# New FIOS Tv package doesn't include ESPN. ESPN not happy.



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com...s-new-ways-to-customize-fios-tv-subscription/

FIOS is introducing FIOS Custom TV for $55/mo starting April 19th with locals and some of the most popular channels and regulating ESPN to a sports add-on package. Add-on packages are $10/mo.

ESPN is not happy and says the contracts they have in place say Verizon isn't allowed to distribute ESPN and ESPN2 in a separate add-on package.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com...s-new-ways-to-customize-fios-tv-subscription/
> 
> FIOS is introducing FIOS Custom TV for $55/mo starting April 19th with locals and some of the most popular channels and regulating ESPN to a sports add-on package. Add-on packages are $10/mo.
> 
> ESPN is not happy and says the contracts they have in place say Verizon isn't allowed to distribute ESPN and ESPN2 in a separate add-on package.


And I was planning to get this along with four out of seven add On channel tiers. Which would save me around $25 a month. I've always hated ESPN and the regional sports channels being forced on me. The majority of people subsidize the cost for the minority of people that actually watch those expensive channels.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com...s-new-ways-to-customize-fios-tv-subscription/
> 
> FIOS is introducing FIOS Custom TV for $55/mo starting April 19th with locals and some of the most popular channels and regulating ESPN to a sports add-on package. Add-on packages are $10/mo.
> 
> ESPN is not happy and says the contracts they have in place say Verizon isn't allowed to distribute ESPN and ESPN2 in a separate add-on package.


No comment on the legality of it, or how they will handle it (lawsuit time!). But as someone who watches almost no sports, and is forced to pay for ESPN (plus a gazillion other sports channels), I'm glad to see this happening. ESPN is the most expensive non-premium channel, and I've heard is responsible for about $6-$8 of my cable bill.

I'm not a huge fan of the a la carte concept, as I like paying a fixed price for a large bundle, but the concept of having _some _segregation--sports, movies, kids, etc-- is a good idea.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place. The real reason ESPN is pissed is because of Verizon's bundling practices, where internet only ends up being the same as a basic double play package with ESPN included.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place. The real reason ESPN is pissed is because of Verizon's bundling practices, where internet only ends up being the same as a basic double play package with ESPN included.


I don't necessarily want ESPN yet I have cable. I know a bunch of other people too that feel the same way. We all have cable or satellite even though ESPN is rarely watched if ever.

And if the people that actually want ESPN were forced to pay an unsubsidized price for it, many of those people wouldn't get it either. Even though it's subsidized by the majority of people for the minority of people that watch it. ESPN is still the most expensive non-premium channel. ESPN has no choice but to fight to keep the status quo. Because without ESPN being subsidized, they would start to have a bunch of problems.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place.


Now, that's just plain silly . . . .


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place.


That's just not true. I don't watch sports at all. I have zero use for ESPN. I don't even know which channel it is. I would gladly pay less to get rid of it.


----------



## BruinGuy (Apr 16, 2015)

I think that ESPN fired the first volley by selling ESPN sans cable via the Sling package. This is just Verizon firing back.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> ....... The majority of people subsidize the cost for the minority of people that actually watch those expensive channels.


Just because you and some others don't watch ESPN doesn't make that statement right. Big 4 sports (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA) and college football, basketball are HUGE ratings draws, which is exactly why ESPN and other sports channels can charge as much as they do and have the power over MSOs and the reason why more and more keep popping up and also that each league now has their own channels as well. Your statement should read more like this.

Should read:


> ....... The *subscribers* subsidize the cost for the *majority* of people that actually watch those expensive channels.


The fact of whether you agree with it or watch the programming personally is moot.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BruinGuy said:


> I think that ESPN fired the first volley by selling ESPN sans cable via the Sling package. This is just Verizon firing back.


That sounds logical. Maybe now ESPN should get pissed and start selling their service to Sony's PS Vue so they can directly compete with FiOS in those areas!


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

HarperVision said:


> Just because you and some others don't watch ESPN doesn't make that statement right. Big 4 sports (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA) and college football, basketball are HUGE ratings draws, which is exactly why ESPN and other sports channels can charge as much as they do and have the power over MSOs and the reason why more and more keep popping up and also that each league now has their own channels as well. Your statement should read more like this.
> 
> Should read:
> _....... The subscribers subsidize the cost for the majority of people that actually watch those expensive channels.​_The fact of whether you agree with it or watch the programming personally is moot.


I was hoping for a debate until I looked at the viewership, you are indeed correct, at least in the under 50 demo.
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rat...-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/

*TOP PRIMETIME NETWORKS*
Adults 18-49

ESPN 990,000 (up 3% vs. last year)
TBS 932,000 (down 14%)
USA 908,000 (down 14%)
FX 767,000 (down 7%)
TNT 740,000 (down 12%)
Ad Swim 680,000 (down 10%)
Discovery 657,000 (down 5%)
AMC 656,000 (d0wn 5%)
History 643,000 (down 19%)
ABC Family 613,000 (down 2%)

*Total Viewers*

ESPN 2.28 million (up 6%)
USA 2.18 million (down 20%)
TNT 2.04 million (down 4%)
Disney 1.94 million (down 22%)
TBS 1.87 million (down 10%)
History 1.86 million (down 14%)
Fox News 1.73 million (even)
FX 1.45 million (down 4%)
Discovery 1.41 million (up 1%)
AMC 1.36 million (down 5%)


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place. The real reason ESPN is pissed is because of Verizon's bundling practices, where internet only ends up being the same as a basic double play package with ESPN included.


I hate ESPN. I have every sports channel marked "not received". If I could express my displeasure by paying more to not receive ESPN I would gladly do so.

My cable package include every available option. In my opinion, your assertion is specious and without merit. If it were true, ESPN wouldn't have to require that it be included in a basic cable package, it would be a high-cost selectable option.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

CoxInPHX said:


> I was hoping for a debate until I looked at the viewership, you are indeed correct, at least in the under 50 demo.
> http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rat...-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/
> 
> *TOP PRIMETIME NETWORKS*
> ...


Interesting that none of those get as many as a million viewers in the 18-49 demo.

I suspect that the ones that declined had viewers either find the shows "somewhere else" or found other, similar, substitute shows they preferred, but of course you can't really do that as easily with live sports and people who might substitute one cop show for another aren't going to do the same thing with sporting events.

Surprised to see such relatively high numbers for Rizzoli & Isles, especially considering how Women's Murder Club got dumped after just one season, and I'd consider it the better of the 2.

In fact, if it hadn't been for WMC, I'd probably never have bothered with R&I in the first place, unless maybe I'd somehow found out in advance that Bruce McGill was in it.

But it really bugs me to be paying something like $60 a year for ESPN when we never have any use for it except for the few times per year that it's the only source for particular football or basketball games involving 1 or 2 particular ACC teams.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

CoxInPHX said:


> I was hoping for a debate until I looked at the viewership, you are indeed correct, at least in the under 50 demo. http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/ratings-espn-tops-cable-for-year-own-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/ TOP PRIMETIME NETWORKS Adults 18-49 [*]ESPN 990,000 (up 3% vs. last year) [*]TBS 932,000 (down 14%) [*]USA 908,000 (down 14%) [*]FX 767,000 (down 7%) [*]TNT 740,000 (down 12%) [*]Ad Swim 680,000 (down 10%) [*]Discovery 657,000 (down 5%) [*]AMC 656,000 (d0wn 5%) [*]History 643,000 (down 19%) [*]ABC Family 613,000 (down 2%) Total Viewers [*]ESPN 2.28 million (up 6%) [*]USA 2.18 million (down 20%) [*]TNT 2.04 million (down 4%) [*]Disney 1.94 million (down 22%) [*]TBS 1.87 million (down 10%) [*]History 1.86 million (down 14%) [*]Fox News 1.73 million (even) [*]FX 1.45 million (down 4%) [*]Discovery 1.41 million (up 1%) [*]AMC 1.36 million (down 5%)


Wow, I'm surprised AMC, Discovery and History are that low, actually!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I don't necessarily want ESPN yet I have cable. I know a bunch of other people too that feel the same way. We all have cable or satellite even though ESPN is rarely watched if ever.


At this point, that's a small minority, since most teams and sports end up on ESPN at one point or another. If not ESPN, certainly RSNs, which are also bundled up.



> And if the people that actually want ESPN were forced to pay an unsubsidized price for it, many of those people wouldn't get it either. Even though it's subsidized by the majority of people for the minority of people that watch it. ESPN is still the most expensive non-premium channel. ESPN has no choice but to fight to keep the status quo. Because without ESPN being subsidized, they would start to have a bunch of problems.


That's true of any channel though. And far more people watch ESPN than a lot of the garbage cable channels out there. I'm thinking about what I've watched over the past year, and it's almost all locals (PBS), premiums, or the ESPN family, with a few other channels mixed in there again for sports, and that's becoming the norm.



ej42137 said:


> I hate ESPN. I have every sports channel marked "not received". If I could express my displeasure by paying more to not receive ESPN I would gladly do so.
> 
> My cable package include every available option. In my opinion, your assertion is specious and without merit. If it were true, ESPN wouldn't have to require that it be included in a basic cable package, it would be a high-cost selectable option.


The data doesn't back that up. And for the past year or so, the only thing holding the masses back from at least cord shaving has been sports. We're at a point where there's this big hole in between the networks and the premiums, this big black hole where there's nothing useful except sports that are spread out over a number of different channels so that you have to buy the full package to put humpty-dumpty back together and follow your favorite team/sport.



HarperVision said:


> Wow, I'm surprised AMC, Discovery and History are that low, actually!


Look at the garbage that's on them these days. If they were doing what they were doing 15 years ago with great documentaries and historical shows, then maybe more people would watch them. The only good educational content left is on PBS.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

The dust up in kind of amusing. I'm on a FiOS TV tier since last August with no ESPN... Select HD. I wanted BBCA, given all the money I was spending on Amazon Instant for Luther, Sherlock, Orphan Black, etc, and it was going to cost me $15 more to go up a tier for BBCA. But they also had a lower tier with it for $10 less a month, so I took that. I lost a few channels, like ESPN and Travel. But I'm often watching sports outside the home and still have ESPN3 or whatever via my broadband package.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CoxInPHX said:


> I was hoping for a debate until I looked at the viewership, you are indeed correct, at least in the under 50 demo.
> http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/rat...-hallmark-we-tv-among-few-gainers-1201391036/
> 
> *TOP PRIMETIME NETWORKS*
> ...


I wonder how these numbers are calculated? In the ratings thread in the Now Playing forum they show that The Walking Dead draws something like 14.5m viewers every week. (more then a typical NFL game) You'd think that alone would be enough to make AMC's numbers higher.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

What the heck is "Ad Swim"? Never heard of it. And TBS is towards the top? I've had that channel turned off in my receive list for years along with Disney.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Adult Swim. Neither did I.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

moyekj said:


> What the heck is "Ad Swim"? Never heard of it. And TBS is towards the top? I've had that channel turned off in my receive list for years along with Disney.


Does TBS even have any original programming? They always seem to be running reruns of old shows and old movies.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Does TBS even have any original programming? They always seem to be running reruns of old shows and old movies.


Since TBS also owns TNT (or more correctly, they're owned by Ted Turner), any original programming is aired on TNT since that is a bonafide cable network. TBS is basically a local Atlanta station that branched out nationwide to air the Braves games on cable and was one of the first "super stations" similar to WGN. I believe they also air NBA games, but I'm not sure since I don't follow the NBA.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> Does TBS even have any original programming? They always seem to be running reruns of old shows and old movies.


Conan is probably their most popular. There are a few more.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> Adult Swim. Neither did I.


Adult Swim is what they call the Cartoon Network between 8PM and 6AM ET.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Just because you and some others don't watch ESPN doesn't make that statement right. Big 4 sports (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA) and college football, basketball are HUGE ratings draws, which is exactly why ESPN and other sports channels can charge as much as they do and have the power over MSOs and the reason why more and more keep popping up and also that each league now has their own channels as well. Your statement should read more like this.
> 
> Should read:
> 
> The fact of whether you agree with it or watch the programming personally is moot.


Yes huge ratings draws but ESPN highest watched program last year, the college football championship, was only 25 million viewers. The average daily viewership for ESPN is around 2.3 milion. Yet ESPN has an outrageous number of subscriptions. 90 million or more? ESPN doesn't come anywhere closely to having a majority of their subscribers watch. Which is why the majority of subscribers are subsidizing the cost for the minority of subscribers that watch espn.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I checked the new FiOS offerings earlier today. I didn't see BBCA anywhere. Plus it said I was not eligible to get them. I guess because I still have fourteen months left on my two year contract. 

Which sucks because I would be able to save over $325 a year by getting this deal with four channel packs(plus phone and 75/75 internet)and not having to pay the $2.42 Regional sports fee that I'm currently forced to pay. The idea of not having to pay for that and espn has me salivating for this deal. But I guess I will need to wait until I'm further along in my two year contract.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> Adult Swim is what they call the Cartoon Network between 8PM and 6AM ET.


Which makes it ridiculous for them to list the 2 separately. It's like listing "Nickelodeon" and "Nick at Nite" separately.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Does TBS even have any original programming? They always seem to be running reruns of old shows and old movies.





mr.unnatural said:


> Since TBS also owns TNT (or more correctly, they're owned by Ted Turner), any original programming is aired on TNT since that is a bonafide cable network. TBS is basically a local Atlanta station that branched out nationwide to air the Braves games on cable and was one of the first "super stations" similar to WGN. I believe they also air NBA games, but I'm not sure since I don't follow the NBA.


TBS is a full-fledged cable network. It originated as a "superstation," WTBS Atlanta, but over time the cable channel began diverging from the broadcast channel. A few years ago (2007, actually), the broadcast channel split completely from the cable channel and is now "Peachtree TV," WPCH. Other than common ownership, there remains no connection between Peachtree TV and TBS.

And yes, TBS has a small original programming slate, all comedies (centered around their "Very funny" tagline). You can see them listed on this page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TBS#First-run.2Foriginal_programming

Some key examples recently have been:
- American Dad (picked up after FOX canceled it)
- Cougar Town (picked up after ABC canceled it)
- Ground Floor (from "Scrubs" and "Cougar Town" producer Bill Lawrence)
- Men At Work (starring "That 70s Show" star Danny Masterson)
- Sullivan and Son (from EP Vince Vaughn)
- Conan (late night show starring Conan O'Brien)

TBS also carries the NCAA tournament, along with TNT, TruTV, and CBS.

ETA: they will be adding a "Daily Show" style show from Daily Show alum Samantha Bee, and a scripted comedy from Daily Show alum Jason Jones (spouse of Samantha Bee, who will also EP).


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Last Sept I turned it off cabletv and went antenna. Cancelling was partially in protest against sports fees (dodgers) and ESPN. They just kept on charging more until it was no longer worth it. 

ESPN does not want to compete on a level playing field, which is kind of ironic if you think about it. In a perfectly competitive market they would not get the revenue that have and the teams would not be able to pay the ridiculous salaries that they have. Same for actors and entertainment executive salaries.

We know that the free market works, we end up with the best product for the best price. 

Maybe in the end, it may not be such a bad thing for TV to cost more. There are plenty of other things people could do with their time.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

For accuracy, Tuner Broadcast Systems is owned by Time Warner which also owns HBO/Cinemax. Ted Turner has nothing to do with the operations of these channels anymore.

As for ESPN, it is the most expensive channel on cable/satellite. What also has to be considered is Disney Corp has Disney channels, ABC channels, ESPN channels, and they also own a 50% stake in A&E Networks. Between Disney Corp and Fox News Corp, about half of what you pay monthly on your cable/satellite bill goes to these two corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks

I personally never watch any channels that these two corporation own so I am really getting ripped off. I mainly watch channels owned by Time Warner, HBO/Cinemax and TNT, and CBS Corp, which is Showtime and CBS Network. As you can see I have to pay extra for the two premium channels. I also watch some programming on PBS like Frontline but there is no retransmission with my local PBS affiliate.

My cable system just renegotiated a retrans deal with Disney Corp so I am expecting a large rate hike either in May or June. I am basically at the end of the line as TV is exceeding my budget. I have had cable TV all my life, 49 years, and this maybe the last year that I will ever have it again. The only way I will be able to afford it going forward is if I hit the lottery, but that scenario is extremely remote.
I am also the majority of the American population who does not watch any sports at all so as us non sports viewers drop away, the sports fans better start preparing to pay some hefty bills to continue to support their viewing habit.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> The thing is, people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place.


Bzzz, wrong!

Look at the post *immediately above yours*. You know, the one where I said "I rarely watch sports, and would gladly give up ESPN. But I watch a ton of other cable."

ESPN may be very popular. But the only reason they have 90 million subs is because MSOs are required to offer it in the basic packages. I guarantee you if they said you could drop ESPN and just ESPN, and lower your bill $10/month, 20 or 30 million would drop it instantly.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

astrohip said:


> Bzzz, wrong!
> 
> Look at the post *immediately above yours*. You know, the one where I said "I rarely watch sports, and would gladly give up ESPN. But I watch a ton of other cable."
> 
> ESPN may be very popular. But the only reason they have 90 million subs is because MSOs are required to offer it in the basic packages. I guarantee you if they said you could drop ESPN and just ESPN, and lower your bill $10/month, 20 or 30 million would drop it instantly.


I would never miss it and would drop it for $5 a month. My Tivo always asks, when doing a Guided Setup, what channel is ESPN on to select my lineup. I have to look it up since I really never remember. I do watch Hardball. Doesn't that count as sports?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hmm.. I checked again and am able to add the Custom channel pack now. But it's showing a price of $135 for 4 channel packs, 75/75, and phone. I thought the press release showed that it should be $115? I only pay $140 now which gets me all the channels and most of the premium channels. If I can save $25 a month I would change, but for only a $5 savings I will stay put.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

JoeKustra said:


> I would never miss it and would drop it for $5 a month. My Tivo always asks, when doing a Guided Setup, what channel is ESPN on to select my lineup. I have to look it up since I really never remember. I do watch Hardball. Doesn't that count as sports?


When I was going through guided setup with my replacement TiVo I had to go to SECV's website to see what channel ESPN was on as I never watched it. I do believe it was channel 23.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I guess from what I've read at the DSLR forum, the pricing in the FiOS press release if for new customers only. Existing customer pay more which is why my prices were much higher when I looked. So I got all excited for nothing. Because at the price they want for current customers, it wouldn't be worth it to me. Since it would only be a few dollars less than I currently pay for the Ultimate HD tier.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

I've been a cord cutter off and on for several years now. For this thread I'm a minority, but for me the only reason to have cable for me would be for sports programming (various ESPN networks., NFL Network, BTN, TNT, TBS, & Tru for NCAA Basketball, and whatever cable networks they put the Olympics on) and also for the kids (Disney).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I find that a much larger percentage of what I watch now is coming from cable channels. A lot of my favorite shows from the main networks have gone away and very few of the new ones interest me. 

I think I prefer the shorter 10-16 episode seasons used by cable shows too. The 22-24 episode seasons used by the big networks make them feel drug out or make the main story arc take too long to conclude. Although I don't like the split some of the cable shows do where they show 6-7 episodes in the fall and then take a long break and show the rest in the spring. I wish they would just show them consecutively like the premium networks do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Yes huge ratings draws but ESPN highest watched program last year, the college football championship, was only 25 million viewers. The average daily viewership for ESPN is around 2.3 milion. Yet ESPN has an outrageous number of subscriptions. 90 million or more? ESPN doesn't come anywhere closely to having a majority of their subscribers watch. Which is why the majority of subscribers are subsidizing the cost for the minority of subscribers that watch espn.


The thing is, ESPN has a ton of different sports, some people watch one, some people watch several, and almost all sports cross ESPN at one point or another. Then, add in the machine that is SportsCenter and you begin to realize why they are so powerful. It's virtually impossible to avoid ESPN in modern America.



astrohip said:


> Bzzz, wrong!
> 
> Look at the post *immediately above yours*. You know, the one where I said "I rarely watch sports, and would gladly give up ESPN. But I watch a ton of other cable."


That's a tiny minority. The two reasons that more people haven't cut the cord are sports and HBO. Well, also bundling practices, but that isn't really a direct reason, sort of the effect of the MSO's games.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ESPN's price per subscriber today is making it more like an HBO in that it should be packaged separately because it is getting too costly for those who don't want it.


People talk about getting a bunch of channels they don't watch on cable. But the reality is most of those channels cost you peanuts per channel and the channels you do watch are cheaper per channel because they are part of a package. So it evens out.

But if the channels you don't watch cost 6-60x more than the channels you do then you are getting the short end of the stick and are subsidizing stuff you don't watch. And that's the case for not including sports programming as part of a standard tier in 2015.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

According to this article Disney is paying almost 2 billion dollars a year for the rights to Monday Night Football.
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/espn-re-ups-monday-night-football-pact-through-2021-134689

A lot of the exclusive deals Disney has with the various sports leagues are going to expire in the next few years. This is why Fox News Corp, Comcast, and CBS Corp started their own Sports channels. This will definitely drive up the cost of sports as this will result in a major bidding war to gain exclusive carriage for their prospective channels.

My cable system has moved CBS Sports Network, Fox Sports 1, and NBC Sports Network down to the Classic cable package in the past 4 months. Practically all the sports channels on my system are now in the classic cable package. I think the 2 Big Ten overflow channels, ESPNU, and three Fox college sports channels are still in the upper tiers.

I just wanted the broadcast basic channels and the premium channels but in order to have HD I have to subscribe to the Classic cable package. Practically everything revolves around the Classic cable package. So it is basically take the sports or take nothing at all.

http://www.secv.com/cdocs/rate_card_mah.pdf
http://www.secv.com/cdocs/channel_mah.pdf


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

JoeKustra said:


> I would never miss it and would drop it for $5 a month. My Tivo always asks, when doing a Guided Setup, what channel is ESPN on to select my lineup. I have to look it up since I really never remember. I do watch Hardball. Doesn't that count as sports?


My Guided Setup always asks what channel USA Network is on. And has for several generations of TiVos. Odd that we get different questions.



kettledrum said:


> I've been a cord cutter off and on for several years now. For this thread I'm a minority, but for me the only reason to have cable for me would be for sports programming (various ESPN networks., NFL Network, BTN, TNT, TBS, & Tru for NCAA Basketball, and whatever cable networks they put the Olympics on) and also for the kids (Disney).


I would agree that far more people want ESPN than don't. I believe I am in the minority of males who really don't care much for sports. But the statement I was refuting was made as an absolute



Bigg said:


> That's a tiny minority. The two reasons that more people haven't cut the cord are sports and HBO. Well, also bundling practices, but that isn't really a direct reason, sort of the effect of the MSO's games.


I don't know that it's a _tiny _minority, but I agree with your premise. You said _"people who don't want ESPN aren't going to have cable in the first place."_ I was refuting your absolute statement.

I believe given the option, with realistic pricing, 20-30% of cable subscribers would drop ESPN instantly.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

And then even more would drop it because of the higher price they would need to pay to keep it.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JoeKustra said:


> My Tivo always asks, when doing a Guided Setup, what channel is ESPN on to select my lineup.





astrohip said:


> My Guided Setup always asks what channel USA Network is on. And has for several generations of TiVos. Odd that we get different questions.


I'm fairly sure mine uses ABC Family.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> And then even more would drop it because of the higher price they would need to pay to keep it.


That's a cycle I have no problem with. In the end, it would be fairly valued, no?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

astrohip said:


> My Guided Setup always asks what channel USA Network is on. And has for several generations of TiVos. Odd that we get different questions.


Mine uses the Fox Business Network on channel 32. Obviously its got to be a channel that happens to have a different number on the several lineups that might apply to your zip code. How could that not be different for different zip codes, unless every zip code had the same lineups?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

I'm on TWC analog and it always asks if TNT is on channel 15, which it is.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Mine uses the Fox Business Network on channel 32. Obviously its got to be a channel that happens to have a different number on the several lineups that might apply to your zip code. How could that not be different for different zip codes, unless every zip code had the same lineups?


Agreeing. The point of the questions is to figure out which of the several possible lineups available in your ZIP code you are receiving. So they pick channels which have different numbers among the several possibilities. And they would pick ones from the lowest possible service tier, to make sure that you actually get them. Even with a given provider in a given location at a given time, there may be several lineups active, usually as they are in some transition.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I believe given the option, with realistic pricing, 20-30% of cable subscribers would drop ESPN instantly.


Maybe, although I think most of those people are well on their way to cutting the cord if they haven't already. If they're keeping cable, it's only because of the way it's bundled with their internet.


----------



## burdellgp (Mar 28, 2008)

mr.unnatural said:


> Since TBS also owns TNT (or more correctly, they're owned by Ted Turner), any original programming is aired on TNT since that is a bonafide cable network. TBS is basically a local Atlanta station that branched out nationwide to air the Braves games on cable and was one of the first "super stations" similar to WGN. I believe they also air NBA games, but I'm not sure since I don't follow the NBA.


So, that's rather out-of-date information. Ted Turner hasn't owned Turner Networks (TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, TCM, and more I'm sure) in almost 20 years. TBS and TNT both have a mix of original and syndicated/re-run programming, with TNT showing more drama and TBS more comedy. TBS split from the old Atlanta-local WTBS-17 (now WPCH) years ago as well.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

ESPN sues Verizon over new stripped-down 'Custom TV' plan

http://usat.ly/1GyrUb1

I'd say they're not happy!


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

According to this article the devil is in the details as it looks like Verizon is hiding the costs in inflated user fees.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2912...undles-more-flexibility-same-old-gotchas.html

When an operator makes a retransmission deal with a content owner they have to pay the monthly rate based on the number of subscribers. There is no way Verizon can give someone a channel package without the sports channels. So in this case Verizon hides the cost in the equipment costs and below line fees.

I suspect the reason ESPN (Disney Corp) is suing is the potential loss of ad revenue for ESPN.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I thought ESPN was suing Verizon?

Hopefully it ends up biting them in the butt instead. I would love to not be forced to subsidize these expensive channels.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> According to this article the devil is in the details as it looks like Verizon is hiding the costs in inflated user fees.
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2912...undles-more-flexibility-same-old-gotchas.html
> 
> When an operator makes a retransmission deal with a content owner they have to pay the monthly rate based on the number of subscribers. There is no way Verizon can give someone a channel package without the sports channels. So in this case Verizon hides the cost in the equipment costs and below line fees.
> ...


Nothing new about those fees. Not unique to VZ or this new package.

One reason for getting a Tivo is to avoid never ending equipment fees.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> I thought ESPN was suing Verizon?
> 
> Hopefully it ends up biting them in the butt instead. I would love to not be forced to subsidize these expensive channels.


Yeah I think ESPN 1&2 have priced themselves out of a standard channel tier and into a premium tier.

Costs for ESPN would go up if it was unbundled across the board. Diehards would still pay up. But the casual sports fan might think twice.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> I thought ESPN was suing Verizon?
> 
> Hopefully it ends up biting them in the butt instead. I would love to not be forced to subsidize these expensive channels.


Whoops! Right you are. It should be ESPN.

I corrected the mistake.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

trip1eX said:


> Nothing new about those fees. Not unique to VZ or this new package.
> 
> One reason for getting a Tivo is to avoid never ending equipment fees.


That is assuming Verizon will allow you to use a TiVo with these packages. There is also for more below the line fees than just the equipment fees.

They mention on this web page that there is a FDV fee which is $11.99/month. If you go to the bottom of the page and read paragraph #2 for the list of additional charges.
http://fios.verizon.com/fios-bundles.html

There is no way Verizon can get around paying Disney Corp a monthly/subscriber fee for ESPN, or any other channel that is on their system. All these details is hammered out in the retransmission contracts Verizon has with the content owners.
If Verizon wants to add these type of packages then Verizon will have to renegotiate the retransmission contracts they currently have with the content owners.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> That is assuming Verizon will allow you to use a TiVo with these packages. There is also for more below the line fees than just the equipment fees.
> 
> They mention on this web page that there is a FDV fee which is $11.99/month. If you go to the bottom of the page and read paragraph #2 for the list of additional charges.
> http://fios.verizon.com/fios-bundles.html
> ...


It shows 99 cents when I look at that page for the FDV admin fee. $0.99 is what I am charged every month on my FiOS bill for an FDV fee.


----------



## User Name: (Apr 28, 2015)

To me it seems like everyone subsidizes other's favorite channels. Sure ESPN cost the most per subscriber, but also draws the most viewers. 
There are a number of niche channels watched by far fewer individuals, but everyone still pays for them. While it's easy to say I don't watch ESPN therefore I shouldn't have to pay, those who do get cable for ESPN are subsidizing the channels you may like.

If true a la carte options were offered, suddently that channel you pay .15 cents per subscriber for that only pulls in 300k viewers could cost you $5.00 or more dollars in a a la carte option (for the channel to keep the same revenue).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

User Name: said:


> To me it seems like everyone subsidizes other's favorite channels. Sure ESPN cost the most per subscriber, but also draws the most viewers.
> There are a number of niche channels watched by far fewer individuals, but everyone still pays for them. While it's easy to say I don't watch ESPN therefore I shouldn't have to pay, those who do get cable for ESPN are subsidizing the channels you may like.
> 
> If true a la carte options were offered, suddently that channel you pay .15 cents per subscriber for that only pulls in 300k viewers could cost you $5.00 or more dollars in a a la carte option (for the channel to keep the same revenue).


$5 is still less than $6 for a channel I rarely watch. I would rather pay the $5 for a channel I want than $6 for a channel I don't. Although if ESPn wasn't subsidized the cost would be probably $20 or $25 per subscriber to get the same revenue.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Force ESPN to compete, to stop restraining trade. That will be the end of the ridiculous salaries for athletes, actors and entertainment executives. 

We know the free market works, we get the best product at the best price.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Maybe, although I think most of those people are well on their way to cutting the cord if they haven't already. If they're keeping cable, it's only because of the way it's bundled with their internet.


Some of them maybe.

But I've got a number of cable only shows I enjoy, from channels like USA, Discovery, FX, AMC, BBCA, Syfy, HBO, Showtime - I couldn't easily keep up-to-date with those chose if I cut the cord and went OTA + streaming. 
However I've never watched ESPN or any other sports only channel at home and would dump them all for even a couple bucks a month discount.

That may be a minority position, but I seriously doubt most people who doesn't care about sports would cord cut cable except for bundling prices.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> That is assuming Verizon will allow you to use a TiVo with these packages.


They have to support CableCard by law.



Jonathan_S said:


> That may be a minority position, but I seriously doubt most people who doesn't care about sports would cord cut cable except for bundling prices.


I think many of them would. The other shows on cable that aren't sports or HBO just don't get most people to paying for a pay-TV package.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> There is no way Verizon can get around paying Disney Corp a monthly/subscriber fee for ESPN, or any other channel that is on their system. All these details is hammered out in the retransmission contracts Verizon has with the content owners.
> If Verizon wants to add these type of packages then Verizon will have to renegotiate the retransmission contracts they currently have with the content owners.


Hence, the lawsuit. We'll see how it goes...



User Name: said:


> To me it seems like everyone subsidizes other's favorite channels. Sure ESPN cost the most per subscriber, but also draws the most viewers.
> There are a number of niche channels watched by far fewer individuals, but everyone still pays for them. While it's easy to say I don't watch ESPN therefore I shouldn't have to pay, those who do get cable for ESPN are subsidizing the channels you may like.
> 
> If true a la carte options were offered, suddently that channel you pay .15 cents per subscriber for that only pulls in 300k viewers could cost you $5.00 or more dollars in a a la carte option (for the channel to keep the same revenue).


In general, this concept works, and is used. That's why we have 100 different channels for $xx. But the most expensive channels throw this off. You DON'T see HBO in the std mix, due to cost. And many of us would like to see ESPN out of the mix.

I'm ok with packages, and don't need true ala carte pricing. But I would like to see a modest amount more granularity in package options. In my case, I'd like the most expensive sports channels to be a package, just like HBO or SHO. And not be in the std mix.


----------



## beartrap (Nov 8, 2005)

Bigg said:


> They have to support CableCard by law.


What law?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights



> CableCARD: Know Your Rights
> 
> New rules went into effect on August 8, 2011, that clarified and expanded rights for owners of CableCARD-ready devices. Here are a few things you need to know.
> 
> ...


Of course I thought things are also supposed to be changing later this year too?


----------



## beartrap (Nov 8, 2005)

Those are FCC rules, and are not a part of any statute.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

In a nutshell, Section 629 of the Communications Act enabled a consumer retail market for STB's. About 16 years ago, Cablecards became the industry's and FCC's adopted method for digital delivery. They then dragged ass until 2006 when it went into effect.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> It shows 99 cents when I look at that page for the FDV admin fee. $0.99 is what I am charged every month on my FiOS bill for an FDV fee.


Whoops again! You are right it is 99 cents. This is what I get for being to lazy to walk upstairs to get my reading glasses. I knew I would screw up trying to read that fine print.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

User Name: said:


> To me it seems like everyone subsidizes other's favorite channels. Sure ESPN cost the most per subscriber, but also draws the most viewers.
> There are a number of niche channels watched by far fewer individuals, but everyone still pays for them. While it's easy to say I don't watch ESPN therefore I shouldn't have to pay, those who do get cable for ESPN are subsidizing the channels you may like.
> 
> If true a la carte options were offered, suddently that channel you pay .15 cents per subscriber for that only pulls in 300k viewers could cost you $5.00 or more dollars in a a la carte option (for the channel to keep the same revenue).


On the surface this would be the assumption but it is the other way around. 
About 15 years ago began the consolidation of channels under the roof of a handful of large corporations. 
Using Disney Corp as an example, when they would go into a retrans agreement they would demand that all their channels be carried or get nothing at all. The reason Disney did this was the fees they were getting for ESPN was not enough to cover the costs of the sports carriage contracts they had with the various sports leagues. They started to use these lower rated channels to subsidize sports contracts that Disney had with the various sports leagues.
Of course the content providers balked at this but Disney strong armed them into it by asking ridiculous prices for less viewed channels if they would not take them all. This caused enormous problems for smaller providers as they did not have the bandwidth to carry all the additional channels, especially HD. This was one of the main issues that slowed the roll out of HD. Also legacy cable operators had to maintain their analog channels 3 years after the analog shutdown. 
Of course other content owners did the same thing. The content providers then put a lot of these channels in upper tiers which customers refused to pay the extra money for as most were satisfied with the expanded basic channels. 
The content owners then came up with an ingenious idea, they would start using these lower rated channels as sports overflow channels. This idea then forced the content providers to start moving these channels down to their expanded basic lineups as sports fans started to complain that they were missing key games, especially playoff games and college tournament games.

Another enticement that the content owners are recently doing to get the content providers to keep excepting these rate hikes is cutting them in on some advertising space during the sports games. My cable system started to use a company called ViaMedia to sell ad space on these sports channels to local businesses. I even see ads now that my cable system inserts in national programming to sell their own services.

This is going to get extremely worse going forward because now Comcast (NBC), CBS Corp (CBS), and Fox News Corp (FOX) all have started their own full time sports channels. A lot of the exclusive contracts that Disney (ESPN/ABC) has with the various sports leagues are going to expire in the next five years or so. 
This will then lead to a bidding war for exclusive carriage contracts that will definitely drive prices way up for these channels. And since the majority of the cable/satellite subscribers either do not watch any sports at all or may watch an inning or quarter of a game, I see a lot of people dropping cable/satellite subscriptions as they will be to costly.

I am thinking of trying OTA, if I can get a decent signal, and also use some of the streaming services this year just to get away from these ridiculous rate hikes I have been getting in the past couple of years.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

beartrap said:


> What law?





beartrap said:


> Those are FCC rules, and are not a part of any statute.


Federal regulations are administrative law.


----------



## beartrap (Nov 8, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Federal regulations are administrative law.


What I was interested in knowing was whether or not there was a statute that directly addressed the topic. Apologies for the lack of specificity.


----------

