The Readers Strike Back 12-15-03!

Addressing misstatements in the ESPN/Cox debate

From the Union-Tribune by the VP and GM of Cox Communications, Bill Geppert:

We understand that many of our customers are concerned about our disagreement with ESPN over the rising cost of their network. Our current agreement with ESPN is in effect until April 2004, and we have pledged to our customers that we will do everything in our power to keep the network available to them.

We all know that negotiations can be difficult. Unfortunately, in an effort to gain an upper hand, ESPN has resorted to scare tactics with threats of taking off viewers' favorite shows. We recently came to an agreement with Fox Sports Network, without this type of public drama.

This unfortunate public dispute is over exorbitant sports costs that are rising – in ESPN's case, over 20 percent per year. If we stay on the path we are on with ESPN, this one channel will cost over $10 per month by the end of this decade. That is unacceptable, and to make matters worse, ESPN refuses to let us place their product on a "tier" so only those who subscribe to the "tier" are paying for this expensive programming.

ESPN says it is presenting the facts, but that is not true. Contrary to ESPN's claim, Cox Communications does not use cable television revenues to pay for its investments in high-speed Internet or telephone. These products are widely popular and pay for themselves. In an ESPN ad, which appeared in the Union-Tribune on Dec. 9, they implied that the quotes used in the ad were from Cox customers. Yet, Cox Communications does not even operate in many of the cities from where the quotes originated! ESPN is merely trying to deflect attention from the real issue – enormous year-after-year price increases.

Believe me, we would much prefer to devote our energy toward negotiating a reasonable contract with ESPN, instead of talking publicly about this disagreement and having to correct false claims from ESPN. While we remain cautiously optimistic that an agreement will ultimately be reached, I trust that the management of ESPN will realize that it is in their best interest – and in the best interest of Cox customers – to resolve this issue quickly for everyone.

From Robert M in one of the sdnet newsgroups:

Finally some TV polution is being cleaned up.

Okay, so it's not really that bad. But as for the recent issues between these companies...I honestly think BOTH are at fault. Perhaps ESPN does not play a big a role in Cox's overall pricing scheme as Cox makes it out to. But at the same time ESPN has been screwing media companies for years, and ulitmatley the consumers, with their low quality and overpriced content. Can anyone say "20-30 minutes of commercials per 1 hour of sports or news content"? I've gave up watching ESPN a long time ago.

So in my mind I'd be just as happy to see Cox drop ESPN so long as they reduce my monthly bill by the same percentage they claim ESPN plays in their pricing structure.

Read their sides of the story and make you own decision.

ESPN at www.keepespn.com

Cox at www.makethemplayfair.org

From noname in a sdnet newsgroup:

I don't think you understand. ESPN *insists* upon being included with NON-premium channel bundles. They contractually require cable companies to include ESPN in their non-basic channel bundle.

In the 10 years I've subscribed to cable, none of our TVs has *ever* been tuned to ESPN. And yet, I'm forced to pay for this dreck, increasing my cable bill disproportionately.

Yes, there are other channels I never watch, but you can bet they aren't demanding huge subscription fees. Most of these little guys don't have the clout to insist on a channel lineup or a significant subscription fee. They mostly survive on shared advertising revenues.

I would absolutely love it if Time Warner were to tell ESPN to take a flying leap.

Response from Ed Price:

True, I don't understand. The only moral position is for each channel to be paid only what it's worth, and it's worth can only be determined by a fair market. The argument shouldn't be about the cost of ESPN, rather, it should be about ESPN's attempt to get general cable viewers to subsidize ESPN. Sounds like ESPN already knows how much the average sports junkie is willing to pay for ESPN.

As someone who never looks at ESPN, I resent Cox coercing me into supporting ESPN. I especially resent Cox's spineless attempt to enlist their customers in a political campaign to influence the marketing of ESPN. If Cox had the least common decency, they would spurn vendors who attempt to control Cox and its customers. I feel that Cox should carry all local broadcast stations for free (which is already an FCC requirement, IIRC). Beyond that, if any vendor wants a disproportionately higher fee, Cox should make subscribing to that channel an independent option. All bundling creates a market distortion that will always be inherently unfair to someone.

From Vicky:

I never watch any of the sports channels. I am on a limited income, and all ESPN and Cox are thinking about is money, instead of how to better serve the customers with programming people want to pay for to get. I never was asked if I wanted the $3 a month sports channels. The cable company said that I could take just basic and pay $12 a month or whatever, but that means that I can't have any of the other cable channels I watch such as Lifetime, HGTV, Food, and Discovery.

Making me pay $6 extra a month for channels I don't watch in order to get channels I want to pay for is not fair to me. Cox is ripping me off, plain and simple. I cancelled Cox for good after they wouldn't let me get the cable channels I want without paying for the sports channels.

From Travis Jackson:

Cox is crying over the cost of ESPN, yet they signed a deal with Fox that effectively increases the costs of Fox Sports Net for us to pay. Some company Cox is, eh? You're right about Cox, Tanny, the cable company doesn't care about reducing the cost of their service, just whether they can increase the cost a little bit at a time, hoping we average joes don't notice. Well, with a monthly bill of $40 a month, $10 more than it was in 1996, and seven fewer channels with extended basic, Cox's value has diminished by over 40 percent.

Watch Cox sign a deal with ESPN that allows ESPN to pass along price increases of $1 a year for seven years and still be on basic. Meanwhile, watch me cancel Cox faster than I cancelled my subscription of the slanted Los Angeles Times. Got a stopwatch handy, Dave?