I used to be is pointing at modern me like:

sutherland.jpg


But hell, when I was a kid there was a lot more stuff on that I wanted to watch.

Battlestar Galactica (the original)
The Dukes of Hazzard
Knight Rider
Automan
The A-Team
Airwolf
The Greatest American Hero

etc

etc

And that doesn't even take into account Saturday Morning Cartoons *Cue angelic choir*.

Nowadays, 200 channels of crap, crap, crap, crap (oh, and did I mention crap?)
 
OEM said:
I think out of all the major networks ESPN is the one that has the most to lose. That is why they're doing this.
Click to expand...

I think eventually we will see this with the news channels as well as Social Media has quickly overtaken the news industry.
 
Tak Ne said:
embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers

What part of forcing people to take channels they don't want represents value or innovation?
Click to expand...

Who's forcing? Oh yeah that would be Verizon.

Maybe Verizon shouldn't have signed a contract with ESPN that is essentially the basis of the lawsuit. Oh wait Verizon did that because they wanted to build up that facet of their company to be just like cabal companies and screw people over. Now they're "being nice" and think existing contracts don't apply anymore because they're not needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top