ESPN 360 Model Continues To Take Flak > Small ISPS

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Small ISPS

then you'll embrace it and deal with it. the same you do with TV rate hikes with both cableTV, IPTV (telco) and Sat.

Are you kidding me? Did you just tell everyone to bend over and take it?
You are either complete idiot or a corporate shill.

reply to hottboiinnc
LOL, I love how you argue so narrow minded with your head in the sand sometimes.

So how about instead of US embracing it, you and your megacorp duopolies embrace that it should not be done?

How about instead of telling the consumers to suck it up, we tell the companies to suck it up?

I'll tell you what, you come here with one valid argument for this business model and wall garden approach and we will debate it. But coming here with your "suck it up or leave" stupidity which can't be debated does no good on any front.

Let me begin by simply stating that the problem begins with the content providers being very tied to and in some cases under the same ownership (or trying to be). It is them that are making the decision for this "value added” relationship for the consumers. In reality it is just value added to each of the companies’ bottom lines with no benefit to a vast majority of their consumers.

If ESPN thinks their content is so desirable and worth so much they would be better served by offering it to EVERYONE in the world through the open internet. However, they obviously know that is not the truth. So they see the flawed way of the current pay tv model and that it is best for their bottom line and thus have began trying to enact that on broadband. In the EXACT same sense Comcast (and others) being simple dumbpipes know it is in their best interest to have an AOL approach to content to try to be somewhat more relevant then a DHCP service provider. Therefore the 2 enter into these agreements for their benefit.

The only consumers that benefit from this will again (just like paid TV) be the ones that want ESPN through broadband, but want the cost of it to be spread out over 20 million subscribers instead of the 1 million they would truly get stand alone. It is a wash for Comcast as they simply pass this cost on to ALL of their subscribers and if they are so inclined can even add a healthy margin of profit to it as well. ESPN of course comes out way ahead. They can charge more for advertising because the illusion of more subscribers is there and they get to collect more money spread out over a larger number then they could possible get on their own.

reply to Bananas21ca
i said it and it works. You embrace it or you don't use their services. Don't like it; shut up and change providers. Want regulation? pay a higher bill and move on with that.

reply to Skippy25
okay so i'm a corp. shill now because i believe in the private business doing what they want? Okay I'll take that. But i won't say what you are do to someone on here bitching and i'll get my opnions taken off. Talk about free speech, eh? (but on another note, screw it"

Again; you can take what they're offering you or change ISPs. Or heres and idea! GO START YOU OWN PROVIDER AND STFU about it. Theres a real winner!

I here the "free" press is looking for a new spokes person since Robb's name hasnt been in the news for a few weeks now. Are you next?
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods

See what is silly is that you come on this site quite often. Therefore you know as well as I do that most people here do not really have a choice as a vast majority of all markets are either duopoly or monopoly in nature. Those that do have a choice don't really have a choice as the offerings are pretty much the same with a slight variances here and there.

What is even more silly is that you make the stupid suggestion, as many shills do as well, to either 1.) switch providers (see above) 2.) move or now the new one (which is my favorite).... 3.) build your own network.

And for the record, I would agree that the a private business should be able to do what they want within the guidelines of the rules and regulations they operate in. However, there are 2 things wrong with you generalizing them as private companies:

1.) A vast majority of these companies are not private as they are publicly held and more importantly they operate in public domains on many levels and thus make them accountable to the public.

2.) Except in very rare cases, all of these companies operate in a market that is completely counter to a free market (duopoly and monopoly) and thus the free market rules don't apply. You implying anything else is nonsense and you know it.