Despite Criticism, ESPN360 Broadband Model Spreads - Cox, Charter and Windstream latest to sign up

Despite Criticism, ESPN360 Broadband Model Spreads - Cox, Charter and Windstream latest to sign up
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Despite Criticism, ESPN360 Broadband Model Spreads
Cox, Charter and Windstream latest to sign up
01:07PM Friday Oct 02 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: business · alternatives · bandwidth · cable · content · consumers

Earlier this year you might remember how smaller ISPs were annoyed with ESPN's business model for their "ESPN 360" online video service. The sports network has been striking deals with large ISPs, urging visitors to those sites to switch carriers if they want access to ESPN 360 content. While bigger ISPs have apparently had no problem paying ISPs, smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content. Brett Glass, operator of Wyoming WISP Lariet.net has been particularly annoyed in our forums:

...the fee per customer for a small ISP like myself would be $0.79 per user, but would be substantially less for a larger one. (And universities -- which are themselves ISPs -- inexplicably get the service for free.)

So, our large competitors would have to raise their rates less per customer than smaller ISPs, giving them a big advantage. (ESPN also seems not to realize that ISPs' margins are tiny as it is. I make about $2.50 per month on a basic residential customer now, and so their fee would take an outrageous 1/3 of my profit.)

Back in June the American Cable Association asked the FCC to stop the business model. That's ironic, given the majority of carriers are usually busy complaining about government involvement in their business affairs. Glass, who is a vocal opponent of network neutrality, suggests either boycotting ESPN, or filing a class action lawsuit against the sports giant for "tortious interference with contract." Again, irony waves hello, given Glass is staunchly opposed to any rules that would protect an even playing field for content delivery.

Consumer advocates haven't been too keen on the model, either. "Ultimately, if you carry it to its logical extreme — that’s everyone charging for their content, and depending upon where you are and which ISP you’re using to connect to the internet, your internet experience is different — that’s a really unsettling prospect," recently proclaimed Ben Scott, policy director for consumer advocacy firm Free Press. "I think it undermines the foundational principles that make the internet such an engine of innovation and creativity."

Meanwhile, ESPN's list of participating ISPs is quickly nearing one hundred different providers, as ISPs fear losing customers because they're not on board. Cox Charter and Windstream Communications announced their involvement this week. We wondered if ESPN's concept of selling content to ISPs instead of users would fail organically given the content itself doesn't seem that compelling (unless you really like soccer, the Canadian Football League, or high school yodeling competitions), but so far that hasn't been the case.

Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke

Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey'

Comcast Wireless Broadband Hits Atlanta

Comcast DOC 3.0 In Augusta Sept. 2

Pittsburgh, Verizon Haggling Over FiOS

Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult

What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About

Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs

Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
Mchart @ 2nd Oct 01:10PM:
Blah

This is actually the first time i've heard of this and now I have even more reason not to pay for television services.

It's a shame TimeWarner seems to be the ONLY major provider not signed up. :mad:
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE.
reply

hitachi369 @ 2nd Oct 01:15PM:
Boycott

I am actively boycotting ESPN360, in that I have never gone there, nor have any desire. Boycott Complete!
reply

chemaupr @ 2nd Oct 01:16PM:
Internet as Cable..

They keep this up and you will see HSI package with different tiers...

10/2 $35
10/2 + Sports + Social Networks + Games + $45
10/2 + News + Movies $50
....
reply

Z80 @ 2nd Oct 01:22PM:
Way lame

I just got it as part of the Cox deal and it is really lame. ESPN360 is so overrated it is laughable. These horridly useless things should be options instead of forcing everyone to pay for it via yearly price increases. I'd rather have a .50 price cut than this stupid garbage.
reply

Z80 @ 2nd Oct 01:24PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

I would welcome that. Let those who want this garbage, pay for the garbage. Same goes for the sports networks on video. They should put these overpriced channels on their own tiers, or better yet be compelled to offer channels a la carte in addition to the packages.

If these channels had to get subscribers by the content of their channels instead of blackmailing providers into carrying them by threatening to pull other content (ABC/ESPN/Disney is notorious for this), content would improve and prices would come down.
reply

amungus @ 2nd Oct 01:30PM:
Re: Way lame

Amen.

Why not give everyone Rhapsody while they're at it. More people would probably want free music than this.

It's also a bigger issue than sports, so are we saying screw the RIAA and all associated artists while favoring sports over the arts???

Edit:
And how come ESPN gets away with this crap while the RIAA still can't get it and continues to sue (and screw) their customers?
reply

ajwees41 @ 2nd Oct 01:32PM:
Re: Way lame

said by Z80 :

I just got it as part of the Cox deal and it is really lame. ESPN360 is so overrated it is laughable. These horridly useless things should be options instead of forcing everyone to pay for it via yearly price increases. I'd rather have a .50 price cut than this stupid garbage.

it depends on the time of year your opinion might change.
reply

BosstonesOwn @ 2nd Oct 01:37PM:
Seriously....

Why would any ISP pay this to them ?

Cut them off the network or inject an ad to the user saying why they have cancelled it.

I hate that these companies pull this crap.

The economy is bad enough , and to keep making huge profits they want to rape pillage and plunder. Really have we not had enough of this ?

The government does it , companies do it, now even normal people are doing it. We expect the economy to recover ? It's just a giant money shuffle. And this will cause yet another "downturn" when people realize that this is just a shell game.

Anybody else tired of these corporate extortionists ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"
reply

jmn1207 @ 2nd Oct 01:39PM:
Re: Way lame

But wait, it's offered at "no charge". So, can we expect ESPN to send us money for the next $1-2/month price hike in or service?

I'd love to see the day where ESPN was put on an a la carte tier, for $29.99/month. I'm a big sports fan, but I hate the way the content providers seem to have the IPS's, and their customers, over a barrel. Sure, there would certainly be some defectors, but ultimately the price would come down if a major TV provider held their ground.

What's next, only Toyotas can have air conditioning installed? If you want to be cool in the summer, buy a Toyota, or sweat it out in your Honda. (complain to Honda if you want A/C in your car, too, or make the switch to a Toyota) This is a terrible practice, and it seems that some kind of regulation should be imposed. Anyone with access to the internet should be allowed to purchase ESPN 360. No ISP should be discriminated against. (is that even possible?) :D

I'm not watching Pardon the Interruption this evening. :p

Take that ESPN! :mad: :p :D
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 01:40PM:
Re: Boycott

You're still paying for it so they don't care. (If your ISP does)
reply

jmn1207 @ 2nd Oct 01:48PM:
Re: Seriously....

said by BosstonesOwn :

Why would any ISP pay this to them ?

How many letters do they get from people complaining about not having ESPN 360, especially when ESPN makes it so simple to generate an email complaint that goes directly to your ISP? Now, how many letters does your ISP get from people thanking them for not pushing ESPN 360 on them? See where this is going?

reply

NOCMan @ 2nd Oct 01:58PM:
Re: Boycott

And that's where the problem lies for me. If I'm paying for my connection somewhere the cost of ESPN 360 is being passed onto me. How that's legal I have no idea. Perhaps the solution is for a class action against ESPN for basically dipping their hands into our collective pockets. Is it fair for 90% of the ISP's customers to finance the 10% that actually use it? Imagine all the medicine grandma can buy if she did not have to pay into this mess.

Seriously people get all riled up over government spending, but here we have a company stealing money hand over fist and nobody will probably do anything. In both cases the people causing the problem will continue business as usual.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 02:00PM:
Net Neutrality issue???

Doesn't this in some way violate Net Neutrality? I know in the current political extent, Net Neutrality means ISP's not giving preferential treatment to or restricting any connection to various content. Content providers have been complaining that ISP's may start chargning them for their consumers accessing their content, which caused an uproar among content people. Now, a content provider wants to charge the ISP to deliver the content. No uproar from ISP's, WTH????
reply

DVOOR8 @ 2nd Oct 02:09PM:
Bypass

Couldn't you just use a proxy server to that is accepted to ESPN? Are there any?
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 02:10PM:
Re: Boycott

Buy a T1 if you don't like it.
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 02:13PM:
Re: Way lame

said by amungus :

Edit:
And how come ESPN gets away with this crap while the RIAA still can't get it and continues to sue (and screw) their customers?

A $28 CD or $3K settlement is worth alot more than a subscription with unlimited songs.
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 02:20PM:
Re: Boycott

said by NOCMan :

And that's where the problem lies for me. If I'm paying for my connection somewhere the cost of ESPN 360 is being passed onto me. How that's legal I have no idea. Perhaps the solution is for a class action against ESPN for basically dipping their hands into our collective pockets. Is it fair for 90% of the ISP's customers to finance the 10% that actually use it?

While I despise the ESPN360 model it they charge ISPs 5 cents per subscriber to carry it. So the whole "granny is paying for content she doesn't use" argument is not really valid.

Imagine all the medicine grandma can buy if she did not have to pay into this mess.

Well that's 60 cents per year so I would say NOT MUCH.
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 02:27PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

said by Z80 :

I would welcome that. Let those who want this garbage, pay for the garbage. Same goes for the sports networks on video. They should put these overpriced channels on their own tiers, or better yet be compelled to offer channels a la carte in addition to the packages.

If these channels had to get subscribers by the content of their channels instead of blackmailing providers into carrying them by threatening to pull other content (ABC/ESPN/Disney is notorious for this), content would improve and prices would come down.

you'd welcome that? So instread of me being able to go to any of MILLIONS of sites I'd be limited to just afew dozen? that's better. Hey Einstien what if your ISP decided that it's not worth paying for dslreports.com and thus prevented your access to it?
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 02:29PM:
Re: Way lame

said by jmn1207 :

But wait, it's offered at "no charge". So, can we expect ESPN to send us money for the next $1-2/month price hike in or service?

Explain how something that costs 5 cents a month leads to a $2 a month increase in rates?
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 02:31PM:
No MNF

There might be a few college fotball games a year I might be interested in seeing, but as long as ESPN keeps MNF off of it it's pretty useless.
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 02:31PM:
Re: Seriously....

said by BosstonesOwn :

Why would any ISP pay this to them ?

Cut them off the network or inject an ad to the user saying why they have cancelled it.

I hate that these companies pull this crap.

»espn.go.com/mediakit/research/de···ics.html

»blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/con···and-web/

quote:
Overall, 123 million people accessed ESPN on TV and another 21 million visited ESPN.com in March 2008, according to Nielsen. Among households with either TV or Internet access, 84% of users who accessed ESPN content via TV, 10% used both Internet and TV, and 6% used ESPN.com exclusively, Nielsen found.

That right there explains why ESPN is a power house. 1/3rd of america watches it. To diss ESPN will promote a reaction similar to the reaction of ESPN viewers to you burning an american flag infront of them. This whole controversy is the same thing as the NFL network, »Comcast Sues NFL. If professional sports endorsed a presidential candidate, they would seal the results of an election.

»www.allbusiness.com/services/bus···0-1.html

$16 billion is a huge market/customer base to get money off of.

DSLReports has a very bias membership base, DSLReport members a tiny minority compared to joe six packs, and most/all businesses will obviously target joe six pack before they target DSLReports members.
reply

N10Cities @ 2nd Oct 02:35PM:
Re: Way lame

Agreed. Really fun to go to that site and watch Podunk University in their big badminton tournament. I agree with amungus, would rather have Rhapsody myself....
reply

TKJunkMail @ 2nd Oct 02:36PM:
Re: Way lame

said by Z80 :

I just got it as part of the Cox deal and it is really lame. ESPN360 is so overrated it is laughable. These horridly useless things should be options instead of forcing everyone to pay for it via yearly price increases. I'd rather have a .50 price cut than this stupid garbage.

Sooner or later, people are going to wake up and figure out that the enemy is not the cable & telco companies but Disney(ESPN) and all the other Hollyweird companies. It is they that have the monopoly and are the prime drivers behind cable & Telco TV rate increases.

But don't expect to hear boo from the consumer rights groups - because it is Hollyweird and Google and the large content companies that have bought them lock, stock, & barrel.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply

N10Cities @ 2nd Oct 02:41PM:
Re: Bypass

said by DVOOR8 :

Couldn't you just use a proxy server to that is accepted to ESPN? Are there any?

If you have a buddy that has Cox, you might talk him into putting a proxy server in his house connected to his cable modem! :D
reply

openbox9 @ 2nd Oct 02:49PM:
Re: Boycott

said by NOCMan :

Is it fair for 90% of the ISP's customers to finance the 10% that actually use it?

You mean like bandwidth consumption? Anyway, ESPN is merely carrying there well serving business model from pay TV to the Internet. Can't fault them for that, but we can fault our ISPs for succumbing to their antics...just as we can blame our pay TV providers.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 03:36PM:
Re: Way lame

RTFP

"Consumer advocates haven't been too keen on the model, either. "Ultimately, if you carry it to its logical extreme — that’s everyone charging for their content, and depending upon where you are and which ISP you’re using to connect to the internet, your internet experience is different — that’s a really unsettling prospect," recently proclaimed Ben Scott, policy director for consumer advocacy firm Free Press. "I think it undermines the foundational principles that make the internet such an engine of innovation and creativity."

Free Press (who takes no Google money) and Public Knowledge (who does) have both been on the record raising program access and tying anti-trust concerns about what Disney is doing here. Just because your flavor of pro-incumbent politics makes you think the consumer groups are silent on this, doesn't mean they are.
reply

n2jtx @ 2nd Oct 02:59PM:
Happy!

I am happy to see that Cablevision is not a member of this cabal.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
reply

AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 03:02PM:
Re: Boycott

I agree in that grandma should be left out of the argument unless she wants to join in. However, it is a clear case where an ISP either through use of profits and/or by passing a portion of the cost to all subscribers is circumventing a normal open free economy by subsidizing a business model and company that most likely is broken.
reply

jmn1207 @ 2nd Oct 03:04PM:
Re: Way lame

said by BF69 :

said by jmn1207 :

But wait, it's offered at "no charge". So, can we expect ESPN to send us money for the next $1-2/month price hike in or service?

Explain how something that costs 5 cents a month leads to a $2 a month increase in rates?

That's exactly what I keep telling my cable company. :)
reply

antdude @ 2nd Oct 03:04PM:
I liked ESPN360.

I used to have it during Adelphia days until TWC RR took over, and now it's gone. :( I used it at work that is on AT&T backbone, and it was rad to watch NBA feeds.
reply

AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 03:05PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

Except you're looking at it wrong, the ISP is not preventing your access to DSLReports or ESPN360. In this case, it is ESPN360 that is electing to only allow certain people to enter their website. I think the poster's point was if you want the content and the provider (ESPN) wants to charge for it, get out your own credit card.
reply

funchords @ 2nd Oct 03:08PM:
Re: Boycott

said by hitachi369 :

I am actively boycotting ESPN360, in that I have never gone there, nor have any desire. Boycott Complete!

If you're on one of ESPN360's ISPs, then you're paying a hidden tax for the service. You're only helping them by not watching.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/
reply

funchords @ 2nd Oct 03:09PM:
Re: Bypass

said by DVOOR8 :

Couldn't you just use a proxy server to that is accepted to ESPN? Are there any?

Theoretically speaking, of course, anything within a .edu might work
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/
reply

AVonGauss @ 2nd Oct 03:10PM:
Re: Way lame

Perhaps, but as long as the distributors (cable, telephone and satellite) continue to shield the content providers (i.e. Disney) from the consumer and normal market influences, they will be and are fair targets. This would be tough for smaller providers, but for larger providers if a content provider such as ESPN wants more than is normal for their content, simply make it a separate option that consumers must subscribe to with a separate fee and let the subscribers choice be heard.

reply

funchords @ 2nd Oct 03:15PM:
Re: Way lame

said by TKJunkMail :

Sooner or later, people are going to wake up and figure out that the enemy is not the cable & telco companies but Disney(ESPN) and all the other Hollyweird companies. It is they that have the monopoly and are the prime drivers behind cable & Telco TV rate increases.

That's like the monopoly calling the monopoly a monopoly. Content companies, by definition, are monopolies. It's part of copyright. That doesn't change the fact that there is no vibrant last-mile ISP market.

said by TKJunkMail :

But don't expect to hear boo from the consumer rights groups - because it is Hollyweird and Google and the large content companies that have bought them lock, stock, & barrel.

Did you miss the Ben Scott of Free Press quote in the story?

ESPN360 is very much a concern to many of us in the public interest groups. Generally, we think these sites ought to be dealing with individual subscribers, not trying to turn the Internet into the Cable TV model.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 03:27PM:
Re: Way lame

said by jmn1207 :

What's next, only Toyotas can have air conditioning installed? If you want to be cool in the summer, buy a Toyota, or sweat it out in your Honda. (complain to Honda if you want A/C in your car, too, or make the switch to a Toyota) This is a terrible practice, and it seems that some kind of regulation should be imposed. Anyone with access to the internet should be allowed to purchase ESPN 360. No ISP should be discriminated against. (is that even possible?) :D

You do realize this is how it works already, right?

A more appropriate analogy would be OnStar.

Want the police to be called if your airbags deploy? Buy a GM car. That's exactly how it is.
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 03:31PM:
I'm puzzled

People browsing "free" web content hate ads and hate paying subscription fees. The way ESPN360 does it is more or less transparent to the end user when the ISP signs with ESPN. Most ISPs aren't even raising their rates. Yet people are still complaining.

So how exactly are people who produce web content supposed to be paid anyway?
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 03:34PM:
Re: Boycott

said by NOCMan :

And that's where the problem lies for me. If I'm paying for my connection somewhere the cost of ESPN 360 is being passed onto me. How that's legal I have no idea.

I probably want maybe four or five cable only channels on cable TV - Discovery, Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central and Nat Geo. Yet I'm forced to pay for over 100 channels of mostly junk, including channels like WE and LIfetime which I will never watch.

So my guess is that it's legal.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 03:54PM:
Re: Boycott

You need to go back and rta. It's way more than 5 cents per user. ESPN wants to charge smaller ISPs as much as 79 cents per user.

That may still be less than $10 per year, but what is going to happen when other big corporations / industries start following suit?
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 03:43PM:
Re: Happy!

said by n2jtx :

I am happy to see that Cablevision is not a member of this cabal.

Cablevision is just as guilty though. They make you get their TV service to get MSG HD. If you are on FiOS or DISH you are out of luck.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 04:05PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

The user should be allowed to subscribe directly with the site in question.

Nobody should be forced to pay for something they don't want or need.

No company (ESPN) should be allowed to make an agreement with another company (ISP) to force their customers (ISP consumers) to pay for something that's not needed nor desired.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 03:50PM:
Missing the point...

Many of the posters here seem to be missing the point.

This isolated issue may only add up to 79 cents to the monthly fees paid by subscribers to an ISP. But, what will happen if ESPN's business model succeeds? Other big and powerful companies will start jumping on the bandwagon, expecting ISPs to pony up for their customers to have access to popular websites.

The next thing you know, there are 50 "extra fees" -- then 100 -- and consumer ISP costs will go through the roof.

I look at it this way:

According to netcraft.com, there are over 226 million websites on the internet. Most folks probably pay an average of $50/month for broadband internet access. That equates to about 0.000022 cents per website. Why should ESPN's be worth over 3,000,000% more than any of the others.

I know this country is sports crazy, but come on!
reply

NickD @ 2nd Oct 03:54PM:
Re: Blah

The article says that universities get ESPN360 free. Many universities actually provide the content to ESPN (college football games are played at universities)

Last Saturday, there was a football game that was only available on ESPN360. I have Comcast, so I made another email address and used that email for ESPN360's "remote access" feature. I also told other fans of my team the email and password to access ESPN360.
reply

anon @ 2nd Oct 05:24PM:
Re: Way lame

Because 5 cents per month is a price that BF69 made up in an earlier post. Go back and rta. Smaller ISPs are expected to pay as much as 79 cents per month. Keep in mind, this is for access to a single website out of the entire internet...and the consumer has no choice in the matter.

Question: Why doesn't ESPN simply charge individuals for access to their website.

Answer: Because they can make more money this way!
reply

Mchart @ 2nd Oct 03:55PM:
Re: Blah

said by NickD :

The article says that universities get ESPN360 free. Many universities actually provide the content to ESPN (college football games are played at universities)

And why is this important to me?
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE.
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 04:09PM:
Re: Boycott

said by Eat Me :

I probably want maybe four or five cable only channels on cable TV - Discovery, Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central and Nat Geo. Yet I'm forced to pay for over 100 channels of mostly junk, including channels like WE and LIfetime which I will never watch.

So my guess is that it's legal.

Thats communism! Where are the free market soldiers on DSLReports?
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 04:18PM:
Re: Missing the point...

This business model already succeeded, Hulu is locked to USA, iPlayer (???) from BBC is locked to UK. Now its just becoming more granular to specific ISP rather than specific country.
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 04:19PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

said by ur_a_troll :

The user should be allowed to subscribe directly with the site in question.

Nobody should be forced to pay for something they don't want or need.

No company (ESPN) should be allowed to make an agreement with another company (ISP) to force their customers (ISP consumers) to pay for something that's not needed nor desired.

I agree with such a subscription model, but then people will be saying that the internet needs to be open and that charging for content over the internet is evil.
reply

jmn1207 @ 2nd Oct 04:20PM:
Re: Way lame

It seems that OnStar by GM is more of a trademark/copyright issue. (which I also have issue with, but that's another topic...I seem to have a lot of issues)

However, I do see your point, and understand it, but I don't like it. I wish the consumers had more of an influence, and not the capitulating ISP's.

This is a major problem in an industry that has largely abandoned pricing competition and directed their attention on a battle of features. The ISP's see this as a way to increase their profits. Sure, they may have to pony-up a few dollars for ESPN 360, but they can turn around and increase prices and justify it by claiming to have improved the value of their product.

Sucks to be a consumer.
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 04:20PM:
Re: Missing the point...

said by byteme :

I look at it this way:

According to netcraft.com, there are over 226 million websites on the internet. Most folks probably pay an average of $50/month for broadband internet access. That equates to about 0.000022 cents per website. Why should ESPN's be worth over 3,000,000% more than any of the others.

I know this country is sports crazy, but come on!

Your $50/month is not going to content providers. It is going directly to the ISP. Content providers make money from ads, subscriptions or from selling merchandise.
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 04:23PM:
Re: Missing the point...

said by patcat88 :

This business model already succeeded, Hulu is locked to USA, iPlayer (???) from BBC is locked to UK. Now its just becoming more granular to specific ISP rather than specific country.

That's completely different. Hulu/BBC region locks are done because the content providers only license online distribution in the USA or UK. ESPN's region locks are done based on payment from the ISP.
reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 04:25PM:
Re: Boycott

said by patcat88 :

Thats communism! Where are the free market soldiers on DSLReports?

i would very much like a la carte programming, but cable companies and content providers are fighting this tooth and nail.
reply

chemaupr @ 2nd Oct 04:29PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

So long we are not forced into buy any tier as condition of service....

Take Netflix for example.... if I want to stream their movies I have to pay to them... not inderectly via Cox. If they keep lumping this crap content services soon more than half our bill is going to be crappy cable networks seeking to milk more money. ESPN already makes a 3-5 dollars of my cable bill... now is going to be making more out of my internet bill...

What if I DON'T care about them... why I have to pay for not using it...
reply

Cyron @ 2nd Oct 04:35PM:
Re: Missing the point...

Funny how ISP's want to charge Google to deliver all their content. Imagine if Google just pulled an ESPN and withdrew all their content unless ISP's paid. Would be funny to see who consumers pick :)
reply

Vertickle @ 2nd Oct 04:38PM:
Funny...

Knology just sent me a notice that they are now partners with ESPN and now I get ESPN360. Bout time they did something positive for their customers.

Say what you will about ESPN360, I happen to like it! :D
reply

NeoandGeo @ 2nd Oct 04:40PM:
Sweet

I am on Charter and I didn't even know that this was available to me.
reply

krazymon2 @ 2nd Oct 04:46PM:
Value added service

I currently have Verizon DSL at my house and simply view this as a value-added product. Now wait to hear my reasoning before you start screaming at your computer screen.

My ISP provides me with many services that are built into my bill that I don't use and never will. A great example of this would be their email service. I will never use it, but at some point the cost of the email service is built into my bill.

My rates for internet service haven't gone up because I have access to ESPN360. If they did then I would have something to complain about, since they haven't this is simply something that I get in addition to my connection.

ISPs by not offering this are just stating to ESPN they don't feel like they need the service to compete with other ISPs who might offer the service. When looking for new service I don't just look at the price and connection speed but what each company can offer me as part of the overall experience. That goes from additional services to reliability, tech-support and turn around time should someone need to come out.
reply

jmn1207 @ 2nd Oct 04:54PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

said by Eat Me :

I agree with such a subscription model, but then people will be saying that the internet needs to be open and that charging for content over the internet is evil.

And yet the porn industry somehow manages to survive on exactly this format. How about "free" access to some porn sites based on this ESPN 360 model? Wouldn't that be fun? Don't tell me there is not enough consumer interest or that it's a niche product. :D
reply

SSidlov @ 2nd Oct 05:24PM:
ESPN360 is essential to COLLEGE FOOTBALL

This network is covering the games that the networks aren't. College football is often, IMHO, more interesting than some of the NFL games.

Not to mention other college sports.

However -- I HATE THE MODEL!! especially since my ISP Cablevision doesn't subscribe. BUT, my wireless carrier ATT DOES! and I CAN tether my phone to signup and actually watch via that method, and then there is 'remote access' that can be setup.
--
»www.Warpstock.org

reply

Eat Me @ 2nd Oct 05:31PM:
Re: Missing the point...

said by Cyron :

Funny how ISP's want to charge Google to deliver all their content. Imagine if Google just pulled an ESPN and withdrew all their content unless ISP's paid. Would be funny to see who consumers pick :)

Bing is better.
reply

patcat88 @ 2nd Oct 05:46PM:
Re: Missing the point...

said by Eat Me :

That's completely different. Hulu/BBC region locks are done because the content providers only license online distribution in the USA or UK. ESPN's region locks are done based on payment from the ISP.

No, its the same thing, IP address discrimination. On my TWC cable modem, Music Choice allows me to listen to the channels online, from my AT&T DSL I get redirected away. Or what about Netflix on Xbox 360 in Europe?

The same games they played with PAL/NTSC, region codes, regional versions of games and video, address verification, etc that they played offline, they want to play online now.
reply

KrK @ 2nd Oct 05:52PM:
Sheeple never learn.

The people are telling the companies they want the Internet to move to a pay model of "taxed" connection fees. This is incredibly dumb. In the future you'll hear the bitching about "how much the Internet costs" and it will be crap like this that made it that way.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply

Z80 @ 2nd Oct 07:08PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

Yeah genius, give me the dumb pipe for $35 and put all this other subscription based crap like ESPN360 and the "Free Security Suites" on higher priced tiers. Einstein, Cox doesn't pay for DSLReports and DSLReports isn't insisting Cox fork over a ton of dough for access. DSLReports gets readers in the open 'market', ONE AT A TIME based on the MERITS OF THE CONTENT.

If you want ESPN360, YOU pay for it instead of having everyone else pay for it.
reply

Z80 @ 2nd Oct 07:11PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

Exactly and this horrible content served up on a take all or none basis is the excuse as to why we see yearly price increases at many times the rate of inflation.

These providers should be compelled to unbundle this crap and content generator forbidden from extorting money by blocking access to other channels they sell.

It comes down to ABC/Disney abusing their market position to sell horrible content (like ABC Family) by pulling channels people do want. And they are putting themselves into the position to do the same with internet content. I have no doubt that soon it will be ABC/Disney telling cable operators that they are paying for ESPN360 or not getting other ABC owned content like Disney or ESPN.
reply

avantwireles @ 2nd Oct 08:19PM:
Re: Internet as Cable..

That is the crux of the matter, YOU can't buy it., only your ISP can! So ESPN gets a fat deal on all the ISP customers who couldn't give a squat. If you are a big ISP you have power to negotiate, otherwise ESPN says pound sand... If ESPN went to a regular subscription model there would be no problem. Then they pour salt in the wound telling the customers to switch ISP's. The reverse side of that is the ISP's start to decide who's DNS records to pass on. ESPN360? What's that. "SERVER NOT FOUND" That makes it look like ESPN's lameness like it is. That is a very slippery slope that ESPN wants the net to tread on.
reply

Van @ 2nd Oct 09:17PM:
I was never into ESPN 360 until recently

but am hooked now as my Verizon DSL gives it to me.

I watch a LOT of games on it and love the replay ability
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 09:24PM:
Re: Boycott

said by byteme :

You need to go back and rta. It's way more than 5 cents per user. ESPN wants to charge smaller ISPs as much as 79 cents per user.

That may still be less than $10 per year, but what is going to happen when other big corporations / industries start following suit?

"ESPN receives TV-type affiliate fees from operators for rights to make 360 available, reportedly charging a sub fee of 5 cents per month. ESPN says 360 carries 3,500 live sports events a year, from NBA playoff games to overseas cricket. "
reply

openbox9 @ 2nd Oct 09:25PM:
Re: Boycott

What's communistic about it? Seem fairly capitalistic to me...strategically sell more goods than the consumer wishes to purchase. Sounds like a capitalist wet dream to me.
reply

BF69 @ 2nd Oct 09:27PM:
Re: Way lame

said by byteme :

Because 5 cents per month is a price that BF69 made up in an earlier post. Go back and rta. Smaller ISPs are expected to pay as much as 79 cents per month. Keep in mind, this is for access to a single website out of the entire internet...and the consumer has no choice in the matter.

Question: Why doesn't ESPN simply charge individuals for access to their website.

Answer: Because they can make more money this way!

I didn't make anything up. If smaller ISPs are paying more that still not germain to the topic because Comcast, Cox, Charter, At&t > All smaller ISPs combined X 10.

I'm not sure why you are on my ass because I've already stated I'm 100% against this model. I just think if you are going to make a case against it you should use FACTS. You think my 5 cents per sub is somehting I pulled out of thin air while your 79 cents for small ISPs is based on what ONE, just ONE, small ISP said that ESPN suppposedly charges. Maybe HE,a nd only HE, is charged 79 cent sper sub. Maybe HE is LYING about it.
reply

SuperWISP @ 2nd Oct 09:32PM:
Get the facts straight

Gee, how nice it is to come home after a long, hard 12 hour workday (7 AM to 7 PM) doing service upgrades, building out high speed Internet to unserved areas, and helping Internet users... to find myself libeled, my views misrepresented, and even the name of my company misspelled. (Hint: It's "Lariat" -- from the Spanish "la riata", meaning "the rope" -- not "lariet.")

To clarify my views (and, Karl, you should correct this in your article above): I believe that market forces can resolve most issues in the marketplace, and that regulation is only necessary in cases of market failure or anticompetitive practices. Unnecessary regulation causes more problems than it solves -- leading to regulatory capture, deterring investment, and stifling innovation.

On the other hand, what ESPN360 is doing -- telling Internet customers to terminate their contracts with ISPs which do not pay it "ransom" -- is not a regulatory issue. Rather, it is what is known as tortious interference. Anyone who understands business law understands that this is a tort in common law and also (just about everywhere) in statutory law. Whether or not there is regulation, anyone has the right to sue if someone else does malicious damage to them or tries to shake them down for money, as ESPN360 is doing in this case. This is true in any line of business.

Both consumers and ISPs should protest what ESPN360 is doing, boycott it, and perhaps engage in a class action against it.

But of course, we couldn't expect Karl to understand these subtleties.
reply

openbox9 @ 2nd Oct 09:32PM:
Re: Missing the point...

Google would wither and die. That's exactly the advantage that Yahoo, MS, and most ISPs would jump on.
reply

Z80 @ 2nd Oct 10:42PM:
Re: Way lame

The fact is, his price information came from and actual ISP, yours came from your ass.

Meanwhile if you want to call Brent ( aka SuperWISP ) a liar, do it to his face »ESPN360: Boycott and possible class action lawsuit

Those people clamoring for ESPN360 obviously don't understand how worthless and devoid of content it is. Convenient that they don't allow any trial preview before engaging in illegal activity ( »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) and hound people to switch ISPs.
reply

hottboiinnc @ 2nd Oct 11:25PM:
Re: Get the facts straight

I know this won't help matters much, but as far as small ISPs go Brett, you should seriously give this up. One of the smallest ISPs in Ohio provides this to their customers: »www.wabash.com/ . They also own and just built a FTTH network. If they can do it, you surely can.

And class action against ESPSN/Disney? LMAO! Good Luck. It's not their fault that you won't sign with them.
reply

hottboiinnc @ 2nd Oct 11:27PM:
Re: Net Neutrality issue???

NOPE! Why? Because its a PREMIUM Service that all providers have the option to carry. It is NOT Disney's fault that some ISPs do not want to carry it.

Net Neutrality only means charging the Content Provider extra for delivering content to the ISP's customer. In return the ISP is PAYING the Content provider, which they do willingly.
reply

SuperWISP @ 3rd Oct 12:02AM:
Re: Get the facts straight

said by hottboiinnc :

One of the smallest ISPs in Ohio provides this to their customers: »www.wabash.com/ .

They're not providing anything to their customers; they are paying ransom. Good luck to them. They are destroying their business. They've capitulated to one bully; now the next one will come, and the next. There will be no end to it, and they won't be profitable or sustainable. It'll be bad news for their community and their customers.

If there's no class action against ESPN360, there will be after a few more bullies arrive on the block.
reply

AZinOH @ 3rd Oct 07:33AM:
Who Else?

I'd be surprised if ESPN didn't leverage it's advantageous market position in sports programming in this way. I don't see a great many other content providers who would try to pursue the same business model though. Who else really has the same kind of advantage in their niche that ESPN has? When it comes to sports, ESPN draws a crowd like moths to a flame. What other entertainment-news-game-information provider functions at that same level? The floor is open for nominations. I know it won't be PBSkids.org or Emeril Legasse.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 10:04AM:
Re: Boycott

Get our antitrust laws changed if you want to permit companies to abuse their market positions.
reply

anon @ 3rd Oct 10:23AM:
Re: Way lame

Golfnsun does have a point though. We often blame the immediately obvious delivery system for something that is more the result of the behind the scenes machinations by the content companies.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 10:11AM:
Re: Boycott

said by jdofaz :

You're still paying for it so they don't care. (If your ISP does)

Exactly, it would be nice except Cox doesn't give me that choice.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 10:17AM:
Re: I'm puzzled

But that would actually be something people want and the ISP would charge $20/mo for it.

ESPN360 is utterly worthless. I saw the content and it is worse than the crap you find at 2:30AM on the deuce.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 10:18AM:
Re: Funny...

Then YOU, not everyone on your service should be paying for it.
reply

PGHammer @ 3rd Oct 10:19AM:
Re: Boycott

said by BF69 :

Point of fact - ESPN360 carries content *not* carried either by other ESPN networks or the various RSNs (while CSNDC, like all FSN affiliates, does have a cross-carriage agreement with Canada's TSN for CFL games, even CSNDC doesn't carry them all; I catch the remainder via ESPN360). Also, most of that additional fee comes from my existing CHSI bill (in short, I am not charged extra specifically for ESPN360, either via the cable-TV bill or the HSI bill). Would you favor ESPN360 instead being another linear channel?

As to why I watch the CFL (being that I'm hundreds of miles from the nearest Canadian border), blame the NFL players' strike of 1982, followed in the following decade by the CFL's (short-lived) expansion into the US. Also, the differences between the CFL and NFL (both in field dimensions and the one-less down) make for a MUCH more wide-open style of play compared to even collegiate football in the US, let alone the NFL. (And that is even though I'm still horked off at the CFL stealing the Baltimore Stallions immediately after they won the Grey Cup and importing them into Montreal as the New Alouettes.)
reply

PGHammer @ 3rd Oct 10:24AM:
Re: Way lame

said by amungus :

Amen.

Why not give everyone Rhapsody while they're at it. More people would probably want free music than this.

It's also a bigger issue than sports, so are we saying screw the RIAA and all associated artists while favoring sports over the arts???

Edit:
And how come ESPN gets away with this crap while the RIAA still can't get it and continues to sue (and screw) their customers?

Some ISPs (Comcast among them) *do* provide Rhapsody 25 with the broadband subscription (in fact, Comcast is among the oldest Rhapsody partner ISPs). And it's not just broadband ISPs doing so (VZW is a Rhapsody partner, as is VZ's FIOS and DSL services). However, I notice that most (if not all) of the screaming and yowling is coming from areas *without* a partnering ISP (with either service).

Which is it - sour grapes, or jealousy?
reply

PGHammer @ 3rd Oct 10:29AM:
Re: Way lame

said by Eat Me :

You do realize this is how it works already, right?

A more appropriate analogy would be OnStar.

Want the police to be called if your airbags deploy? Buy a GM car. That's exactly how it is.

Many companies outside of GM allow OnStar to be installed in their vehicles (one of them being Mercedes-Benz; last I heard, Government Motors owned none of them). Also, there is *nothing* preventing you, as a vehicle owner, from allowing OnStar to be installed in your non-GM vehicle (unless the vehicle manufacturer insists that you not do so with a warranty-voidation clause).
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 10:31AM:
Re: Boycott

Ditto. I would like to see a la carte options. A la carte wouldn't mean the end of the typical packages, just more options for consumers. If content providers had to compete for ever customer, the sucky channels would die and content for the others would improve.

HBO is a la carte, and on many channels the Discoveries are on a higher tier. Why not USA or ESPN? Basic cable is FULL of worthless filler channels and the costs are increasing rapidly, even in the middle of a horrid recession.

The corporate shills want to scream free markets unless it comes to channels having to earn their business from subscribers. Then they advocate the channel welfare model.

If Cox wants to offer this extra content fine, but keep the dumb pipe dump and cheap and offer a package with the extra stuff. If such a package or packages included various content like a IGN subscription (like Comcast did), ESPN360, MLB.TV, Rhapsody/Napster, Superpass, maybe a few hours of Netflix streaming and some other premium content and/or software people would sign up just like they sign up for higher cable video tiers.
reply

SuperWISP @ 3rd Oct 10:37AM:
Re: Who Else?

Imagine what would happen if Google started doing it.
reply

PGHammer @ 3rd Oct 10:43AM:
Re: Way lame

said by Z80 :

The fact is, his price information came from and actual ISP, yours came from your ass.

Meanwhile if you want to call Brent ( aka SuperWISP ) a liar, do it to his face »ESPN360: Boycott and possible class action lawsuit

Those people clamoring for ESPN360 obviously don't understand how worthless and devoid of content it is. Convenient that they don't allow any trial preview before engaging in illegal activity ( »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference ) and hound people to switch ISPs.

Obviously, you have not watched ESPN360 *or* are not a fan of collegiate or non-US-based sports. ESPN360 carries collegiate football games (especially from non-BCS schools) that are usually not available via either the ESPN linear networks or the RSNs. (The same is true of other collegiate sports.) Also, what is wrong with the CFL? While most RSNs (including CSNDC) carry some CFL games, not one RSN carries them all; if I want to catch a game that I missed, ESPN360 is my only option. (No, I'm not Canadian; I live hundreds of miles from the nearest Canadian border. The nearest resident Canadians to me are at the Canadian Embassy.)

Further you state first that you have never even *watched* ESPN360, but then immediately thereafter label it void of of worthwhile content; how would you know?

I am NOT a sports fanatic; however, I am a sports fan. (There are sports I enjoy watching that I don't have a prayer on the planet of being good enough to have made, even when I was young, such as college baseball or basketball, let alone the CFL or collegiate football, even D-II/III. I know my limitations; however, that does not mean that I don't enjoy watching nonetheless.) Therefore, I find plenty watchable via ESPN360 (basically, ESPN VOD via the Internet); why do YOU have a problem with that?
reply

AZinOH @ 3rd Oct 11:19AM:
Re: Who Else?

said by SuperWISP :

Imagine what would happen if Google started doing it.

Doing what...charging ISPs for access to their site? I'll bet Yahoo and Bing would welcome that.
reply

Vertickle @ 3rd Oct 11:35AM:
Re: Funny...

said by Z80 :

Then YOU, not everyone on your service should be paying for it.

I would have gladly paid for it if that were an option. Maybe since I don't have children I can get some of my taxes back that go to paying for YOUR kids education.

The problem is that ESPN is a sports monopoly. Until someone else gets some of the sporting action ESPN can do as they please.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 12:45PM:
Re: Funny...

I don't have kids so I'm in the same over the barrel position as you are when it comes to being fleeced for taxes.

ESPN is hardly a sports monopoly. Popular, absolutely, but monopoly, hardly.
reply

jmn1207 @ 3rd Oct 04:36PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

said by Z80 :

But that would actually be something people want and the ISP would charge $20/mo for it.

ESPN360 is utterly worthless. I saw the content and it is worse than the crap you find at 2:30AM on the deuce.

I was able to watch top 10 teams play college football games on ESPN 360 that were not available on any of the 400 channels I get on my TV. For college basketball and baseball, there are even more games that can be watch live. Maybe it's just worthless to you?
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 06:49PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

Then subscribers like YOU should be paying for it.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 07:20PM:
Re: Way lame

Why do I have a problem with it?

Because I am paying for it with ENDLESS annual price increases that are many times the rate of inflation.
reply

Vertickle @ 3rd Oct 07:22PM:
Re: Funny...

Who competes with them then?
reply

jmn1207 @ 3rd Oct 07:22PM:
Re: I'm puzzled

said by Z80 :

Then subscribers like YOU should be paying for it.

Did you read anything else I posted? I completely agree. That has been my position all along with ESPN 360. I want to be able to buy it, and not have my ISP be the only entity involved in the market influence of such products.
reply

Z80 @ 3rd Oct 07:26PM:
Re: Funny...

Fox Sports Net, broadcast networks, other regionals and now the leagues each have 1 or more channels of their own (eg MLB, NFL, NBA)...

I'm certainly not watching the Angels, Dodgers, Lakers and Chargers which are all top tier teams on ESPN. If I were into World's Strongest Man and Poker, then yeah, ESPN rules. On that note, Poker is not a sport. What are they going to show next? World Championship Outdoor BBQ?

There is no shortage of sports on television and internet.
reply

Somnambul33t @ 3rd Oct 10:34PM:
3 360

i love espn360...was elated when comcast started it in august. ive watched more sports on espn360.com since it came to comcats than i have on the TV (minus phillies/eagles games)
reply

Quake110 @ 4th Oct 12:59PM:
Re: Blah

said by Mchart :

said by NickD :

The article says that universities get ESPN360 free. Many universities actually provide the content to ESPN (college football games are played at universities)

And why is this important to me?

Maybe not to you but perhaps it is for the other million people
reply

Mchart @ 4th Oct 01:03PM:
Re: Blah

said by Quake110 :

said by Mchart :

said by NickD :

The article says that universities get ESPN360 free. Many universities actually provide the content to ESPN (college football games are played at universities)

And why is this important to me?

Maybe not to you but perhaps it is for the other million people

Timewarner doesn't do ESPN 360. I want ESPN 360. I don't get ESPN360 for free because I work for a living and i'm not some bum student sapping even more money off of everyone else.

So please, go away.
--
THIS IS SPENCER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - I HAVE JOE. RETURNING TO BASE.
reply

Matt @ 4th Oct 01:40PM:
Local ILEC

My local (regional) ILEC offers this, somehow manages to run GPON fiber to the home, offer higher speeds, and all at a cheaper price point than Time Warner or AT&T, yet they still make boatloads of money. Funny how that works.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln
reply

Grafton @ 4th Oct 08:42PM:
didn't know that comcast had the espn 360 thing

Had i known the quality of the service that comcast is paying for i would have listened to the game on the radio because it was not televised, the coverage sucked :(
reply

SuperWISP @ 4th Oct 09:55PM:
Re: Who Else?

What? You think an ISP could retain its customers if they couldn't get to YouTube?
reply

axus @ 4th Oct 10:23PM:
Re: Net Neutrality issue???

ESPN doesn't control the network. They are abusing their monopoly on certain rebroadcast rights, but that's different. Network neutrality violation would be Comcast telling their subscriber "you have to pay Comcast $1 to access ESPN 360 this month". ESPN could say "you have to pay ESPN $1 to access ESPN 360 this month" and it would be "OK".

It's the difference between a bridge troll and a dragon that took over a castle, I guess.
reply

kaisa @ 5th Oct 06:34AM:
Re: Blah

Holy crap! Calm down!
reply

anon @ 5th Oct 04:55PM:
Re: Net Neutrality issue???

said by hottboiinnc :

Net Neutrality only means charging the Content Provider extra for delivering content to the ISP's customer. In return the ISP is PAYING the Content provider, which they do willingly.

Most definitions of Network Neutrality are broader than that, and include non-discrimination on the basis of source, destination, or application (or port in technical terms) of traffic. Since the end result is a service being blocked or degraded based on an IP address, a clear violation of Network Neutrality is taking place.

I bet the larger ISPs are kicking themselves for not thinking of this first. Or did they? Maybe they were thinking "If we can't implement favoritism to maintain a cable/cell phone like business model, let's have the content providers do it themselves." Of course, they've realized by now they can't be the ones to pull the trigger, so maybe some under-the-table dealing took place. That might explain why the cost is higher for smaller ISPs.
reply

AaronMK @ 5th Oct 04:49PM:
Re: Value added service

said by krazymon2 :

When looking for new service I don't just look at the price and connection speed but what each company can offer me as part of the overall experience.

Deals such as this could eventually make choosing that overall experience resemble choosing between AOL and CompuServe. At least they had a "Bring your own access" options so you could subscribe to their overall experience without being forced to use them as your ISP.

You know, if Verizon and Time Warner wanted to create sites that bundle a lot of content in various packages, and charge to access those sites, that would be less of an issue. (Assuming no preferential pricing or quality of service to their own ISP subscribers.) At least companies would not be playing gatekeepers at the network infrastructure level.
reply