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)
Error! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats not how Internet work, and how we want internet to work.
Go fuck yourselves
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.
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:Commuters and travelers (Score:2, Insightful)
No one's? [google.com]
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.
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: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:Net Neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that ISPs are often monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I thought we already had this option... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Net Neutrality (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 right to know where the dollars you are spending on utility services are going. The internet is today as critical as any other service, because it is now virtually the only way to get accurate information. (Unless you are lucky enough to have some pirate radio in your area or something.) Cutting you off from the phone cuts you off from emergency services, but cutting you off from the internet cuts you off from freedom. Melodramatic? Perhaps. But knowledge truly is power.
With that said, nobody needs ESPN.
Re:Commuters and travelers (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:ESPN's on crack (Score:1, Insightful)
Ironically, they set up SportsCenter that way to keep people tuned in. Suppose you wanted all of the football scores. They used to have all of the football scores & highlights all in one segment, then went on to, say, all of the basketball scores and highlights. Some marketdroid figured that the fooball people would turn off SC after their football coverage. So now they put a couple of fooball scores, then do a couple of basketball scores to spread them out, figuring that people will watch all of SportsCenter.
Since that is incredibly annoying, I think that has the opposite effect. I avoid SportsCenter altogether.
Re:I thought we already had this option... (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: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:I thought we already had this option... (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 filtered based on who the ISP likes.
So much for free exchange of knowledge/ideas.
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?
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: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.
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:I thought we already had this option... (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 their customers access to WoW servers? Are we going to be denied access to Steam services because our ISP doesn't see the value in paying for that service?
Re:Future of video. (Score:2, Insightful)
If websites firewall off unsubscribed viewers and large ISPs control these channels, will the democracy of the internet be in peril or will corporate internet be killing itself?
Killing itself. Take your example of Facebook - me and all my friends are on different ISP's. If Facebook was only available on one, we would switch to a site that was available on all of them.
This is a bit like the old "you cant be a member of more than one religion, and more than one religion says if you aren't a member you're going to hell, so you're definitely going to hell either way, so to hell with religion". You can't get all the ISP's everywhere, so if you can't get what you want, to hell with it. Get something else, somewhere else.
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: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:Who wants net neutrality NOW? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought we already had this option... (Score:4, Insightful)
ESPN360 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea on two sides - both for me and ESPN (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.
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.
Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW? (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: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 can compete.
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.
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:I thought we already had this option... (Score:2, Insightful)
You realize, of course, that this is the ESPN business model. Basic cable customers already subsidize the customers who want to watch ESPN, which has the highest per-subscriber fee for a non-premium channel.
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: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 than charge the ISPs a universal fee that applies to everyone, ESPN should follow the Playboy model, where the cost is directly paid by the visitor. If you want to see Playboy Cyber Club content, you give them a credit card number, and that's how ESPN should handle their premium content.
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)
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.