wow - that's pretty intense. speaking as a non-espn watcher, i could do without it. (and also speaking as a non-cable subscriber)

but i think it's pretty shitty that espn keeps upping its rates. i guess the other option is for cox to raise its own rates, but then it couldn't stay competitive in the marketplace. between a rock and and hard place...

i wonder what the situation is with other "basic cable" networks (mtv is one, right?). how do they deal with rising costs?

but how can you say you could do without it if you don't have cable? not that you would want it if you had cable.

i was hoping that joe would chime in with his knowledge bank of "useless" info, but no sign of him...

well - everytime yvan and i go to a cable-subscriber's house, he parks himself in front of the TV to soak up some ESPN. (taking away valuable opportunities to watch foodtv or mtv!) so yes, even as a non-subscriber, i can still do without.

I say good for Cox Cable - let people *choose* what channels they want to pay for, especially those that drive up cable rates for everyone. ESPN has the highest cable rates in the biz and they charge them to people who never watch sports and would rather have a lower cable bill than subsize couch potatoes who like to watch Sportscenter all day, and I say this as an avid ESPN watcher. Why should my grandfather (no interest in sports) or sister (definitely no interest in sports) pay a ton of money for something they don't want. Good for Cox Cable to try to look out for their customer base. And good for Cablevision for fighting the YES Network. Because of Cablevision's efforts, I was able to call Time Warner and have them remove YES from my cable package, and saved $1.00 a month on cable for something I don't watch. Doesn't sound like much but with cable rates where they are, every little bit helps.

I'm disappointed in ESPN trying to scare people - what they are afraid of is SUBSCRIBER FREEDOM. Because they know if given transparency over ESPN's rates, many people would choose to drop ESPN from their package, and either ESPN would be forced to drop their rates to get more viewers, or charge a premium to only those who want it, just like HBO. That's how freedom normally works in a capitalistic system, except cable is a monopoly with NO ONE looking out for the little guy. Sorry for the rant.

Oh the mess that is ESPN and Cox cable... you have got to love corporate propaganda wars. The sports theme charts Cox is using to illustrate their point is just as funny as desperate as the ESPN viewer's comment.

But the bottom line is ESPN will remain on as basic cable for Cox. All the avid sports fan's complains will keep it from ever going premium.

I find it funny that ESPN's solution on their web site is to switch to DISH, who requires a box at every television and has ESPN in a seperate tier from their basic tier - the two things they are complaining that Cox is trying to do. With all the new Clear QAM televisions on the market, if Cox put ESPN on the digital tier but didn't scramble it, there is no reason anyone would be forced to rent a box. This is just the first step to a-la-carte, and lets face it, ESPN isn't worried about the end consumer who watches ESPN, they are afraid of having an accurate count on how many people want ESPN, because that would reduce how much revenue than can pull in from commercials. The ESPN web-site is just plain insulting.

I'm digging up my useless info this afternoon just for you Tien, but I'll start with this:

Whether we watch it or not, ESPN currently runs ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, and ESPN Now (though I'm not sure this last one still exists). That's 4 (possibly 5) channels. I'd expect, then, that their rates have a justifiable reason for increasing 500% in the last decade when you consider I ten years ago they only had ESPN (possibly had ESPN2, have to dig that up). If you just add inflation and the added channels, ESPN has to cover costs. I'll admit that ESPN charges COX a lot to carry it, per customer, but if you look at all of the cable channels, no single channel draws the viewership of ESPN nor carries the consistent level of programming that it doesn. Given the fact that I'm sure COX is slamming me for way too much money already, I doubt they really need to complain. I have friends one state over (NC) that have all the channels I do for about $10 less a month... which plainly shows that COX blows. Perhaps more details to come later...

joe, i look forward to all bits of useless info you can provide.

About all I can add today (too busy otherwise) is that ESPN2 has been broadcasting since Oct. 1st, 1993. Pretty much 10 years. In my opinion, then, ESPN with their current 4+ channel lineup is justified in their increased price costs. Perhaps they are a little high, but I think COX is blowing things well out of proportion.

The only channel I found that draws higher reviews on cable is Discovery, and I'm not sure if the means they are only talking about The Discovery Channel, or the entire network of Discovery, of which I believe I have 11 channels of on my cable package. In what they consider the ower tier of cable channels, only The Food Network rates higher than ESPN Classic.

Link: http://www.betaresearch.com/Company/betawaves_2002_02b.html

As for COX's mysterious claim that ESPN only makes up 4% of its cable viewership, I cry bullshit. There is no way you can tell me that among similar cable channels within their package (not including broadcast networks, just your basic expanded cable channels), ESPN is only watched by 4% of their viewing audience.

Besides, according to one study, though the link eludes me now, given our entire cable bill (at least in COX's case) only 20% of the bill goes toward paying for programming. In other words, 80% of what I pay each month to COX goes to keeping their company running and upping their profits, while only 20% goes toward the product I'm buying. To me, that seems skewed just a little.