Hacker News Reader

Really? I've always felt it was the ESPN viewer subsidizing the rest of the cable universe. ESPN is basically the only premium service you can't go over the top on. However, Iger says he's considering it.

View on HN

ESPN is the most expensive channel by far and has been forced bundling for decades. They sued Verizon for offering basic packages without ESPN a while back, and have been rightfully terrified of consumer choice. Almost every cable subscriber was forced to pay the ESPN tax.

Paying $100+/yr for a channel I’ve never watched or cared about is a big reason why I cut the cord. They certainly aren’t “subsidizing” anything.

I hear you what you are saying, but the counter argument remains: The only way you can get ESPN is purchase ESPN (plus the rest of basic cable). For the most part, you can buy basic cable over the top (sans ESPN). So given the state of play, it seems the inelastic demand for ESPN and its one purchase venue is the subsidizer.

Until relatively recently you could not easily buy cable without ESPN, because ESPN would refuse all contracts that didn’t include it in the basic package, along with all the other channels people do want they could attach to it.

It’s only inelastic to the fraction of “subscribers” that watch it, the rest would drop it instantly if they could save the $10/month.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com