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.'"
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
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.
This is just for ESPN 360 (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (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, and the same folks are to blame, big IP or whatever you want to call them. Not the folks who run the websites.
ESPN is being a bunch of greedy bastards, but that isn't why you can't see the site outside of the US.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:2, Informative)
from the ESPN site:
"feel free to provide feedback, by clicking here. Please note that this feedback section should only be used to let us know what you think about the new ESPN360.com."
The link is here: http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/faq#21 [go.com]
I'm sending them a strong message showing my disapproval at having hidden charges added to my account for features I have no desire nor can even access (as a linux user). Verizon appears to be coughing up payola and I will switch ISPs (if my only other choice happens to NOT support this shit, which I doubt - I may anyway, just to make sure my complaint gets heard in someone's pocketbook). I urge everyone else who cares about maintaining a sane internet to do likewise.
(maybe if I word it strongly enough I can get a gig with the UN?)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (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 already the most expensive channel to buy the rights to it and failure to carry ESPN would mean death to any cable or satellite system. Can you imagine a cable company that did not carry Nick or MTV? Can you imagine a cable company that did not carry ESPN? No one can.
You know how your cable bill increases each year? Most of that increase is due to the rates being raised by the networks to the cable company. If the gloves were to come off in these negotiations, who is the 800 lb gorilla, Charter or Disney? (Hint: Disney).
This is just one more example of large media companies putting the thumbs screws to smaller communication companies. Personally, I NEVER watch ESPN or visit their website but I pay them anyway. I pray for a legally enforced a la cart model for both cable/sat companies AND their subscribers. Most consumers are unaware of this therefore it is unlikely to change.
Data sources:
http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/medianetworks/Pages/default.aspx [viacom.com]
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html [go.com]
Re:I thought we already had this option... (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 could go straight to the source: news.com, weather.com, games.com, and so on.
Eventually AOL evolved into purely a WWW gateway, where they supplied access and very little content.
I still use AOL when traveling (dialup), so that's almost 22 years I've been a customer of the same company.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (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.