Despite Criticism, ESPN360 Broadband Model Spreads > Way lame

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 to Z80

reply to Z80
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?)

I'm not watching Pardon the Interruption this evening.

Take that ESPN!

reply to amungus

reply to jmn1207

reply to Z80

reply to Z80

reply to BF69

reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 to fAcEtIOUs

reply to jmn1207

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?)

reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 to fifty nine
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 to BF69
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!

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 to fAcEtIOUs
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 to amungus

reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

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?)

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.