ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay 355
lochii sends us to Wired for reporting on ESPN's game plan to extract royalties from all ISPs, for a "license" for their users to view ESPN video. Currently, according to ESPN, 40% of US Internet users connect through ISPs who are paying the (undisclosed) fees; others are unable to view the content. Quoting: "This is a reversal of the model pushed by some major broadband companies that would like to charge content companies for the right to use their pipes. If other full-length video providers like Hulu and HBO get in on the act, the time could be approaching when you'll choose your Internet service based on what selection of content it offers. Eventually, popular non-video websites might follow suit. Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"
I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
EXACTLY. For those unfamiliar, let me explain why:
AOL = What a non-neutral internet looks like. And it was why AOL died. AOL would partner with different companies, and those companies would provide content to AOL customers. Eventually, AOL couldn't keep up with the vast amount of content on the open internet, so they lost out. Prodigy and CompuServe used the same exact model.
It kinda made sense back before there were standard protocols like HTTP for providing content, and before it was possible to bill users for the content they viewed.
This is the worst-case scenario for a non-neutral internet. Every ISP that "partnered" with ESPN needs to cancel their deals, so that ESPN is forced to play the game the same way as everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I would blame their demise on regulation (An attempt to keep is "PG 13"), Price, and Poor customer service.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AOL was born circa 1985 as a service called "Quantum Link". It was originally aimed at Commodore computers, and was very graphical in orientation... like a primitive web. In order to attract users Q-Link had to develop its own content. Like news, weather, games, forums. In the early 90s they renamed themselves America Online/AOL.
Then around 1994 people started downloading Mosaic for their Macs, IBMs, and Amigas. The web exploded, and people no longer needed BBSes like AOL to provide information. They
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true. ESPN is *the* most-expensive channel on the dial. While other channels might get 20 cents (FOX News) or 70 cents (TNT) per home, the channel called ESPN charges $2.50 per home. It's nuts. Of course they don't charge you directly; they charge the cost to Comcast. So if you figure 100,000 cable-equipped homes in Baltimore times $2.50 each == $250,000 paid by Comcast to ESPN every single month.
I think ESPN is greedy. $2.50 per home is outrageous. I don't even like sports.
Furthermore, rather
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>ESPN has a lot of clout, if Disney chooses to exercise it.
There's no "if" about it. If Comcast wants to get Disney for their customers, they HAVE to get ESPN and ABCfamily and SOAPnet too. It's called "bundling" and forces Comcast to buy 4, 5, or 6 channels all at once, even if their customers only want 1 channel. It's one of the main obstacles to A La Carte cable, and in my opinion it should be declared illegal under antitrust laws.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the internet was SO much more fun before companies and money found a way to use it.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Informative)
How To Get ESPN360.com Close ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases. Congratulations! Your internet service provider carries ESPN360.com. Just click on the WATCH NOW link or any event to start watching ESPN360.com.
(Emphasis: Mine)
,it's leading to this: The real money maker:
This is one of the most chilling messages I've ever gotten on the internet. I hope never to read a message like that again. Your provider carries "google"??
Obivously
We're sorry, your provider does not carry the XXX porn package, you cannot access any of these sites.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
yea, fuck that. if they want a pay site, they should just charge for membership. otherwise, set up your own private network and get off the public internet.
i shouldn't have to worry about whether someone else's ISP "carries" a particular website when linking to a public webpage. this not only fragments the web, but it's an underhanded way of charging broadband subscribers extra for specific web content without their permission or knowledge. i don't have any interest in ESPN content, so why should i have to foot the bill for a subscription to a site that i will never visit?
Who wants net neutrality NOW? (Score:5, Insightful)
Major ISPS: you content providers are making money off our pipes. We are going to charge you for that!
Content Providers: Net Neutrality!!!! Er, wait. Our content is valuable, and you are using your pipes to distribute it. We are going to charge YOU for that!
Major ISPS: Er....Net Neutrality!!!!!
Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it'd probably convince them to buy companies that can do shit like ESPN is doing and screw over their competition.
Who says Hulu has to make an offer? If Verizon offers them millions of dollars to only work exclusively with Verizon, who's to say Hulu wouldn't take it?
s/Hulu/$ANY_MAJOR_CONTENT_PROVIDER
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait for the wimax crap to kick in on the new digital frequencies.
Part of the contract for whomever bought the multi-billion dollar digital channel was to offer nation wide FREE wireless internet. Since it has to be "broadband", this means it has to qualify for the governments version of "broadband" which is ~386kbits right now and about to go up.
If companies charge too much for extra "fluff" like ESPN crap, they won't be able to compete with the free wireless internet you can get anywhere
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, go to the ESPN360.com site and at the bottom of the video page there is a link to file a bug report. It's the closest thing to a contact form I can see so we may as well use it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our new video player is only available for: Windows 2000/XP/Vista - Internet Explorer, Firefox Mac - Firefox, Safari To watch our Live High Quality videos, please download and use one of browsers above.
My ISP supports it and I still cant use it. They don't support linux (I am using firefox on linux). I can't use it so I don't want to pay for it but I have no choice in the matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You pay a flat fee for expanded cable but your cable company buys the rights to these channels in bundles from the international megacorps that own whole groups of channels. For instance Viacom owns Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, Spike, etc. Disney owns Disney, ABC (broadcast), ABC family, SOAPnet, etc. In most cases the cable company is given an all or nothing offer from the parent corp.
ESPN is
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Funny)
Nice to see Capitalism is continuing to make things more efficient, eliminate waste and allowing more people to have access to more stuff for less effort. Clearly, it's a great vehicle for generating wealth and plenty.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
The current situation is the result of adhering to Capitalist values. It's the inevitable result, and it plays out again and again through human history. If you don't think the current situation is capitalistic, it's because your understanding of what capitalism means is flawed.
Make no mistake, those who are running the monopolies and control the information you receive do understand, much better than you do. That is why they are running the show, because they are working the system as it is meant to be worked. They will actively attempt to confuse the issue at every possible opportunity because they do not want you to understand, because they do not want you motivated to put a stop to it.
Capitalism is about creating social order through Monopolies and maintaining that social order through Dynasties. It always has been. It is not there to serve the likes of you, it is there to serve the likes of Rockefeller.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse capitalism and the free market. Free markets can exist even under some types of communism. On the other hand, capitalism doesn't nescessarily mean free market. A free market is a place where sellers and buyers can get together and trade a bunch of products based on supply and demand, allowing for the most efficent allocation of resources availible to man. Capitalism on the other hand is just an economic state where private interests controls and decide what is done with the capital, while the goverment enforces the property laws that is needed for that.
What the top tier ISPs are doing is completly capitalistic. They are private entitites owning the capital and are using it to buy (strongarm) regulations that favor themselves. Am I being unfair to capitalism? Many would probably say that what I am talking about isn't capitalism and that US in many part isn't very capitalistic, but I have to disagree. Such complains are no more valid than communists claiming that soviet wasn't a communist state. There is theory and there is reality. Reality has shown time and time again what happens when capitalistic methodology is introduced and let run wild. Just like it has shown what happens when you let a communist methodology run wild. Neither are wanted results. Too much power in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing. It doesn't matter if it is private or goverment hands, because in the end they just become intertwined.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
I get the same message. Here's the URL for their feedback form: http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback [go.com].
Here's the feedback I submitted: I am glad my ISP doesn't pay to access espn360.com. If they did, they would be passing the charge through to all their customers, and I would be subsidizing their customers who want to watch espn360.com. You should follow an individual subscriber model instead of trying to make money off me when I don't want your service. I will encourage my ISP to *not* pay for espn360.com. Regards, Vic.
I encourage folks to flood the feedback form. Not that they'll read or respond, but to let them know that some people are keeping an eye on them and think that they're pricks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No problem: [nytimes.com]
Google has a lot of articles [google.com]. It's interesting to see that the price has more than doubled in five years and is up from $1.28 in 2000. It's no wonder they want to do the same with 360.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, my instinctive reaction was horror, anger, and disgust, but after thinking about it for few minutes, I realize this isn't that terrible. There are plenty of sites on the internet that only offer their content to paid subscribers. This one just happens to be subscribing large groups by having their ISP pay.
It does still suck, because ultimately any ISP that pays for this license is going to pass the cost on to their customers, including those that don't care about ESPN. While many are trying to
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's voluntary. Why not just avoid going there or never voicing a want to your ISP?
Don't get me wrong, I think this is an outright stupid idea on ESPN's part. But I will voice my contempt for it by simply not participating. They want capitalism? They got it. I go elsewhere, buh bye.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't "capitalism."
"Capitalism" would be letting individual people pay for an ESPN360 account, and then sign in to view the videos.
THIS is trying to get a "critical mass" such that every ISP pays some fee to ESPN for the "service" whether the individual person actually wants (or even has heard of) ESPN360 or not.
ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider.
Complete lies and bullshit. The user - whether they wanted to or not - was charged for the ESPN360 access when they paid their ISP. You think the ISP would do it "for free"??? If so, you're delusional.
Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $200/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get. Of course, your only other option will be dialup, because in most cities one ISP has a local-government-granted monopoly AND we don't yet have equal-access provisions like we do for the phone lines.
Think about it - where you live right now, do you have a choice of ISP's? I either get Comcrap where I live, dialup, or nothing at all.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
The problem is what role the ISPs play -- are they a delivery service, or are they a retailer of services? If they are a delivery service, are they content-agnostic [net-neutrality], or not?
According to how ESPN360 works, ISPs function as a retailer of services, with ESPN as the packager/wholesaler.
If this model catches on (and it will, unless we get better support for net neutrality), what we will see is a variety of tiered packages from our large ISPs, just like what we have for cable TV. Basic, Family, Premium, Ultimate Sports, etc, at different prices. Plus some ISPs will offer an a la carte model -- $50 for basic service, plus $X for each source, $2X for some sources.
This does a couple things that the content providers (like ESPN360) really like -- it gets them out of the subscription handling/fulfillment aspect (which is expensive). It shifts some of the marketing burden onto the ISPs (who, if competing on content available, will tout the 'stations' they carry, and promote those stations).
This does a couple things the ISPs like. It allows the big ISPs to better dominate the smaller ISPs via economy of scale. It allows them to bill differently -- making bandwidth less important to the average subscriber. Joe Sixpack is going to care a whole lot more about what content is available than his bandwidth. Expect even more confusing pricing structures.
For the end-consumer, though, this stinks. All around. But since we are slaves to our content, it doesn't matter -- we'll pay and pay and pay, because we refuse to do without, and there are few viable options.
The solution to this is net neutrality. Let the ISPs carry packets, and let the consumer make agreements with the content wholesalers directly -- this is how you think it should work, and I agree.
The problem is that without legislated net neutrality, it's not going to happen. The consumer is severely outweighed by the content wholesalers/producers and the ISPs, and we need to use our legislative system in order to have our concerns make any impact on how internet service is going to be handled in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK at least Net Neutrality just doesn't seem like an issue because I can name off the top of my head over a dozen ISPs I could choose to use.
I'm not saying I like the idea of ISPs dealing with content providers, I just don't think it needs legislating when any time the government spends looking at internet service in America should be spent on ensuring more ISPs
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's voluntary. Why not just avoid going there or never voicing a want to your ISP?
Because YOU will find your bill increased based on the drunken sportsmorons who WILL probably phone the ISP because they must have "sports" 24/7 injected directly into their veins or they will die of the realization of what sad, pathetic wastes of oxygen they really are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its only voluntary when you have broadband options. Most of the country- if they're lucky enough to get broadband can get it from only one provider. Broadband providers have colluded to avoid encroaching on each others territory- if each one is the sole provider they both win.
The closest thing to this situation was/is when local phone companies control your telephone line, but they were/are heavily regulated, whereas cable companies do whatever the hell they want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking this to the logical conclusion really highlights the major issue with this business strategy.
What happens when every content provider wants to do this sort of scheme? After all, each company feels "My content is at least as valuable as his." It will completely and utterly destroy the internet as we know it. Rates will assuredly go up (and the US already has some of the highest in the world), content will be exclusive based on who your regional internet monopoly is, the web will become essentially
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
This one just happens to be subscribing large groups by having their ISP pay.
It's a little more serious than that. This is an attempt by content providers to push the cable subscription model on to the internet where ISP's essentially become the cable operators and subscribe to sites before users can access them. Only I don't think it's going to work. Content providers would be cutting their own throats...not that I would mind seeing that happen to some of them. Their traffic would crater and it would open up opportunities for smaller providers to eat into their market.
This is ESPN trying to carve out a lofty niche for themselves and effectively tax everyone on an ISP's system whether they use the site or not. It's a lot cheaper to manage payment from one source than trying to sell to the world at large and the overhead that goes with it. So it's definitely good for ESPN. You...not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
How To Get ESPN360.com
ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.
Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com.
1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's more of a copyright issue than ESPN screwing you over. The league or federation that runs the sport owns the rights to how it is distributed. ESPN doesn't have the rights to distribute the content outside of America, so you get screwed.
Same thing with Hulu and Pandora and all the other great services available here. Y'all don't get to use them, because they would have to purchase additional licensing. Kinda like the BBC's iPlayer here in the states.
It pretty much is the same crap as regioning, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, my rates didn't increase, but now a portion of my rate is going to the service. This is certainly not a good sign. It means that the ISPs are setting themselves up to being bullied.
What are we going to see next? Activision/Blizzard demand that an ISP pay a fee to allow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention... I am on a college campus, so "ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases." is not factual.
Error! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats not how Internet work, and how we want internet to work.
Go fuck yourselves
Re:Error! (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
This sounds like a TV version of the Internet, and I haven't watched TV in 2 years largely because of it's limitations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Commuters and travelers (Score:5, Insightful)
My business requires that I travel. On a slow week I use two different ISPs. In a busy week, a dozen. And we're not even talking about vacations yet.
If your site isn't available everywhere, I'll find something else. Nobody's content is that valuable.
Although, if I'm wrong and this business model does take off, the back side is even uglier: there will be ISPs that offer their services based on what you can't get. It will cater to employers, libraries, schools and other places that don't want people accessing certain sites.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one's? [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Commuters and travelers (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]
http://www.msn.com/ [msn.com]
http://www.about.com/ [about.com]
http://www.ask.com/ [ask.com]br? etc
Re: (Score:2)
I hope these are examples of stuff that I can find elsewhere because I haven't used any of those in years. In fact most of them suck pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's content is that valuable.
Allow me to introduce my new site: googleeverywhere.com. The main server is in Russia someplace. It runs a botnet. The bots, of course, are running on the systems of clueless windows users.
You want google from anywhere in the world? Go to googleeverywhere, it passes the request on to a bot, which queries google, then passes the answer back.
Google can try to shut it down by sending a request to googleeverywhere and seeing where the request comes in, and then cutting of that IP address. But in doing that,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The problem is, most of the sites that those groups would want to block are pay-by-user driven, and the pay-by-ISP model would probably not interest them. So the flipside is less likely.
That being said, I don't want to pay an ESPN tax, I don't watch ESPN, I check ESPNs website, at most ONCE a year, for the OSU vs. Michigan game score. They aren't worth $0.02 to me.
Really, I can check my local news for that, but ESPN happens to be the first I think of.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Given the way the game has gone the last five years, you don't need to worry about the score. For that matter, given the rabid hatred that comes out of Columbus, you don't need to check the score either. Just mention that you're a Michigan fan and an OSU football fan will make damn sure you know it, and will remind you of it for weeks to come...
Wagon train. (Score:4, Insightful)
"lochii sends us to Wired for reporting on ESPN's game plan to extract royalties from all ISPs, for a "license" for their users to view ESPN video. "
And let's extend this to all the other content carried over broadband connections. See the problem now? Sheer bottom line will keep most ISPs from joining this bandwagon.
Net Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so bass ackwards to the way the internet works and will continue to work. My only hope is that this idea fails with gusto, so that it can be used as a warning shot to all others who think they can "OWN" the internet like they owned the captive audiences on cable TV.
TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon. Ever since I got Hulu on my Xbox, I've discovered how much I just don't care, and don't need, cable/satelite tv.
Net neutrality needs to specifically outlaw this sort of thing.
Locking down information on the net is exactly how to ruin the net.
All that being said, we'll just use a proxy and move on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The upside to this, is of course, that smaller content producers can use this as an advantage- being accessible from ALL ISPs means more exposure. Maybe this will finally kill the giants!
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I'm not sure this is nearly as bad as it seems. There are way too many websites to every site involved in these kinds of accounts. So, while some people may not be able to watch reruns of sports center, I think the important information will still find it's way to being available globally.
Re: (Score:2)
TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon.
You mean just like the RIAA and MPAA have understood that their industries are changing and are on the bandwagon?
There is a shakeout in process and the folks whose oxen are being gored are fighting tooth and nail to keep their failed business models alive.
Re: (Score:2)
You called it. ESPN's model is cable/satellite TV. They certainly like that model. It's worked brilliantly for years. And if they can wedge the internet into the same model, it's a win for them.
However, TV is not a dead business model. Dead to you, sure. Dead to Joe Sixpack and Sally Bag-o-donuts? No. Do you think your indignation counts for the masses of money-paying sheeples who have no problem with the cable model? No.
Scarily, this access licensing pattern can work, because it uses a mental model consume
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
Well the ISPs could band together and simply block ESPN, or simply charge ESPN for bandwidth corresponding to the dollar amount ESPN wants from the ISPs.
Actually that is something that is very different with the internet, with regards to Cable/Satellite. In the former if its connected you have access, whereas in the latter your provider has to get explicit permission. I would rather switch news source than have to put up with having to pay ESPN.
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Net neutrality needs to specifically outlaw this sort of thing.
Does it? A provider should be able to deliver their content where and when they choose. As a customer, you have a choice. Do you buy media from people who pull these bullshit strongarm tactics or not? If you think what they are doing is wrong, then you have a choice; give up consuming their media, or admit that you have no conviction.
On the other hand, as a consumer it's hard to know who's sucking off who in the back room, so I would argue that government's place here is to ensure transparency; you have a r
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? A provider should be able to deliver their content where and when they choose. As a customer, you have a choice. Do you buy media from people who pull these bullshit strongarm tactics or not? If you think what they are doing is wrong, then you have a choice; give up consuming their media, or admit that you have no conviction.
Actually, I don't have a choice. Thanks to America's tax dollars going to work to create an infrastructure with legislated monopolies, I have exactly two options for internet: Cable or DSL. Two companies. Both bad. Comcast or Verizon. You choose.
So, yes, it should be legislated. It's a network for the people, paid for by the people, and the companies running the show were given exclusive deals to keep it running. That exclusivity should come with a responsibility to stay neutral.
In a free market, I'd agr
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon. Ever since I got Hulu on my Xbox, I've discovered how much I just don't care, and don't need, cable/satelite tv.
Does Hulu offer 5.1 Dolby Digital and 720p or better resolution with ZERO commercials and live sports? Once I can get that quickly and easily on the net without having to wait for someone to upload a torrent and then wait again for it to download AND live sports, I will be done with cable/satellite. But until that day I will bite the bullet and over pay because of the quality and convenience. I hate my cable company, but as a sports fan and an A/V nut, I'm stuck with them for now.
I'll start my own internet... (Score:2)
make people who want the content pay... (Score:2, Interesting)
so let me get this right, because I dont give a F#%K about ESPN, never gone there in my life and never plan too, I have to pay because they want to shake down my ISP for money?
Its bad enough on Cable... (Score:4, Insightful)
Its bad enough that I have to pay the freaking ESPN Tax added onto my cable bill when I don't even want it. Many I know are fleeing cable so they DO NOT have to pay for things like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get Dish/Direct without ESPN?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many I know are fleeing cable so they DO NOT have to pay for things like this.
And why not? You can watch many if not most popular shows on the web, DVD sales are where the real money is so they release as soon as they can and you can get them from netflix or sometimes even stream them from them, and on the shady side you can get pretty much anything via torrent. Of course, cable internet customers are having problems there these days... But the point remains, there is little reason for anyone who can get cable to actually get television over it, if they can get internet access - unle
The problem is that ISPs are often monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bandwidth sucks and its always going on and off, but what am I gonna do? It's not worth it to move.
ESPN's on crack (Score:3, Informative)
They have in the past few years tried to push their website to be more video oriented, setting it up to be similar to their flagship Sports Center program, where the sports news isn't as much read, but delivered as on TV. They recently redesigned their website to make the video content an even more integral part of how they deliver sports news. What they don't understand is that some (many?) people don't want it that way. I quit watching their SC stuff on TV for the most part when the fluff really started to pile up. It simply takes too long to get to the point of the story.
When I'm looking for news on the web, even sports news, I want the important stuff immediately. I can get that much faster skimming through a story than watching a few minutes of unimportant filler video. Their website is fine when I want to see a replay of an amazing play or something, but if I want the straight dope, I don't want to sit through a video; I want to read about it. So, I go to sports illustrated and other sites to get news, rarely visiting espn anymore. Its weird, because when I was 1st started really using the internet back in 96-97 or so, espn.com was one of the sites I visited most, but it hasn't been that way in a few years.
oook.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do I pay twice (Score:4, Interesting)
Future of video. (Score:2)
If this becomes the standard system, and the cable companies are used to this kind of system with HBO, Cinamax, etc, then you'll find websites only available through subscription and your cable company will offer you packages.
ESPN.com could shut off access to their site except through authorized ISPs. This looks very attractive to content providers that are losing revenue on broadcast TV and to the cable companies who also fear online content as being free.
I suspect the fee for ESPN is low, just to start t
This is because nobody would subscribe to a .com (Score:3, Interesting)
It's happening everywhere. Nobody is paying money to subscribe to a website. ESPN tried this and failed to get support because there are so many free things out there (you know, like the internet used to be). The problem for them is they also make money off of advertising and need eyeballs. They are trying to figure out ways to play both sides to maximize their profits, and individual users have already told them to go screw themselves.
When I first saw the 360 message, I thought it might have been that Ver
ESPN360 (Score:2)
Eyes on the prize, kids... (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's fun to sit back and yell "hur, hur, dumb jocks are ruining mah intarwebs!" it needs to be noted at ESPN's parent company is none other than that friend of the little guy, the copyright crusaders themselves, Disney. They are swinging ABC and ESPN around as their entertainment 'killer apps.' They've used their networks as tools like this before, go.com anyone?
I'd be thrilled if ESPN backed away from the amount of video they're using on their site. Call me crazy but I go to a website for an article I can read in peace, not for 30 seconds of commercials followed by whatever annoying, b-team anchor has gotten stuck doing web highlights. They've developed a handful of interesting and entertaining columnists, what they haven't developed are any decent anchors in the past five years.
Oh Gawd (Score:2)
The goose that lays the golden eggs (Score:2)
ISPs and "content producers" are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
So this whole "ISP subscription thingie" is really just a stealth plot to save print journalism?
This is just for ESPN 360 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is just for ESPN 360 (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that ISPs are using their monopoly power to force charges down their customer's throats with no recourse, except to severe the now VITAL service, or go to an unacceptably slow alternative (dial up).
This is what happens when people let their governments grant monopolies. The people get screwed.
autoplaying video (Score:2)
Bad idea on two sides - both for me and ESPN (Score:5, Insightful)
This raises two issues for me:
1. I am not a sports fan, and I expect ESPN to issue me a credit if my ISP is paying them for a service I do not use and do not want. Now that I think about it, if I could get a discount for having their channels removed from my TV service that would be great, too.
2. ESPN has just eliminated a huge swath of the Internet-using public from viewing their content. If it's a subscription service, sell it as such. The way they are handling this seems like it would be bad for their business.
If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.
You missed the point: the way ESPN wants to work things, by using your ISP you subscribe to their service whether you want it or not. And what's worse, the ISPs may well go for this because many ISPs are also cable providers so ESPN can say "sign this or we pull all our cable channels". And of course the deal doesn't cost the ISPs anything because they just pass the cost along to the captive customer base.
The time might come... (Score:2)
Yep, it might, and I'll pick the nice, cheap, fast one that has no additional content along those lines and doesn't go "look customers, you can view videos 24/7 by paying us a bit extra" while ignoring the fact that their bandwidth will be drained in no-time when people try it.
I'm not sure which would be worse - ISPs charging more because content providers add extra content, or the recent U
why not have user subscriptions? (Score:2, Redundant)
I have no problem with the content producers getting paid for their content, and no problem paying for what I use, but I do have a big problem subsidizing somebody else's habit. If ESPN can do this, then what's to stop MTV, Hulu, Playboy, Vivid, etc... If they need money for their internet content, it's the specific end-users who should carry the cost...
I don't understand why existing well known business models cannot apply to internet TV: advertiser supported, like today's broadcast television, subscribe
A problem with ESPN's plan (Score:3, Interesting)
If I was an ESPN.com advertiser, I'd be upset (Score:2)
Why are they pissing off a significant percentage of my target audience?
Really dumb idea (Score:2)
If you create a market niche, someone will fill it. By shutting themselves out from some providers, they present other content companies with the opportunity to become top dog for those providers. This would be like Microsoft telling PC manufacturers that "we won't let you put Internet Exploder on your Windows-based machines unless you pay us a surcharge".
Call Them (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you Disney (Score:3, Interesting)
ESPN is owned by Disney. If this works out for ESPN, you can bet your sweet ass Disney will be following suit in a big way (hello, ABC, etc).
Here's to hoping Steve Jobs recovers quickly and uses his 8% of Disney stock to put a massive foot up somebody's ass to quickly end this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
War On Net Neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another attempt, IMHO, by Corporate America to turn the internet into a whored-out media wasteland indistinguishable from print, radio, or television. They want to become the gatekeepers of the internet because it drives them batshit insane to know that people can freely access information that hasn't first been filtered by them for content and then distributed at a premium.
Go fuck yourselves, ESPN.
Problem (for ESPN) (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if an ISP doesn't pay, ESPN won't deliver their content through their system? That is going to bite ESPN in the ass, big time. During the course of a day, I use 3 or 4 different ISPs to access the Interweb. What happens if one of them signs up with ESPN's competitor? Its doubtful that an employer is going to sign up for a service package burdened with hidden costs from various content providers. So, no ESPN at work on my lunch hour. My residential 'broadband' is a municipal WiFi service. It'll be a cold day in hell before the city ever starts writing checks to ESPN/Disney for content.
It appears that ESPN will be shooting themselves in the foot with this one. And you know what they say about the one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.