 56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL |
56403739 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-17 4:51 pm
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. | |
|
 | | |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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... | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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! | |
|
| | |  Lagz
Premium Member
join:2000-09-03
The Rock |
Lagz
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 7:01 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"I have one word for NBC. PROXY  | |
|
| | 56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL |
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. | |
|
| | |
3 edits
1 recommendation |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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. | |
|
| | | |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ |
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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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... | |
|
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
1 recommendation |
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. | |
|
| |  Matt3All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
1 edit |
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. " | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation |
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. | |
|
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 5:51 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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  | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2010-Feb-17 6:30 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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? | |
|
| | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 6:46 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"DVR? | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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 Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 9:38 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"While I agree that these deals are definitely not in the interests of consumers, that's not what 88615298  '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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-18 8:47 am
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"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 Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-18 12:12 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"said by chimera4: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 chimera4: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. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to openbox9
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 Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 10:27 pm
Re: ESPN is not "the Internet"You don't need a Tivo or monthly subscriptions. Build your own. A little initiative on your part may help you out significantly. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
to 88615298
said by 88615298: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. | |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 4:56 pm
Subscribe to TV but can't get live nbcolympics?the system doesn't appear to be working for a number of users. The problem may be with your browser security. If you aren't allowing 3rd party cookies(which many security conscious users block), the connection is never OK'd. If you subscribe to cable TV pkg and are willing to turn off your cookie security(I wasn't), you can most likely get access to live video at nbcolympics.com. | |
|
| | |
Re: Subscribe to TV but can't get live nbcolympics?So install one instance of Firefox Portable to use only for this one, specific thing and let anyone put their hands in the cookie jar... meh. | |
|
| |
Original complaint on Consumeristwas about Verizon DSL, since the consumers thought ISP was the problem. NYC based Consumerist may have confused Verizon DSL with Verizon FiOS.
If anyone has problem viewing online, it is because NBC didn't play well with your pay TV provider. Customers of smaller cable systems have a real valid beef here.
I have Verizon DSL, and have been watching this, because I have DirecTV for pay TV. | |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA |
R4M0N
Member
2010-Feb-17 5:00 pm
I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreadingThat junk is useless... | |
|
| | |
Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreadingsaid by R4M0N:That junk is useless... Care to elaborate? Tough to respond to something that content-free... I've watched ESPN360.com on occasion and it's been fine for me. | |
|
| |  jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 5:16 pm
Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreadingsaid by MyDogHsFleas:said by R4M0N:That junk is useless... Care to elaborate? Tough to respond to something that content-free... I've watched ESPN360.com on occasion and it's been fine for me. It's not free, it's just that you, as the consumer, have very little control over the supply and demand of this product. Comcast, Verizon, or whatever other provider that carries ESPN360 has to pay money for this option, and it affects everyone's overall prices, even if you never use it. The pricing model for ESPN360 is based on the number of subscribers an ISP has, which makes it cheaper per customer for a giant like Comcast, but a significant expense for a smaller, budding ISP. | |
|
| | |
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreadingAhh, yes... if only I could opt-out and reduce my bill by that amount [no matter how small it is--simply on priciple]. Just serve me up as dumb a pipe as possible, thank you. (I know... it'll never happen.)
[Edit:] BTW, doesn't "content-free" here refer to the replied to post and not ESPN360 (aka the [ESPN] content)? (Well, that's how I read it.) | |
|
| | |  toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR |
to jmn1207
How is this different from paying the cable company for all the channels I don't watch? Having them available for you to watch increases my cable bill so they should be dropped. | |
|
| | | | jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 7:44 pm
Re: I have no Idea How ESPN360 is spreadingsaid by toddbs98:How is this different from paying the cable company for all the channels I don't watch? Having them available for you to watch increases my cable bill so they should be dropped. It isn't different, and that's the problem. We are paying too much, there are many annoying restrictions, and the quality is not where it should be. It's just the beginning of another RIAA vs the consumers battle, but now with TV content. | |
|
| | | | |
to jmn1207
lol .... "content-free" referred to your OP which stated in it's entirety: "This junk is useless.."
"You, the consumer, have very little control..."
Well, yes and no. I as the consumer do not get to fine-tune exactly how someone brings their offerings to market or how they get revenue. However, I have the ultimate power to buy or not buy, or to buy someone else's offering. Eventually that feedback loop will affect the offerings and pricing, if my dollar votes are replicated enough across the marketplace. And if artificial constraints aren't put in the way (like too many regulations or bailouts, or allowing a monopoly to dictate the marketplace). | |
|
jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 5:07 pm
Just Trying to Save the DodoThis model is successful because it is all just a means to try and control the inevitable death of conventional TV service. If we can get everything we want over the internet, nobody is going to pony-up money for a cable box and join the masses in paying higher rates each year for their TV viewing pleasure. By keeping consumers from being able to obtain convenient programming via their Internet connection unless they subscribe to some TV package, they can keep the cash cow alive and control when and what we can watch more easily.
Same old story, conglomerates in an oligopoly restrict innovation in an effort to maintain control. Another ridiculous, RIAA-like battle is coming on the video content front. | |
|
|
•••••••••• |
| |
NOT only that COMCAST forces you to have cable and internetNOT only that COMCAST forces you to have cable and internet to do some stuff like on line DVR control so if you have DSL and cable tv you can not use DVR remote control and this may also be true for the HBO thing and maybe Olympics as well.
Direct tv much better with this you are not locking to any one IPS for there dvr remote control and olympics on line stuff that is tied to your tv package . | |
|
 PToN
Premium Member
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX |
PToN
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 5:27 pm
It's a membershipWell,
Pretty much everything is going to "Subscribe to" or Service agreement kind of model.
However, i have ATT and i can watch ESPN360 via my internet connection i also happen to have U-Verse with my movie channels, including HBO, etc.
I am already paying to get HBO access, shouldnt i be able to have access to the programming i am already paying for..?
This doesnt help anyone, but pirates... I find myself using more torrents because of things like this than ever before... | |
|
 Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY ·Charter
Ubee EU2251
Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
2 edits |
Nothing to see here...On the first day of the Olympics I wanted to watch the Olympics online since I happened to not have access to a TV, but I did have my laptop and Internet access on me. I wound up missing all but the last 10 commercial filled minutes of the event because I couldn't watch it online. What's more surprising is that it's on *FREE* TV as well in HD. During the time I couldn't watch the Olympics, I was in an IRC chat talking about the whole ordeal and how it seems as though NBC just wants more money to stream something that is already a worldwide event and can be gotten elsewhere with less commercials than NBC plays if it weren't for GeoIP restrictions online. Yeah, I realize something such as the Akamai HD network is expensive in terms of bandwidth, but isn't that what the commercials and "good will" motives are for?
My ISPs both provide ESPN 360. I don't use it. I do have Satellite TV service and NBC's "Stream Portal" shows my provider as a partnered provider. I don't even want to bother with it since it's still going to show the same crap, maybe even more crap that TV already shows that's not game related. It should be something that isn't gated off in the first place.
But thanks for providing the link to the page Karl! I've been looking for that link for a while. | |
|
| |
*facepalm*This will bring in internet2, a cable-TV pay-like subscription model the telco's and cableco's will bring in. I WAS right about Bellus & Robbers bragging to TIME magazine about the internet going to a Pay as you surf Cable TV Model by 2012.
it's a Cableco and Telco's wet Dream >.> | |
|
 antdudeMatrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US |
antdude
Premium Member
2010-Feb-17 5:41 pm
Adelphia used ESPN360...... but it died and TWC RR doesn't offer for me to watch sports online.  | |
|
|
•••••• |
| |
FactChek
Anon
2010-Feb-17 10:09 pm
Wrong again, KarlIn other words, NBC is trying to cordon off access to video streaming of the Olympics unless you're paying for a cable TV package that includes NBC channels (even though this is all free over the air with an antenna). ... NBC could have simply offered the Olympics streamed with ads to anyone interested in watching, given it's already broadcast free over the air. Umm... You realize this is all wrong, right? NBCU runs MSNBC, USA, CNBC, etc. Those channels are showing more Olympics coverage than the OTA NBC channel. So the theory that "all this is available for free over the air" is simply wrong. Most NBC content is subscription based. Only the one channel is free. That's the reason for the subscription requirement. | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2010-Feb-18 2:20 am
Proprietary playerTried it. When you work via WMP, call me.
meh
* WMP handles DRM * | |
|
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2010-Feb-18 8:37 am
Remeber AOL Time Warner ?When the AOL Tiem Warner merger happened, they initially thought that they ould provide exclive content to AOL customers. CNN for instance, would say "more information available to AOL subscribers for this story".
That didn't last long. They found that ad dollars don't go far when you prevent the masses from accessing your content.
I the case of ESPN etc, I guess they are changing from ad revenues to ISP revenues. But it is ironic though because the very ISPs who are willing to pay to grant access for their customers are the ones who were shouting that content providers should be the ones paying the ISPs to carry their content at full speed.
This move is worrysome because it shows how the media still have a "walled garden" cable mentality. | |
|
| | |
Re: Remeber AOL Time Warner ?said by jfmezei:When the AOL Tiem Warner merger happened, they initially thought that they ould provide exclive content to AOL customers. CNN for instance, would say "more information available to AOL subscribers for this story". That didn't last long. They found that ad dollars don't go far when you prevent the masses from accessing your content. I the case of ESPN etc, I guess they are changing from ad revenues to ISP revenues. But it is ironic though because the very ISPs who are willing to pay to grant access for their customers are the ones who were shouting that content providers should be the ones paying the ISPs to carry their content at full speed. This move is worrysome because it shows how the media still have a "walled garden" cable mentality. Yet They'll end of dying off like the dinosaurs. "I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart Then someone shouts "That's what they get!" For all the years of hit and run For all the piss broke bands on VH1 Where did all, their money go? Don't we all know Parasitic music industry As it destroys itself We'll show them how it's supposed to be" - Dinosaurs Will Die By NOFX Maybe the cableco's will destroy themselves in the process. | |
|
| |
You really do have it ALL WRONGThe ESPN 360 model and the HBO go model are NOT AT ALL ALIKE...and all NBC Olympics programming is NOT free over the air. The entire premise of your article is wrong because you don't have the facts anything close to straight.
HBO Go simply allows online access to HBO programming for individuals who subscribe to HBO through their cable or satellite subscriber. (BTW, at my cable company, the least expensive package that includes HBO and HBO OnDemand costs $28/month, including the set-top box...not $100. Besides HBO, it offers 28 cable channels and a LOT of free OnDemand content.)
ESPN 360 makes the participating ISP pay a subscription fee for each and every one of its customers, whether or not the customer EVER ACTUALLY USES ESPN 360 programming. Furthermore, ESPN prohibits the ISP from itemizing the cost of 360 on the customers' bills. ESPN insists that the ISP simply bury the cost of 360 in the rate for Internet service, so that the customer will think it's FREE (as if ESPN would ever GIVE ANYTHING AWAY!!!!)
I personally don't have any interest in ESPN 360, and I don't want to pay for it in my ISP bill just so the OTHER subscribers who want it can get it. I would have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with HBO's model - those who want it pay for it and the rest of us are left alone.
What you need to understand is that this is exactly the model that created the huge bundle of basic cable channels that all of us HATE -- where we're forced to take a bunch of channels we don't want in order to get the ones we do. This is how ESPN got distribution for ESPN News, U and Classic -- by forcing cable companies to take them as a condition of distributing ESPN and ESPN2. They're trying to go down the same path with 360, to do for online content what they've done with cable. If I could buy cable service ANYWHERE without getting stuck with ESPN, I'd do it in a heartbeat. All of us non-sports fans get screwed by being forced to take the most expensive programming on cable, which is ESPN and its ever-expanding family of networks I don't want. | |
|
|
••• |
4 edits |
NBC is the fourth network!NBC is the fourth network of the 'big 4'. Given the fact that NBC can't do ANYTHING right (ie: look at the Leno/Conan fiacso), why should their screwing up their Olympics coverage surprise you?
NBC Has only ONE top 20 show-Heroes.
American Idol CRUSHED their crap delayed coverage of the Olympics. | |
|
|
|  n8_ball
join:2003-04-25
Harwinton, CT |
Re: Who cares???Not working for me. Comes up with a video error. I think they check your IP's country.
I can't get the NBC online live coverage because my limited basic package doesn't get CNBC. Sucks. I don't know why they can figure out a way to properly monetize online viewing. | |
|
|
|
·
