Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 329

by edawstwin (#49563201) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

Yes it is when the choice is all or none. They have the end providers over a barrel in that regard.

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.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 3, Insightful) 329

by edawstwin (#49563097) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

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?

Comment: Re:ESPN can go eff themselves. (Score 1) 329

by edawstwin (#49563005) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles
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.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 329

by edawstwin (#49562905) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles
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.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 0) 329

by edawstwin (#49562767) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles
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.

Comment: D vs R doesnt matter (Score 3, Insightful) 99

by edawstwin (#49540317) Attached to: Bloomberg Report Suggests Comcast & Time Warner Merger Dead

Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.

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.

Comment: Let them sell cake (Score 1, Insightful) 886

by edawstwin (#49339313) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.

While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.

Comment: More of the same (Score 2) 334

Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.

Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long