 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | Two restrictions 1. ISP restriction
2. Live Gold membership restriction
So if you want to see ESPN content on the Xbox360, you have to pay extra for an ISP that offers it and then you have to pay extra for the Live Gold membership.
Anyone else want a piece too? Maybe the power company will want extra money every time the xb360 is streaming ESPN content...
And whoever says you don't need to pay extra for the ISP, guess who pays the costs of the ESPN license? Hint: It's not the shareholders. |
|
|
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by R4M0N:1. ISP restriction 2. Live Gold membership restriction So if you want to see ESPN content on the Xbox360, you have to pay extra for an ISP that offers it and then you have to pay extra for the Live Gold membership. Anyone else want a piece too? Maybe the power company will want extra money every time the xb360 is streaming ESPN content... And whoever says you don't need to pay extra for the ISP, guess who pays the costs of the ESPN license? Hint: It's not the shareholders. I've had a Live Subscription for 7+ years so for me this would be an added bonus.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N:1. ISP restriction 2. Live Gold membership restriction So if you want to see ESPN content on the Xbox360, you have to pay extra for an ISP that offers it and then you have to pay extra for the Live Gold membership. Anyone else want a piece too? Maybe the power company will want extra money every time the xb360 is streaming ESPN content... And whoever says you don't need to pay extra for the ISP, guess who pays the costs of the ESPN license? Hint: It's not the shareholders. For the record ISPs pay ESPN 5 cents per sub per month for ESPN3. |
|
| reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N:1. ISP restriction 2. Live Gold membership restriction So if you want to see ESPN content on the Xbox360, you have to pay extra for an ISP that offers it and then you have to pay extra for the Live Gold membership. Anyone else want a piece too? Maybe the power company will want extra money every time the xb360 is streaming ESPN content... And whoever says you don't need to pay extra for the ISP, guess who pays the costs of the ESPN license? Hint: It's not the shareholders. At least you get it. The cable cos are licensing it so its natural if ESPN wants them to continue to license it, that they limit it to the licensees. Its pretty much a "No Duh' situation when you lay it out. MS is not licensing the content, they are instead licensing you the software and network connection to access it, but yo still have to license it. So they made the agreement via ISP. Now I can't see it being hard to fool MS ISP identification, but that's another story. Unless they require some sort of account with that ISP such as a account and PW ID, in which case, security alert!
Since I know most TV providers are putting this in a higher up package, I wonder how are they going to verify you license it anyway. I suppose the ISP does and it's their problem after that, but I suspect there will be a legal battle over that soon. You clearly will not get this with the basic most TV package, but if you have it and internet, you can now watch it on your 360? And avoid the $200/month bill for that upper tier package? ESPN/MS versus Cableco's/Babybellsw/satelite-Tplay/Verizon/Frontier/etc. Looks like a royal rumble in the court room is a coming. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N:So if you want to see ESPN content on the Xbox360, you have to pay extra for an ISP that offers it Unless you're one of the millions of households whose ISP already does, then it's not extra. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | reply to BF69
said by BF69:For the record ISPs pay ESPN 5 cents per sub per month for ESPN3. Are you certain? I was under the impression that the price fluctuated depending on the number of subscribers. This was what made these "deals" so onerous toward smaller ISPs, as they had to pay a more substantial amount per subscriber to offer a similar level of service as an ISP with millions of subscribers. And if I remember correctly, the price difference for a smaller number of subscribers was considerably more, making it unrealistic for the smaller ISPs to compete, as it took away practically all of their profits.
Maybe things have changed, but I still loathe this type of business model. It takes away consumer control in the same manner that TV content has been pulled from our influence with regards to product supply and demand. |
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | even if its 5cents per month the sheer idea is bad
don't go to the isp go to the viewer (its an internet pay per view so why limit it in this back water way?) |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:said by BF69:For the record ISPs pay ESPN 5 cents per sub per month for ESPN3. Are you certain? I was under the impression that the price fluctuated depending on the number of subscribers. This was what made these "deals" so onerous toward smaller ISPs, as they had to pay a more substantial amount per subscriber to offer a similar level of service as an ISP with millions of subscribers. And if I remember correctly, the price difference for a smaller number of subscribers was considerably more, making it unrealistic for the smaller ISPs to compete, as it took away practically all of their profits. Maybe things have changed, but I still loathe this type of business model. It takes away consumer control in the same manner that TV content has been pulled from our influence with regards to product supply and demand. it may be different depending on the ISP, but the fact it's 5 cents for some vs say the $5 that actual ESPN gets for the cable version means you really can't make the same "My costs are going up" comparison.
And yes this business model sucks |
|
