dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2371
share rss forum feed


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.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

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...


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to 56403739

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.


nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode

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!



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

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:39

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.


BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO

1 edit

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
Germany
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


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

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. "

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

DVR?



Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
reply to nothing00

I have one word for NBC. PROXY


chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

How about if I don't want to be forced to pay for content I don't use, and my ISP decides to force me to either pay for it (out of my normal bill) or find a new provider? Stopping this sort of conduct is exactly what the net neutrality fight is about. If companies want to be paid for content, fine. Give consumers the right to pay you directly for it.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

While I agree that these deals are definitely not in the interests of consumers, that's not what 88615298 See Profile's point was about.

FWIW, this conduct is not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is about preventing preferential treatment of one content source/protocol over another competing source/protocol. As long as the ISPs don't increase the priority of the ESPN, HBO, etc., streams over other data passing through their control, the concept of net neutrality isn't an issue.



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

said by openbox9:

DVR?
Never owned one don't plan on it. Got to pay hundreds for a Tivo AND pay a monthly subscription? Can you say rip off?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

You don't need a Tivo or monthly subscriptions. Build your own. A little initiative on your part may help you out significantly.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode

Think DirecTV and Sunday Ticket model moved to the 'Net.

In order to keep subscribers, ISP's run around and license "exclusive" content with popular websites. Wrong ISP= no content for you! ... They pay whatever they have too.

Then they raise the rates of all their customers to cover this expense. We all lose. Is the future of the Internet? Seems likely.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
reply to openbox9

Except ISPs are giving preferential treatment by paying the source providers directly to access this content instead of simply moving the content they provide over their networks. If this was all happening behind the scenes based on peering or data usage metrics it would be one thing, but it isn't and that affects how the network as a whole operates.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to tubbynet

Yeah I didn't even think about the fact that people who pay for NBC TV service at home can't access this content while at work or away from home....in an age where broadband and Wi-Fi are everywhere, no less...


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to chimera

Paying for access to content is not preferential treatment. This has happened for a long time in the content distribution arena. Unless the ISPs are discriminating against other data streams in favor of another data stream, it's not a net neutrality issue.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to 88615298

said by 88615298:

said by openbox9:

DVR?
Never owned one don't plan on it. Got to pay hundreds for a Tivo AND pay a monthly subscription? Can you say rip off?
Rent one from your cable company if you don't want to pay TiVo.

If you have only rabbit ears, windows 7 and vista come with media center. All you need is a tuner stick or tuner card.

chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC
reply to openbox9

There is more to a network than just packets. The existence of this type of model will eventually force ISPs to ration which services they provide access to, and then we run into a case where large sections of the internet start being blocked off. Preventing large providers from having the power to block off, limit access to to impede access to portions of the internet is exactly what network neutrality is about.

The second an ISP has to tell you that you need to pay an extra ten dollars if you want to be able to access your company's web server or Google News network neutrality has failed.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by chimera:

then we run into a case where large sections of the internet start being blocked off. Preventing large providers from having the power to block off, limit access to to impede access to portions of the internet is exactly what network neutrality is about.
What is being blocked? This is where I'm losing you. If I want to watch ESPN, or the Olympics, or ________ (insert content of choice), then I purchase said content. Choice exists to allow me access to whatever content I want. You may not like the price, or the distribution mechanism, but the access exists.
said by chimera:

The second an ISP has to tell you that you need to pay an extra ten dollars if you want to be able to access your company's web server or Google News network neutrality has failed.
Ok, but that's not what we're discussing here.