how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
1615 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | 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. | |
|  amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | 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? | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | 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. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 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? | |
|
| | 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. | |
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | 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!  | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | 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? | |
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | 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.  | |
| | |
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| 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! | |
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | | Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
4 edits | 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. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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 lawsuitThose 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? | |
| | | | | | | Z801 point 77Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | 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. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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. 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). | |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
1 edit | 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. 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.... | |
| | | 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
| |
| | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | 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.
| |
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by fAcEtIOUs: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 fAcEtIOUs: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/ | |
| | | | 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. | |
| |
approval from:
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. | |
|
| |
|
