Small ISPs Revolt Against ESPN360 Model > Just like CNN used to do with mobile

Just like CNN used to do with mobile

Here is to hoping it doesn't survive long!

That said, It's ESPN's content and servers. They should be allowed to find what market they can.

reply to bugabuga

reply to Millenniumle
I hope it doesn't last either. It's a terrible precedence to set. I did not have access to espn360 with Comcast, but I do now with Verizon. It was nice to be able to catch an out of market college football game (Texas - Rice) as part of my existing FiOS plan, but I don't like these back room deals between the content providers and our ISP's. I would much rather have had to pay a set amount of money to ESPN for this service for the game, day, or month. By not providing any other subscription option for a person to access content on espn360, and asking people to complain to their ISP, is ridiculous and wrong.

This is just one more step into channel bundling that has created ballooning cable TV pricing and contract disputes on renewals that often leave the customers without programming for several weeks at a time. So now Disney expects our TV providers to not only put 45 channels on their basic TV package tiers, but now we have to pay extra for all of their websites as well? Screw that!

I love sports and my regular shows and series, but I would happily drop all Viacom, Disney, or any other media content conglomerate channels and websites for as long as it takes for them to give us a more reasonable option that would keep the cost below the stratosphere. Some might say that we can vote with our wallets, but the reality is that most of us do not truly have a real choice in the matter.

How about a vote to the existing customers on channel lineup matters? At least, then, our TV providers could show these media bullies that we aren't willing to pay $1.50 more each month for Comedy Central and MTV. Then we would all know who is really screwing the customers around when we get a blank screen instead of South Park. The customer needs a way to fight back the way capitalism was meant to work. The current model is like having to purchase a $50 plastic ring from a box of Cracker Jacks, or don't, and lose your car and driving privileges as well. The bundling bullshit needs to be revisited.

Now if Verizon were to strike a deal with one of the major pornographic media giants, maybe then I'd agree on this business model. Porno360! Hey, if the many are forced to pay for interests of a few, it would be wise not to discriminate. Why should the sports jockeys be the only ones to reap the rewards?

Any ISP's not inclined to subscribe to ESPN can turn the tables on ESPN. ISP's can simply advise people that they are not preventing them from getting ESPN, ESPN is, and to request access from ESPN.

It becomes a game of hardball where first the ISP and then the user ultimately determines if the model survives. If users jump ship for the content then ESPN wins. If they don't then ESPN loses.

Yes, but we have seen this happen many times before. Flashing all over the channel where ESPN once stood will be a message proclaiming that your ISP is being the greedy devil that will not come to reason because they hate their customers. Call your ISP at 888-BIG-CABLE and demand that they play fair and give your favorite sports channel back or leave for another TV provider. And any attempts to place a complaint with Disney or ESPN is instantly re-routed to your cable or satellite TV's support.

When these types of holdouts and threats are being played, I've always sided with the situation that gives me the cheapest service and some tiny resemblance of choice in the matter. So far this is always on the side of the TV provider. But in the end, the cable and satellite guys always give in. And the consumer completely loses any ability to control the market with their money, unless you are willing to give up everything. And believe me, the way things are trending, many consumers are starting to do exactly that.

reply to Millenniumle

Maybe we should have been sending complaints to ESPN rather than our ISP's when access to espn360 was denied?

Too late now.

They sucker people in with BS about the service being free, when we know damn well that it is not.

reply to jmn1207
We see that a few ISPs already have given in, and it is too bad. But somehow I think giving in is probably not an accurate statement. They may see metered billing as recouping much more than the amount they pay out to content providers. My bet is that it is the ISP, and not ESPN, that is the threat to the consumer's wallet. Major ISPs own the pipe, they have little to no competition, they have every ability to tell ESPN to pound salt and not suffer at all, yet the sign ups we see are major ISPs. Curious!

Part of the reason major ISP's have exclusively played along is precisely what the initial story was about. Smaller ISP's are forced to pay an enormous percentage of their profits for this, while the major ISP's were given a significant discount.

You are absolutely correct about the ISP's. They don't normally make a move without carefully investigating the impact it will have on their bottom line.