not so fast:
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/espn-is-...ckage.html

ESPN suing Verizon for them trying to do a skinny cable package w/o ESPN.

If the ESPN contract stipulates that ESPN must be on the basic package, I don't see any way that Verizon wins this at all.

The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

(04-27-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Some people couldn't care less about sports. Why should they have to pay for espn if they don't want it?

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

(04-27-2015 11:52 AM)PirateJim Wrote:  Some people couldn't care less about sports. Why should they have to pay for espn if they don't want it?

They don't. They can cut the cord and not pay for it, obviously. Or they can try to find a TV provider that doesn't have a contract that requires them to carry ESPN in the basic package.

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

There's a very strong anti-trust argument that goes beyond contract law.

Also, ESPN isn't in the "basic" package with any cable company. Basic pretty much has just local channels. So it would depend on the contract language defining what constitutes "basic." And even if they have the contract language, does it only cover ESPN or does it also cover ESPN2, etc.?

(04-27-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

There's a very strong anti-trust argument that goes beyond contract law.

Cereal and soda manufacturers have contracts with grocery chains that require their products to be featured in certain ways, e.g. on shelves at eye level, as a condition of the stores carrying the products at all. The stores could choose not to sell Pepsi or Cheerios, just like Verizon could choose not to carry ESPN at all.

(04-27-2015 12:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The way is for the court to decide that consumers' rights are more important than ESPN's greed. To heck with their greedy terms.

if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

There's a very strong anti-trust argument that goes beyond contract law.

Cereal and soda manufacturers have contracts with grocery chains that require their products to be featured in certain ways, e.g. on shelves at eye level, as a condition of the stores carrying the products at all. The stores could choose not to sell Pepsi or Cheerios, just like Verizon could choose not to carry ESPN at all.

The stores get slotting fees. It works very well for them. And no one has the resources to fight both the grocery chains and the big brands on that. But what happens in grocery stores is really gray.

(04-27-2015 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 12:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

There's a very strong anti-trust argument that goes beyond contract law.

Cereal and soda manufacturers have contracts with grocery chains that require their products to be featured in certain ways, e.g. on shelves at eye level, as a condition of the stores carrying the products at all. The stores could choose not to sell Pepsi or Cheerios, just like Verizon could choose not to carry ESPN at all.

The stores get slotting fees. It works very well for them. And no one has the resources to fight both the grocery chains and the big brands on that. But what happens in grocery stores is really gray.

Maybe so. There is an ice-cream company in the Bay Area that was squeezed out of most of the grocery chain stores because of agreements for shelf space between the chains and the company that owns Haagen-Dazs. They survived by diverting most of their production to store-label ice cream.

(04-27-2015 12:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also, ESPN isn't in the "basic" package with any cable company. Basic pretty much has just local channels. So it would depend on the contract language defining what constitutes "basic." And even if they have the contract language, does it only cover ESPN or does it also cover ESPN2, etc.?

maybe not basic, but basic digital. Not on what Verizon is trying to do- putting them on a separate sports tier.

(04-27-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  if Verizon agreed to it, there's not a damn thing the court could do about it. Nothing.

Of course there is: declare the contract illegal and void. The courts absolutely have the right to do that and absolutely should do that if said contract is anti-competition and bad for consumers.

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

They don't. They can cut the cord and not pay for it, obviously. Or they can try to find a TV provider that doesn't have a contract that requires them to carry ESPN in the basic package.

Or the courts can find that ESPN's terms aren't in the best interests of consumers and tear the contract up.

Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think that courts are generally in favor of tearing contracts up.

And it's not just ESPN here. Disney is another big thing in this.

(04-27-2015 01:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Right. If the contract says what ESPN claims, then Verizon can't put ESPN only in a sports package or premium package. They can either put ESPN in their basic package, or not carry ESPN at all.

They don't. They can cut the cord and not pay for it, obviously. Or they can try to find a TV provider that doesn't have a contract that requires them to carry ESPN in the basic package.

Or the courts can find that ESPN's terms aren't in the best interests of consumers and tear the contract up.

Nothing wrong with that.

On what basis should a court have the *extraordinary* measure of invalidating a type of contract that has been repeated thousands of times before with nary a legal complaint? Because it's suddenly not "fair" (whatever that might mean) to consumers? Sorry - not being "fair" isn't a legal claim. If ESPN alone is worth a certain price and it demands universal carriage, then that's what they're worth in the free market. That price is then reflected to consumers. As Wedge stated, consumers have the choice of paying for cable or not paying for cable.

Now, if you want to claim that ESPN is abusing its market power for forcing carriage of ESPN2, ESPNEWS and the SEC Network in order to carry ESPN as a tying arrangement, which in turn artificially drives up prices for consumers, then you have a much different legal argument. There's some potential antitrust fruit there in theory, although pretty much everyone with standing (the cable and satellite companies) have avoided going down that road completely since virtually all of them are guilty of it themselves (see Comcast with NBC/USA/CNBC/NBCSN/its RSNs, DirecTV with its RSNs, Time Warner Cable with its RSNs, etc.).

Actually, this proves that ESPN recognizes that cord cutting is a threat. Next time, Verizon will pay more attention to the Ts and Cs.

(04-27-2015 01:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, this proves that ESPN recognizes that cord cutting is a threat. Next time, Verizon will pay more attention to the Ts and Cs.

Verizon isn't naive here. It's not that they didn't pay attention - they knew exactly what they were signing up for and understand that they are, at the very least, testing the limits of whether they're breaching their agreements (if not simply trying to breach them entirely and seeing if they can get public opinion on their side). Note that it isn't just ESPN fighting this - Turner and Fox want nothing to do with this Verizon model, either. Everyone knew that ESPN would never, ever, EVER agree to sign up for a sports tier - that was a fundamental business understanding that wasn't in a "Gotcha!" clause in their agreements. So, ESPN will absolutely fight this to the mat.

(04-27-2015 01:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, this proves that ESPN recognizes that cord cutting is a threat. Next time, Verizon will pay more attention to the Ts and Cs.

The thing is, do you really think ESPN would give Verizon the language that they would need? I sure as hell don't think so. So unless Verizon is willing to forgo all of ESPN/Disney properties- think ESPN, Disney, ABC stations the network owns- it's a no go.

I am not sure the OP knows what cord cutting is

it is getting rid of cable all together not getting rid of some channels on cable

and verizon may nave signed that deal with their FIOS TV package, but if people strip the TV off and just go with the internet they will most likely be free to choose the channels that are available

the only thing this will do is speed up cord cutting for those not interested in sports as others have pointed out

(04-27-2015 01:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think that courts are generally in favor of tearing contracts up.

And it's not just ESPN here. Disney is another big thing in this.

I'm only in favor of tearing up contracts that are obviously anti-competitive and bad for consumers. Not all contracts.

Don't lose sight of what matters here: consumers' best interests easily trump profit margins of businesses.