Another new development in the whole cord-cutting, over-the-top, streaming phenomenon:

http://www.investors.com/news/technology...ish-sling/

Quote:“We believe Verizon will soon adjust its Custom TV packages to include ESPN in the base tier, which will be one less source of pressure on ESPN subscribers,” said Bryan Kraft, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, in the report.

Verizon launched Custom TV in April. Custom TV isn’t delivered via the Internet; it’s for pay-TV customers with set-top boxes. Plans start at $55 per month for 35 channels.

Verizon’s base package has excluded Disney’s ESPN, which garners the highest fees among cable networks. Disney sued Verizon claiming it doesn’t have rights to exclude its sports channel from TV bundles under programming deals.

On Verizon’s Q4 earnings conference call Jan. 21, Verizon CFO Fran Shammo spoke to the issue. “Look, this (dispute) will go its course,” he said. “They’re a great partner of ours; we will continue to work with them and I’m not going to speak to the actual lawsuit.”

Of course they're going to add ESPN to their traditional pay-TV service's basic ("skinny", per their marketing jargon) bundle. They have to. That's the agreement they signed. They were in the wrong to exclude it in the first place.

(02-11-2016 11:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Of course they're going to add ESPN to their traditional pay-TV service's basic ("skinny", per their marketing jargon) bundle. They have to. That's the agreement they signed. They were in the wrong to exclude it in the first place.

I applaud them for excluding ESPN. Don't know the legalality of it like you. Admittedly, I'm very anti-ESPN, you seem pro ESPN now, but if somehow someway the Big 10 drops ESPN as a media partner you'd come around. Cheers!

It's a simple matter of an agreement.

If a cable system wants to carry ESPN, they typically require that the channel be placed in the basic bundle as part of the terms of the carriage agreement. If they agree to that, then that's the deal.

Corbett says ESPN hasn't been doing that anymore, once the per sub fee increased past some threshold recently. I wouldn't be able to confirm or deny that. An (industry magazine) article talking about that would be great to read.


If you subscribe to a pay-TV service that does not carry ESPN as one of it's basic channels, then kudos to you. Of course, that system probably won't be in business very long. But kudos, nonetheless.

(02-11-2016 11:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's a simple matter of an agreement.

If a cable system wants to carry ESPN, they typically require that the channel be placed in the basic bundle as part of the terms of the carriage agreement. If they agree to that, then that's the deal.

Corbett says ESPN hasn't been doing that anymore, once the per sub fee increased past some threshold recently. I wouldn't be able to confirm or deny that. An (industry magazine) article talking about that would be great to read.


If you subscribe to a pay-TV service that does not carry ESPN as one of it's basic channels, then kudos to you. Of course, that system probably won't be in business very long. But kudos, nonetheless.

Are you kidding? 80% of the households don't watch ESPN. The cable companies are going to pander to the non-sport customers instead of ESPN to keep them rather than the customer just dropping the whole package.

Riddle me this, then, MWC: why didn't that already happen, long ago??

What has really changed?? Not that much, in terms of viewership habits.

The same vast majority of cable/sat subscribers have not watched ESPN, for decades, even though they've paid for it. Yet, ESPN has been a staple channel of pretty much all cable/sat system basic bundles, for decades.


Hmm .... think about that.

Maybe it seems counter-intuitive, but that might just be because you don't fully understand/appreciate how the business works. Keep in mind: the business, at its core, is not necessarily about best catering to the needs and wants of the subscribers. Its about maximizing the profit dollars for the investors! That's capitalism. That's our world.

(02-11-2016 11:40 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 11:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's a simple matter of an agreement.

If a cable system wants to carry ESPN, they typically require that the channel be placed in the basic bundle as part of the terms of the carriage agreement. If they agree to that, then that's the deal.

Corbett says ESPN hasn't been doing that anymore, once the per sub fee increased past some threshold recently. I wouldn't be able to confirm or deny that. An (industry magazine) article talking about that would be great to read.


If you subscribe to a pay-TV service that does not carry ESPN as one of it's basic channels, then kudos to you. Of course, that system probably won't be in business very long. But kudos, nonetheless.

Are you kidding? 80% of the households don't watch ESPN. The cable companies are going to pander to the non-sport customers instead of ESPN to keep them rather than the customer just dropping the whole package.

And with the non-sportsfan cord cutting crowd, ESPN is a bit of a pariah- if they see ESPN, that connotes expense.

And that's a minority, niche crowd, in the pay-TV world, Frog. One that, I think, has already largely completed its exit from mainstream distribution services.

ESPN was greedy and are dealing with the negative forces but Disney still has a some leverage. They could require a cable provider to carry ESPN if they want to carry the various Disney Channels and vice-versa. They'll be fine and perhaps will make more money with having a presence on the "skinny bundles" as well as add-on packages.

(02-11-2016 11:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's a simple matter of an agreement.

If a cable system wants to carry ESPN, they typically require that the channel be placed in the basic bundle as part of the terms of the carriage agreement. If they agree to that, then that's the deal.

Corbett says ESPN hasn't been doing that anymore, once the per sub fee increased past some threshold recently. I wouldn't be able to confirm or deny that. An (industry magazine) article talking about that would be great to read.


If you subscribe to a pay-TV service that does not carry ESPN as one of it's basic channels, then kudos to you. Of course, that system probably won't be in business very long. But kudos, nonetheless.

What I said was, the agreement is that any "base" cable package must include ESPN. People offer packages without it, but they cannot market Jen as a base package. It has to specify hat it's "limited," or an exclusionary package, or something like that (the word is not coming to me). Verizon was marketing a basic cable package that did not include ESPN. That was why they for sure.

ESPN is not really the problem. As frank the tank often points out, cable companies don't mind paying for ESPN, as it is a big driver for why a lot of people get cable. And it's not that 80% of people never watch ESPN: that assumes that all ESPN shows draw the same fans over and over. If you use that logic, no cable network is watched by more than 20% of the people.

ESPN gives cablers a LOT of ad time to sell; so it works out for them. ESPN keeps moving shows that used to be on free tv to cable;
Again that's a good thing for cable companies. It's the bundled, lesser watched channels, forced to be added when the likes of ESPN, tbat, USA, etc are signed up, that add up, once overhead is accounted for. It's not ESPN that is the issue: it's ESPN 2, ESPN u, the family channel, try tv, spike tv, G4, cnn headline news, SyFy, ESPN news' of the world that drive up the price of basic and extended basic cable.

Corbett (#10),

FYI I wasn't trying to "call you out" in my post. I just remembered you said something to that effect a little while ago, in a different thread.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, that makes sense to me. That is what I thought I understood about ESPN's typical agreement with most cable/sat systems for carriage.


I'm sure Verizon will argue that because they used the marketing term "skinny", that they bypassed the agreement. But they'll clearly lose that battle.

(02-12-2016 10:32 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm sure Verizon will argue that because they used the marketing term "skinny", that they bypassed the agreement. But they'll clearly lose that battle.

Well, I do want to point out that I heard about the case, but never looked into it. I was under the impression Verizon was selling a package listed as a '"basic" package, or something similar, that had most of the basic channels, but did not include ESPN. That would be in violation of the contract. I don't know if it is the "skinny" package or not, but if it were a package that had like 10 channels in it, that would seem to be okay. But one with say 30 channels, and no ESPN, that would be a lawsuit.

They were trying to do a Sling like setup, with small bundles but popular channels.

Grouped together by interest type. And ESPN said no.

(02-12-2016 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They were trying to do a Sling like setup, with small bundles but popular channels.

Grouped together by interest type. And ESPN said no.

Sling offers ESPN and ESPN2 in their base package.

(02-12-2016 01:48 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They were trying to do a Sling like setup, with small bundles but popular channels.

Grouped together by interest type. And ESPN said no.

Sling offers ESPN and ESPN2 in their base package.

yeah and now that I know that 30% of the $20 is for 2 two channels I'm asking them to be put on the sports pack.

(02-12-2016 01:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:48 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They were trying to do a Sling like setup, with small bundles but popular channels.

Grouped together by interest type. And ESPN said no.

Sling offers ESPN and ESPN2 in their base package.

yeah and now that I know that 30% of the $20 is for 2 two channels I'm asking them to be put on the sports pack.

Do you think it will actually happen?

roka,

Yes, that's exactly the point. If Verizon put ESPN in each of the "skinny" bundles, there would have been no lawsuit.

But what they were attempting to do would give their customers a way to subscribe to popular cable channels in a package that excluded ESPN. That is against their agreement with ESPN.

(02-12-2016 02:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  roka,

Yes, that's exactly the point. If Verizon put ESPN in each of the "skinny" bundles, there would have been no lawsuit.

But what they were attempting to do would give their customers a way to subscribe to popular cable channels in a package that excluded ESPN. That is against their agreement with ESPN.

I was just pointing out that what Verizon tried to do is not like what Sling did as you mentioned - in fact it is the opposite as far as ESPN is concerned.

(02-12-2016 01:58 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:48 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They were trying to do a Sling like setup, with small bundles but popular channels.

Grouped together by interest type. And ESPN said no.

Sling offers ESPN and ESPN2 in their base package.

yeah and now that I know that 30% of the $20 is for 2 two channels I'm asking them to be put on the sports pack.

Do you think it will actually happen?

No. But I voice my opinion to them, that along with being able to stream more than device at a time (Even if the kept the same rate and put ESPN in the sports pack)