dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-02-17 16:46:48: Last year ESPN unveiled a new business model for their streaming ESPN 360 video services, that included striking exclusive deals with ISPs, who then offered the content to their subscribers. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

ESPN is not "the Internet"

And neither is HBO or NBC. They are doing what they want with their own product. This is not the same as an ISP blocking a third party.

In fact, this is no different than Disney's move of Monday Night Football from the OTA ABC network to ESPN.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

Subscribe to TV but can't get live nbcolympics?

the system doesn't appear to be working for a number of users.
The problem may be with your browser security. If you aren't allowing 3rd party cookies(which many security conscious users block), the connection is never OK'd. If you subscribe to cable TV pkg and are willing to turn off your cookie security(I wasn't), you can most likely get access to live video at nbcolympics.com.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:38
reply to 56403739

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

This is not the same as an ISP blocking a third party.
Not saying it is. Am saying NBC's Olympics coverage and streaming solution appears both bizarre and broken, and that restricting access to content based on the user's ISP fundamentally alters the content landscape...

Bob61571

join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

Original complaint on Consumerist

was about Verizon DSL, since the consumers thought ISP was the problem. NYC based Consumerist may have confused Verizon DSL with Verizon FiOS.

If anyone has problem viewing online, it is because NBC didn't play well with your pay TV provider. Customers of smaller cable systems have a real valid beef here.

I have Verizon DSL, and have been watching this, because I have DirecTV for pay TV.



R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo

join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA

I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreading

That junk is useless...



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to 56403739

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

said by 56403739:

And neither is HBO or NBC. They are doing what they want with their own product. This is not the same as an ISP blocking a third party.

In fact, this is no different than Disney's move of Monday Night Football from the OTA ABC network to ESPN.
So be force to pay hundreds or more than $1000 a year for TV to get olympics even though you can get NBC for free? I call bullshit.

Once again media companies have ZERO clue. Raping people is not the answer.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to R4M0N

Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreading

said by R4M0N:

That junk is useless...
Care to elaborate? Tough to respond to something that content-free...

I've watched ESPN360.com on occasion and it's been fine for me.


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Just Trying to Save the Dodo

This model is successful because it is all just a means to try and control the inevitable death of conventional TV service. If we can get everything we want over the internet, nobody is going to pony-up money for a cable box and join the masses in paying higher rates each year for their TV viewing pleasure. By keeping consumers from being able to obtain convenient programming via their Internet connection unless they subscribe to some TV package, they can keep the cash cow alive and control when and what we can watch more easily.

Same old story, conglomerates in an oligopoly restrict innovation in an effort to maintain control. Another ridiculous, RIAA-like battle is coming on the video content front.


Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

NOT only that COMCAST forces you to have cable and internet

NOT only that COMCAST forces you to have cable and internet to do some stuff like on line DVR control so if you have DSL and cable tv you can not use DVR remote control and this may also be true for the HBO thing and maybe Olympics as well.

Direct tv much better with this you are not locking to any one IPS for there dvr remote control and olympics on line stuff that is tied to your tv package .



jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreading

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by R4M0N:

That junk is useless...
Care to elaborate? Tough to respond to something that content-free...

I've watched ESPN360.com on occasion and it's been fine for me.
It's not free, it's just that you, as the consumer, have very little control over the supply and demand of this product. Comcast, Verizon, or whatever other provider that carries ESPN360 has to pay money for this option, and it affects everyone's overall prices, even if you never use it. The pricing model for ESPN360 is based on the number of subscribers an ISP has, which makes it cheaper per customer for a giant like Comcast, but a significant expense for a smaller, budding ISP.


nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

This is hilarious when you consider complaints about Google "using our pipes for free" and allegations of "freeloading" only to have ISPs pay a content provider to use the ISP's pipes.

Hypocrisy on the side of the ISPs? Think so!


Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
reply to jmn1207

Re: Just Trying to Save the Dodo

said by jmn1207:

This model is successful because it is all just a means to try and control the inevitable death of conventional TV service. If we can get everything we want over the internet, nobody is going to pony-up money for a cable box and join the masses in paying higher rates each year for their TV viewing pleasure. By keeping consumers from being able to obtain convenient programming via their Internet connection unless they subscribe to some TV package, they can keep the cash cow alive and control when and what we can watch more easily.

Same old story, conglomerates in an oligopoly restrict innovation in an effort to maintain control. Another ridiculous, RIAA-like battle is coming on the video content front.
The last thing we want is any thing like this.

If you want to have some pay for your web site then make it up the user and not the ISP.

I don't want want to go the cable tv way and deal with stuff being forced to buy the disney channel on line to get epsn.

I don't want to be foreced to buy a mtv music pass to get Comedy Central.


56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2
reply to Karl Bode

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

This is not "free" programming, and while NBCU may have bobbled their implementation they are fully within their rights to decide how content they pay dearly to produce and broadcast is distributed. Your insistence that all video product being available via all distribution channels as some kind of fundamental right cheapens the very real battle to be faced by content providers who can't get past an ISP's demands for payment. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The content producers control their product, not the ISPs, nor you.

NBC has hired six different survey companies to measure the various ways their Olympics is being consumed and is using it as a laboratory to inform future efforts both by NBCU and others. You can't seem to get past the fact that they dare ask to be paid.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:38

3 edits

1 recommendation

Your insistence that all video product being available via all distribution channels as some kind of fundamental right.
Nowhere was this said.
You can't seem to get past the fact that they dare ask to be paid.
Not only making straw men (How dare companies demand to be paid!), you're also missing every single point made in the article, RadioDoc. (doh)

One, NBC's Olympic streaming service creates a broken paywall apparatus many users say is not working. Despite offering coverage free over the air with ads, for whatever reason offering free live streaming with ads is considered some kind of insanity by terrified NBC executives. They're simply trying to pretend the open Internet doesn't exist and in the process made it harder to access their content. Genius!

Two, restricting user access to content based on their ISP also tries to obliterate the open Internet concept by trying to scare ISPs into ponying up for content. It drives up end user cost, further marginalizes already incredibly marginalized smaller ISPs who can't afford to pay, and also tries to pretend the open Internet can be beaten back with enough force.


PToN
Premium
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX

It's a membership

Well,

Pretty much everything is going to "Subscribe to" or Service agreement kind of model.

However, i have ATT and i can watch ESPN360 via my internet connection i also happen to have U-Verse with my movie channels, including HBO, etc.

I am already paying to get HBO access, shouldnt i be able to have access to the programming i am already paying for..?

This doesnt help anyone, but pirates... I find myself using more torrents because of things like this than ever before...



Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:23
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..

2 edits

Nothing to see here...

On the first day of the Olympics I wanted to watch the Olympics online since I happened to not have access to a TV, but I did have my laptop and Internet access on me. I wound up missing all but the last 10 commercial filled minutes of the event because I couldn't watch it online. What's more surprising is that it's on *FREE* TV as well in HD. During the time I couldn't watch the Olympics, I was in an IRC chat talking about the whole ordeal and how it seems as though NBC just wants more money to stream something that is already a worldwide event and can be gotten elsewhere with less commercials than NBC plays if it weren't for GeoIP restrictions online. Yeah, I realize something such as the Akamai HD network is expensive in terms of bandwidth, but isn't that what the commercials and "good will" motives are for?

My ISPs both provide ESPN 360. I don't use it. I do have Satellite TV service and NBC's "Stream Portal" shows my provider as a partnered provider. I don't even want to bother with it since it's still going to show the same crap, maybe even more crap that TV already shows that's not game related. It should be something that isn't gated off in the first place.

But thanks for providing the link to the page Karl! I've been looking for that link for a while.
--
Here comes the white stuff which falls from the sky during the winter again!



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1
reply to FFH

Re: Subscribe to TV but can't get live nbcolympics?

So install one instance of Firefox Portable to use only for this one, specific thing and let anyone put their hands in the cookie jar... meh.



cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to jmn1207

Re: Just Trying to Save the Dodo

said by jmn1207:

If we can get everything we want over the internet, nobody is going to pony-up money for a cable box and join the masses in paying higher rates each year for their TV viewing pleasure.
Going by this logic nobody is going to buy big screen TV's... because you can see it in poorer quality on a tiny laptop... or you can hook the laptop to the TV and see a big pixelated picture that doesn't even come close to a SD feed... not to mention HD.


JunjiHiroma
Live Free Or Die

join:2008-03-18

*facepalm*

This will bring in internet2, a cable-TV pay-like subscription model the telco's and cableco's will bring in. I WAS right about Bellus & Robbers bragging to TIME magazine about the internet going to a Pay as you surf Cable TV Model by 2012.

it's a Cableco and Telco's wet Dream >.>



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to jmn1207

Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreading

Ahh, yes... if only I could opt-out and reduce my bill by that amount [no matter how small it is--simply on priciple]. Just serve me up as dumb a pipe as possible, thank you. (I know... it'll never happen.)

[Edit:] BTW, doesn't "content-free" here refer to the replied to post and not ESPN360 (aka the [ESPN] content)? (Well, that's how I read it.)



antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4

Adelphia used ESPN360...

... but it died and TWC RR doesn't offer for me to watch sports online.



toddbs98

join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR
reply to jmn1207

Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreading

How is this different from paying the cable company for all the channels I don't watch? Having them available for you to watch increases my cable bill so they should be dropped.
--
Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell



toddbs98

join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR
reply to cowboyro

Re: Just Trying to Save the Dodo

You must have a crappy laptop and TV if the picture is pixelated and isn't SD quality because through the HDMI port on my laptop I get great HD quality picture on my TV.
--
Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell



BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO

1 edit
reply to Karl Bode

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

Again, with all this technology, we're unable to access content. I can't get OTA, but I have Internet, and yet STILL cannot (legally) get coverage.

Oh well, guess the local pub will have to do, they have a bigger screen anyways.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

So be force to pay hundreds or more than $1000 a year for TV to get olympics even though you can get NBC for free? I call bullshit.
BS indeed, since you aren't forced to pay anything. Throw up the rabbit ears and enjoy the Olympics if you really want to watch them


PGHammer

join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
reply to Joe12345678

Re: Just Trying to Save the Dodo

In short, all you want is a dumb pipe; worse, you want someone else to pay for it.

Cable companies (in fact, all telecom providers) had it right; investors will NOT invest in a dumb-pipe provider because there is no return on that investment. FTTP in the US (VZ FIOS in particular) has value-add as an urban/suburban service - while it is deployable in the exurbs and rural fringe, it offers a return lower than the deployment costs (which is why VZ had to spin off the lower-density states to FairPoint and Frontier, respectively). In these areas, while the demand may be there, the only way the service can be paid for is if that cost is partially or completely offset by government grants-in-aid (either to the consumer directly, or to the provider, as in the old REA grant programs). If you go that route, there WILL be fraud, abuse, and out-and-out wasteage (that has ben the case with every grant program, including Pell grants, which actualy has the LOWEST percentage of FWA of any grant-in-aid program). The anger over FWA in government has only grown, not shrunk. Do you REALLY want to introduce yet more FWA?



tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
reply to Karl Bode

Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"

said by Karl Bode:

Two, restricting user access to content based on their ISP also tries to obliterate the open Internet concept by trying to scare ISPs into ponying up for content. It drives up end user cost, further marginalizes already incredibly marginalized smaller ISPs who can't afford to pay, and also tries to pretend the open Internet can be beaten back with enough force.
i'm even more frustrated that i can't view the content from university. i could only imagine the frustration of international students not able to view their home team in full. complete and utter bull as far as i'm concerned.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

said by 88615298:

So be force to pay hundreds or more than $1000 a year for TV to get olympics even though you can get NBC for free? I call bullshit.
BS indeed, since you aren't forced to pay anything. Throw up the rabbit ears and enjoy the Olympics if you really want to watch them
I have internet what if I want to watch online later because I'm not at home?


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

1 edit
reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

This is not the same as an ISP blocking a third party.
Not saying it is. Am saying NBC's Olympics coverage and streaming solution appears both bizarre and broken, and that restricting access to content based on the user's ISP fundamentally alters the content landscape...
Yep. I subscribe to a local ILEC (the 20th largest ILEC in the US) as my ISP and for IPTV. I have access to all those NBC channels on my IPTV, yet my provider is not in their list, so I'm locked out.

I think this quote says it all:

"If your cable, satellite or IPTV provider is NOT listed above, then it's not in partnership with NBC Olympics. "


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to PGHammer

Re: Just Trying to Save the Dodo

said by PGHammer:

In short, all you want is a dumb pipe; worse, you want someone else to pay for it.

Cable companies (in fact, all telecom providers) had it right; investors will NOT invest in a dumb-pipe provider because there is no return on that investment.
Honestly who givwes a fuck about investors? They don't give a fuck about the customers. They don't invest to make the compnay better they invest to make more money for themselves. Investors nowadays HURT the business. In the old days someone ivested ina company the compnay then use that money to IMPROVE the company. Nowadays companies pocket that money and only care about making more profits for the investors. The days of the CUSTOMER coming first is dead. Investors don't invest for the long term they want money NOW. This is why our economy tanked. IMPATIENCE. This hurts EVERYONE. Companies can't make long term inprovements in the company because if they tell investors it will take 10 years to make money on an investment the investors will say "No you can't do that. We want money NOW". If they taxed captial gains at 50% for under 2 years, 25% for 2-5 years, 15% for 6-9 years, 10% for 10-19 years and 5% for over 20 years, you'd see a lot more long term investing. And America would be better off.

Cox had it right by going back to a private company. No moronic investors with ZERO knowlege of the field telling them what to do.