You are exaggerating by "much". 25 million people in the US watched the USA-Portugal match last summer. No fewer than four sports network families available on cable show soccer matches from around the world (and NBC paid $250 million for the rights to just one foreign league for three seasons). And perhaps you've never heard of the MLS? Two expansion teams this year, and three more confirmed in the next three years, and the franchise fees are approaching $100 million for each. I get that most people still watch the other four team sports more than football, but it's hardly, "a niche sport only played in the suburbs by children".

When I managed a theater (20ish years ago so it may have changed), some of the bigger movies got a 70/90 release. 70% of the box office up to a certain number ($10,000, for example), went to the distributor, and then 90% of anything above $10,000 also went to the distributor. This lasted for 1-4 weeks, depending on how big the release was. After that it dropped every week or two, eventually hitting 35%, where it stayed for the rest of the run. And if the movie did really poorly at 35%, you still owed the distributor a minimum, which I think was $150. Again, this was a while ago, so some of this may have changed, but I doubt that there's been a radical overhaul.

Turner did this solely because it gave the channel its own entry in TV Guide (which people paid for!).

Those of you who fast forward over ads but still watch the TV shows, why do you freeload?

http://marvel.wikia.com/Magnet...

My grandparents bought a GE in 1979 when they moved into a new house. The microwave still runs fine; the grandparents, not so much.

For communicating, just use T-Mobile. For the quality of the signal that I get, I can only imagine that Mars is where they place all of their towers.

Always nice to meet a fan.

Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion. Also, the "end providers" aren't over a barrel, the customers are. The providers provide what the customers want, and that usually includes ESPN, whether you like it or not. I hope that changes very soon, but too many people still want to watch sports. If ESPN can get providers to agree that their channel is a part of every base package because demand is so high, then good for them.

It's horrible to you, but illegal? Which law or case establishes that?

And yes, personal choice is the best that I have. I cut the cable cord years ago. How is that nonsense? At least in the US we have a choice about what we pay for (probably in other countries too, but you never know). Bundling is common with many things, and has been the standard in the cable industry since its inception. How is this any different? It's suddenly illegal and falls under RICO? How many legal dramas do you watch?

Who wants a sports channel to be innovative? You watch a sports channel to watch sports. And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases. Maybe that will change sooner rather than later, but I doubt it. Sports are the only thing most people still watch live, so those types of channels are still valuable.

It's not a bad contract as in no company is getting screwed over due to ignorance of the law (or some other reason). Teams of lawyers certainly went over it in detail and both parties knew exactly what they were getting into. If ESPN got Verizon to sign something saying "your customers must keep ESPN for twelve consecutive months" then Verizon must oblige. Again, this sucks for the customer, but it is not a bad contract.

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it. It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable. I understand why ESPN would want that language in there because if I were interested only in football, I could subscribe for those five months and not the others. What ESPN wants is my money year-round, and it sounds like Verizon agreed to promise ESPN just that by signing the contract. Maybe it says something different as Verizon claims, but ultimately I fear there will just be some settlement and we'll go back to the status quo.

I wasn't actually arguing that he was wrong. I was pointing out that he invalidated his own argument.

You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.