en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| and the problem is... ?
While more than 60 ISPs have signed on, smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content.
Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | Not a factor
If these small ISP's were smart, they would know that ESPN 360 is not even a factor. Frontier tried to use it, all I personally cared for was download/upload speeds.
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | Cya ESPN
This always ends in the producer losing. Really its more like bribery. Alot of people dont care about 360, or ESPN. If an isp wants to offer it, then charge per user. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to en102
Re: and the problem is... ?
said by en102  :Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information. No it's more like a HOA buying milk for an entire subdivision and saying you have to pay for it even if you're lactose intolerant. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | When Businesses Combine Together to Deny Consumer Choices
What do we call that?
Can you say collusion?
I knew that you could.
NV |
|
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY | Noo
hell no!!! i enjoy this service FiOS offers!! |
|
No To ESPN
@sbcglobal.net | Answer is Taxation
Sports should be taxed as they are a vice. I suggest that a modest 50% tax be placed on this service. Sounds like a reasonable way of dealing with these clowns and generating some needed cash for what REALLY IS IMPORTANT. |
|
A900MHz Fan
join:2004-07-12
Mitchell, SD
| said by No To ESPN :
Sports should be taxed as they are a vice. I suggest that a modest 50% tax be placed on this service. Sounds like a reasonable way of dealing with these clowns and generating some needed cash for what REALLY IS IMPORTANT.
Such as?
Neal |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Stop it Now!
From the list of 60, I don't see the major players Comcast and Time-Warner, not to mention Cablevision. Hopefully they will have to stamina to tell Disney where they can go. I have less than zero interest in professional sports and I am perfectly happy to have those that do enjoy it foot the bill.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
1 edit | The power of content
Isn't it funny that ESPN can get 60 ISP's to pay them for content access while the RIAA and MPAA go about suing and three-striking? Their respective entertainment industries should fire them. Isn't it also funny that remaining smaller ISP's actually care that it isn't affordable for them? Boy, the RIAA and MPAA really aren't that bright are they? With movies and music they could have the internet begging at their doorstep. 
I kinda disagree with Karl on this one. I think the model will flourish for those that have content in high enough demand. The American Cable Association would seem to agree, concerned they'll have to pony up to ESPN's demands in order to satisfy their subscribers.
ESPN has the right person(s) on the job managing their internet division. Excellent power play.
|
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| Speaking from a Small ISP's point of view......
The model sucks. You have to pay a really high price for something a low number of customers want. If you divide the costs by the number of people who are actually using the service you are not making any money on the customers who want the service. It's not really that fair to spread the cost of a service that the minority of users use across the majority of users don't care about.
I would prefer a model where an ISP can buy access for their entire user base OR the consumer can subscribe on their own. |
|
epsnshouldbelike
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to No To ESPN
Re: Answer is Taxation
said by No To ESPN :
Sports should be taxed as they are a vice. I suggest that a modest 50% tax be placed on this service. Sounds like a reasonable way of dealing with these clowns and generating some needed cash for what REALLY IS IMPORTANT.
so then we can all pay $60 for basic cable / and $80- $100 for exp basic as you are locked in to espn even if you don't want it. |
|
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
 ·Unwired Ltd
·Comcast
| reply to A900MHz Fan
said by A900MHz Fan :said by No To ESPN :
Sports should be taxed as they are a vice. I suggest that a modest 50% tax be placed on this service. Sounds like a reasonable way of dealing with these clowns and generating some needed cash for what REALLY IS IMPORTANT.
Such as? Neal Poverty relief? Homelessness relief? Health coverage for all? College education for all?
TBH, sports are close to the bottom of important things. As a matter of fact I put sports about on the same level as I do video games. They are fun diversions but hardly important in the grand scheme of things. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to en102
Re: and the problem is... ?
said by en102 :While more than 60 ISPs have signed on, smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content. Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information. Umm... How is this anything like purchasing milk? We're not talking about a physical object that needs to be shipped. We're not talking about a situation where you're realistically amortizing those shipping costs across a greater number of units (i.e., whether I send one gallon of milk or a hundred, at least one truck needs to roll). If ESPN is making available 50TB of programming content, then it's the same 50TB whether the buyer (the ISPs) is forwarding it on to 10 end-users or 10,000.
If you wanted a more realistic comparison, it's like sending a video tape to a couple of bars - then charging the bars for the number of people that watch it. There's no real cost differential between sending one copy of the tape to the local, corner bar that seats 30 people than it does to send it to a Hard Rock Cafe that might have a few hundred people in it. The only difference is the number of chargeable viewers. There's no real cost-basis to the content producer to drive non-linear fee structures.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY | reply to n2jtx
Re: Stop it Now!
Just tried on Cablevision...no go...on a business gov't line...no go...
On the "F YOU" banner, though, it has a note saying Comcast is onboard as of Aug 1. |
|
buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME
·Great Works Internet
·GWIS Internet Solu..
| More of this crap...
Why don't they just charge USERS of the site directly instead of spreading the cost to all ISP customers. Isn't that what 99.999999999999999% of sites with paid content do?
To be fair this is right in line with ESPN's business model anyway, make everyone pay (a lot) for the channel regardless of how many actually want it.
It's about making money that's what it is, if they guarantee money from the ISP there is less risk than relying on users. |
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| reply to battleop
Re: Speaking from a Small ISP's point of view......
ISP's need to engage in their own PR program, informing their subscribers they don't hinder their access to ESPN - ESPN does. Move the complaints from the ISP's doorstep to ESPN's.
It's all up to the subscriber. Are they going to jump ship just for ESPN, if it's even an available option? Are they going to send ESPN a nasty email? Or are they just going to give up on ESPN and move on? |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to nixen
Re: and the problem is... ?
How much demand for 360 could possibly warrant these type of actions. I mean, at a time when ISPs are complaining about people chewing up bandwidth with people watching useless videos, the ISP then stands in line to get permission to provide access to Burmese Soccer?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
ConfusedPipeUser
@sbcglobal.net
| err, what happened to not riding "our pipes" for free?
So, if youtube was to begin charging ISPs for customer access to content, then that'd be okay with these ISPs? I'm shocked the same last mile providers that want to charge both sides for usage, particularly video usage, don't have any problem paying content providers to load content onto those same pipes...
F'ing weird. Youtube could make a mint by turning pay-for-access with their huge marketshare. When the ISP's balked, they could just point to the ESPN-360 model and say, "hey, you didn't mind doing it for those guys, so pay up."
Seems like ISP's screwed themselves by setting that precedent. Now every "unique" content provider will start getting dollar signs in their eyes and using the ISP as the intermediary to deal with instead of negotiating w/ only those users that want the service.
Sounds kind of like CATV, where some other middle-man decides what everyone wants access to. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Noah Vail
Re: When Businesses Combine Together to Deny Consumer Choices
How are consumers being denied choice? |
|
