 Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Small ISPS I call BS on they can't afford it. Many of the ISPs are muni and or Co-Ops which have reinvested in much of their networks with FTTH and beyond. So you can't tell me if a Co-Op in Farmtown USA can afford it for their hand full of customers Joe Blow in another farmtown usa community can do the same thing.
--
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 | |
|
 | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
 ·Integra Telecom
 ·voip.ms
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Small ISPS Those "farmtown communities" have taxpayer money to foot the bill. A lot of small ISPs (and WISPs) have limited capital and survive solely on the revenue from their customers. They don't have taxpayer funds (or general city/county/state operating funds) to help them out. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS not always true. The Co-Ops are NOT tax payer backed. They're only backed by the people who actually have service so your comment isnt all that true. And to gain access to ESPN3 we're talking at most 75cents per customer. Instead of supplying emails or news groups to a customer, they could take that money and put it into offering value added service like this. Email addys and NGs by ISPs are a thing of the past. paid portals via ISP are the next new thing. the ISPs need to roll over and accept it or they'll find themselves without any customers.
--
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 | |
|
| | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: Small ISPS And what about the subscribers that don't care for ESPN3? Is it fair to charge them access to content that they don't need?
This is exactly what's wrong with the direction things are going. ISPs need to provide people with a dumb pipe. Let the subscribers/consumer decide what content they want. If content providers want to charge $ for access, they should do it on a subscription level and not hold certain IP addresses hostage.
That would be like your mobile provider having to pay extra money so you can call certain blocks of phone numbers. It's complete garbage. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS is it wrong for ATT to charge me for email addresses i don't use? you comment about ESPN doesn't have much weight because the access is built into the price the same as everything else is. If you don't use your ISP email; do you get a discount? Nope! they take away News Groups. You get a discount? Nope!
See my point? its built into the price and its the way things are going. You either accept the fact that the industry is changing and adopt or you don't and face the fact you'll either 1- go out of business (if you're an ISP that won't partner) or 2- face dealing with customers and their bitching about "prices". especially when a good share of the public now do NOT use their ISP email and they don't get any discounts for that.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Small ISPS said by hottboiinnc:the access is built into the price the same as everything else is. Not initially, but as price hikes come along it will be. The real issue is that this sets a precedence. What about the HBO situation? What happens when some other popular content provider steps up to negotiate a similar deal? While $0.75 here or there may not seem like much, when 10 content providers step up with similar tactics, you're now looking at $7.50/mth for all subscribers. I for one will not be happy when my ISP increases my rate 18% for value added service I didn't ask for, nor will I ever use. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS and like my post below says. The majority will decide what you want. and you'll pay for it. if not you can change ISPs. Thats the way businesses work. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Small ISPS You fail to acknowledge that very few ISPs are co-ops that allow members to directly make decisions. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS they're still a co-op when it is said and done. But the fact is if they can provide it; there is no reason why nobody can't. especially when these co-ops only have a hand full of customers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Small ISPS You've lost me now. Are you referencing a specific co-op that has successfully negotiated a deal with Disney for ESPN3 content? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS there are several go check their ISP partners. If people on here would have read that a long time ago you would have seen that there are several Co-Ops and Munis that are offering ESPN360 to their customers. But instead everyone was on here bashing the idea.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Small ISPS Ok, so 11 coops (only counted ISPs with Coop in their name/website) have negotiated for ESPN3. How many consumers does that represent? What are the structures of those coops? I still standby ESPN setting a precedent that most consumers won't like in the long-run. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS 11 is better than nothing. And just because its not in their name or in their website it does not mean not a co-op there are several from Ohio that are co-ops on there and not in the name or in the url or on the front page of their site. But anyway. And it shows that small ISPs can do it, they just choose not to and want a law to protect them from something that they need to embrace now or later. And Customers can change ISPs if they choose not to want to support this. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. They always have a choice weather they want it or not. But instead they'd rather bitch about the fact that the industry is changing and is always changing. Time to wake up and smell the Starbucks.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Small ISPS To save me from looking at 50+ website, I only counted the "coop-named" companies. I understand there are probably more, but that's more effort than I'm willing to apply.
I'm one of the biggest capitalist pigs on this site and I usually don't have an issue with making profit, but the only entity that benefits from ESPN3-like deals are the content owners. The ISPs don't benefit, and the consumers definitely don't. The industry isn't changing, although the content owners continue to push hard to make it so.
It's a whole separate discussion, but how much competition exists around these coop telecoms? I'm gonna guess not a whole bunch. | |
|
| | | | | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | said by hottboiinnc:and like my post below says. The majority will decide what you want. and you'll pay for it. if not you can change ISPs. Thats the way businesses work. There really aren't too many choices available for most people. This particular business model takes all of the consumer influence out of the basic supply-demand chain. The only real option is to go without service, which isn't much of a choice from a practical standpoint.
Where can a consumer find an ISP that allows them to pay for TV programming, but not Disney channels? This is exactly where this ESPN360 model is taking us. It's a similar reason why HBO refuses to make their content available to Netflix. They don't want to deal with consumers choosing to pay $10 a month for content, they would rather have the ISP oligarchy fork over millions for their content and take the individual consumer completely out of the picture, except where used as a statistic to determine how much each ISP should pay in "extortion" fees.
I don't like it. The consumers can't make this die. All the power is in the hands of the ISPs, and the powerful conglomerates will simply use this to increase rates so that they make a bit of a profit, too, while calling it a value add. A smaller ISP, where the operating cost per customer is typically much higher, cannot afford to pay up to 5 times more per subscriber, and they are basically being priced out or missing out on features that will ultimately drive some of their business away, making an already tenuous endeavor even more so.
I do see where you are coming from, but I just don't think that there is enough consumer control to allow for this type of business model to take root without an investigation into some kind of regulation and oversight. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS Yes there are options. NetZero DSL/Dial up, Earthlink, there are 2 major providers there. The list can go on and on. Oh! did we forget DSLX? They're a nationwide provider but people choose NOT to go with them due to they actually add un"fees" to their bottom line to make more $$$ and then blame ATT for that charge. But that is something else to talk about.
And yes you can get away without having Disney. Again remember C-Band? It's still around and in business. People again, forgot about they have another option.
you are confusing ISP and TV providers as well. Which seems to be done on here when discussing this topic.
Customers can make this die! Ever hear about becoming your own ISP? There are several DSL resellers that will let you open up shop over night and offer services nationwide. people just don't feel like doing it; again- instead they'd rather bitch about not having an "option".
And here we go again with regulation. You add regulation and you'll get a higher bill. What's going to happen? Your ISP will go into court; they'll sue the FCC, and you'll end up with a bigger bill. We already seen what happened when everyone on here wanted a hard cap from Comcast. You got one. with that "regulation. but people asked for it, and got it, and still bitch.
Regulation does NOTHING but provent a company from doing what they want. If you don't like it, change companies and shut up about it. That's what customers should do. If you have a problem, vote with your $$$ and change ISPs someone will accept you until their tired of dealing with the bitching and just shut you off.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: Small ISPS said by hottboiinnc:Yes there are options. NetZero DSL/Dial up, Earthlink, there are 2 major providers there. The list can go on and on. Oh! did we forget DSLX? They're a nationwide provider but people choose NOT to go with them due to they actually add un"fees" to their bottom line to make more $$$ and then blame ATT for that charge. But that is something else to talk about. And yes you can get away without having Disney. Again remember C-Band? It's still around and in business. People again, forgot about they have another option. you are confusing ISP and TV providers as well. Which seems to be done on here when discussing this topic. Customers can make this die! Ever hear about becoming your own ISP? There are several DSL resellers that will let you open up shop over night and offer services nationwide. people just don't feel like doing it; again- instead they'd rather bitch about not having an "option". And here we go again with regulation. You add regulation and you'll get a higher bill. What's going to happen? Your ISP will go into court; they'll sue the FCC, and you'll end up with a bigger bill. We already seen what happened when everyone on here wanted a hard cap from Comcast. You got one. with that "regulation. but people asked for it, and got it, and still bitch. Regulation does NOTHING but provent a company from doing what they want. If you don't like it, change companies and shut up about it. That's what customers should do. If you have a problem, vote with your $$$ and change ISPs someone will accept you until their tired of dealing with the bitching and just shut you off. None of the solutions offered in your rant are very practical. You know this, and the conglomerates running our government know this as well. Very few people are going to give up HSI for dial-up or switch to satellite (if possible) because of a $4 annual price hike. It sucks, but there really isn't any other choice.
If ESPN360 were available for a subscription fee to everyone that had internet access, it would hardly make the same amount of money that they are making by having it bundled into our ISPs' services. Why is that? Because this business model makes a profit for both parties, and takes the consumer choice out of the picture. Also, by allowing everyone to sign up individually, the prices could be controlled by consumer demand, which would directly influence the quality of the product. No forward-thinking business wants to give that kind of power to the people.
It is the same problem we now see wth our TV content, which is why I lump this in with TV service. Disney wants the same business model for their internet content that they currently enjoy with their TV products. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | And if there is no other ISP? Or the other ISP has a service quality that you don't like or ..... This is really funny in that it's the exact problem that net neutrality is supposed to be about and seems like nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room ESPN3 a perfect example of Net NON neutrality and what the Internet will be like in the future... | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS and yes it is. It does cost money. It costs money for that server to be on, it costs bandwidth, it also costs time to maintain that server and make sure its reliable. those items are not free.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Small ISPS Not anywhere near $0.75/user. If less people use their ISPs email address, don't you think there will be considerably less bandwidth used? less server use? etc
Of course those items aren't free, but it's not a fixed cost @ $0.75/user. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS and it can be. are you out sourcing it? Nothing is free. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by hottboiinnc:is it wrong for ATT to charge me for email addresses i don't use? you comment about ESPN doesn't have much weight because the access is built into the price the same as everything else is. If you don't use your ISP email; do you get a discount? Nope! they take away News Groups. You get a discount? Nope! But did you want them to keep News Groups and have the price go up? or have no News Groups and you can buy your own and not have to pay for the poor basic Groups + the GOOD higher cost one. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS but the price never went down either. And that's the point. It comes back to the whole Muni thing. The majority of the customers (taxpayers) will decide on what is offered. | |
|
| | | | | | and mobile provider and the 'net are 2 different things. | |
|
| | | | | 75 Cents to ESPN, and then 75 Cents to HBO, and then 75 Cents to MTV, and then 75 Cents to Showtime, and then 75 Cents to CNN, and then 75 Cents.....
Where does it stop? | |
|
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Small ISPS said by battleop:75 Cents to ESPN, and then 75 Cents to HBO, and then 75 Cents to MTV, and then 75 Cents to Showtime, and then 75 Cents to CNN, and then 75 Cents..... Where does it stop? Well except Comcast pays 5 cents, but I see your point. | |
|
| | | | | | it stops when you change your ISP if you dont' agree with it. | |
|
| | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Small ISPS Oh yea, easy option for everyone..... not really.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS Are you kidding me? Did you just tell everyone to bend over and take it?
You are either complete idiot or a corporate shill. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Small ISPS 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Small ISPS 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. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | I call BS on this practice. I say ban it for everyone's good.
It won't happen. | |
|
| | | | Re: Small ISPS and you're going to ban it how? yah the FCC will be drug through court over that one by VZ, ATT and Comcast. The FCC won't do shit when they're dragged through court and lose again. | |
|
1 edit | ESPN3 Model The issue is not "affordability" it's patently unfair that Disney/ESPN will give it away to big cable and charge exhorbitant rates per broadband SUBSCRIBER (not ESPN user). They want to drag broadband down the cable model path...and noone (except for big cable and satellite providers) is happy with that model. Of course a muni or coop isp will pay for it--they don't offer video.
When your broadband bill is north of $100 for 5mb/s due to per subscriber content charges, you will complain about the ISP....NOT ESPN-Disney/NBCU and the other 3 members of the cabal just like you do today regarding cable.
It's hypocritical to argue for net neutrality only for the network providers and not the content providers. | |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: ESPN3 Model you need to back your comment up a bit. Munis and Co-Ops do pay for do offer video. You must have missed that and the big issue of that. almost all of the Co-Ops in the USA are FFTH and where the first telcos to actually move to that route.
And i'm not being hypocritical about net neutrality- i don't believe in something that doesn't exist like most of the public is making it seem.
But just like said. this is the new way content its going and its the way the ISPs will adapt. the EU won't have a choice but to embrace it as well or do without having the 'net.
--
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 | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Network neutrality only makes sense on a network. I'll agree that this is anti-competitive behavior, but I believe it's natural for internet servers to block traffic they don't want.
If ESPN made a deal with Verizon to block access to a competing sports website, that would be some blatant net neutrality violation. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: ESPN3 Model you do realize there is no such thing as Net Neutrality right? But of course not. It's just some BS that some idiots came up with and started spreading across the internet for years not that we need. So the bills go up even more. Which seems to be everyone on here wants to keep low; so if thats the goal; shut up and this will all be nice.
The ISPs that are offering this are NOT charging anymore for the service weather you use it or not. HSI prices have stayed the same for YEARS and have only recently gone up. So thats just BS on that part. As far as anti-competitive? LMAO! no such thing!. Value Added FREE product.
--
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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: ESPN3 Model Uhh, Net Neutrality was called "common carrier" model until we got bent over by the Powell FCC and their lobbyist cronies. It's what works in the rest of the world... which is currently leaving the USA in a cloud of dust on broadband speed, cost and availability.
Ownership of rights-of-way, wooden poles, wires and metro-cable plant does NOT define ISP. You can take the sphincter stretching if you like it I suppose - I, and most informed people here, prefer not.
Oh and "weather" - that's funny. That and your only arguments being BS and LMAO only highlights your handicaps. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | This will be limited Only a few companies have the leverage to get ISPs to pay this. Let's face broadbandreports isn't going to get ISPs to go for their "Pay me or else lose access to me".
I will say this if ESPN is only charging Comcast 5 cents per sub then they should be charging all ISPs 5 cents per sub. Not be charging smaller ISPs 50 cents or more.
At the end of the day sites like ESPN should be going to subscription route. The fact they are basically admitting they can't make the same amount of money by charging even a nominal subscrption of say $5 a month perhaps that should tell them their product is lacking. How many millions pay microsoft $50 a year for XBL? Even MLB can get a million subscribers to MLB.tv at $120 per year.
ESPN3's biggest goof is not streaming MNF. Also not having thier shows like PTI, Around the Horn, Baseball Tonight, NFL Live etc. | |
|
| | | Re: This will be limited said by BF69:Also not having their shows like PTI, Around the Horn, Baseball Tonight, NFL Live etc. Why would they have those on ESPN3, when they are on the main ESPN site already? | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: This will be limited said by ESPiN blows :said by BF69:Also not having their shows like PTI, Around the Horn, Baseball Tonight, NFL Live etc. Why would they have those on ESPN3, when they are on the main ESPN site already? No they don't. | |
|
| jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | said by BF69:I will say this if ESPN is only charging Comcast 5 cents per sub then they should be charging all ISPs 5 cents per sub. Not be charging smaller ISPs 50 cents or more. If you approach Comcast and tell them they will have to pay $x amount for their content, Comcast will likely tell you to get bent, as they will be paying more than any other provider.
Now, if you go in and tell them that if they pay $.05 per subscriber, while ISPs with fewer customers will be charged much more per subscriber, it plays right into the hands of a good business strategy for both parties. Disney basically offered to provide an avenue for Comcast to raise rates to increase profits, while simultaneously hurting their competition. For all we know, this could have all been discussed behind closed doors between the top ISPs and Disney. It sure seems like it. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Other End of the Stick
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | self importance? they seem to operate under a false pretense that I even want/need their content. I certainly wouldn't change ISPs to get access to it. | |
|
| | TWC nor Cincinnati Bell pay ESPN The sad thing is, I live in an area that has 2 ISPs, Time Warner and Cincinnati Bell... neither of them pay ESPN to get ESPN3. I am screwed both ways! I want to get it so I can get rid of cable and just go straight internet but I cant since I technically dont have a choice. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: TWC nor Cincinnati Bell pay ESPN said by dcplaya :
The sad thing is, I live in an area that has 2 ISPs, Time Warner and Cincinnati Bell... neither of them pay ESPN to get ESPN3. I am screwed both ways! I want to get it so I can get rid of cable and just go straight internet but I cant since I technically dont have a choice.
Tis is exactly why the conten providers don't want put all their stuff on the internet. AT least until putting stuff on the interent makes thema s much or more than doing it the way they are doing it now.
By the way ESPN3 does not show a lot of stuff that is on ESPN. No MNF for example. | |
|
| | | i have it and remotely by ATT. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: TWC nor Cincinnati Bell pay ESPN To what are you referring too? | |
|
| | | | | Re: TWC nor Cincinnati Bell pay ESPN I can use my ATT account and go anywhere in the Country and access ESPN 360. Go to their website and you can read about it. ESPN3 Remote Access. | |
|
| | The faster this spreads... ...and I'm more interested in HBO style channels doing it, the faster we can dump our cable tv packages. A few dollars more added to our internet bills is far better than the large amounts we pay for cable tv. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: The faster this spreads... said by Dagda1175:...and I'm more interested in HBO style channels doing it, the faster we can dump our cable tv packages. A few dollars more added to our internet bills is far better than the large amounts we pay for cable tv. Now if your ISP is your cable company what is their incentive for putting HBO on the internet if it's going to cause you to cut cable?
Now if you're paying say $50 for internet and $70 for cable, I'm sure if you were willing to pay $120 a month for internet that allowed you to watch everything you could get on cable your ISP would go for it. But then that kind of defeats the purpose for cutting cable. | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: The faster this spreads... said by BF69:Now if your ISP is your cable company what is their incentive for putting HBO on the internet if it's going to cause you to cut cable? The only time I see an ISP/rebroadcaster willing to make that exchange is if retransmission fees become favorable for distribution via the Internet versus traditional means. And I don't see the content owners ever giving up the cash, so this will never happen. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | No, no, no. You're inflicting your old school pay cable anything mantra on the rest of us who don't care for and aren't willing to pay for that content and already kicked it to the curb. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Do you think it will stay a few dollars when ALL the big sites start putting their hand out?
Ha!
A few dollars today is $50 tomorrow.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | said by Dagda1175:...and I'm more interested in HBO style channels doing it, the faster we can dump our cable tv packages. A few dollars more added to our internet bills is far better than the large amounts we pay for cable tv. Do you want to be forced to buy a MTV music pass to get Comedy Central?
Be forced to buy the disney channel online to get ESPN?
Have to buy FX to get FOX News?
have to buy lot's other stuff just to get your RSN.
Want to have MLB like blackouts based on your zip code for on line content?
Want to have steam you need to buy the gamer pack that has windows live, game stop club, G4 and G4 forces you to have
E!
Style Network
Golf Channel
Versus
as well.
what about the pay per box coming with ipv6 $5 per IP and NO NAT. | |
|
 Anon_
@..redbandsbolaget.se | Sign of things to come You can bet US customers will be observing similar tactics on a larger scale if the Comcast NBC/Universal merger is allowed to pass. Comcast will charge all other video carriers and ISP more for content. This anti-competitive behavior is a perfect example of why network providers can't and should not be allowed to merge with content providers. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| A la carte ESPN360 would be nice There's no technical reason why ESPN360 could not sell subscriptions to their website for people who want access.
If they did this, it would be a real "a la carte" option for a TV channel. Once average internet speeds are able to support streaming HD, it's possible for the majority of people. Then, we could subscribe to the channels we want, and not the ones we don't, and the only monthly fee is the internet connection.
I expect the cable industry is preventing them from offering this option. Oh well. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: A la carte ESPN360 would be nice said by axus:There's no technical reason why ESPN360 could not sell subscriptions to their website for people who want access. If they did this, it would be a real "a la carte" option for a TV channel. Once average internet speeds are able to support streaming HD, it's possible for the majority of people. Then, we could subscribe to the channels we want, and not the ones we don't, and the only monthly fee is the internet connection. I expect the cable industry is preventing them from offering this option. Oh well. It's financial. Look ESPN gets $9 million a year from Comcast for ESPN3. If they went subscription instead and charged $50 a year they'd have to get 1 out of 80 Comcast internet subscribers to buy such a subscription to make the same money. Even if they could why bother with all the hassle of dealing with billing and hoping for renewals when you can get a set amount youc an count on from the ISPs?
Also as long as ESPN3 doe snot have MNF, does not have shows like PTI, Around the Horn, NFL Live, etc etc then it's not worth $50 a year. 90% of what's on is stuff like soccer and womens lacrosse and other BS. | |
|
| | JBear
join:2005-02-24
canada | Re: A la carte ESPN360 would be nice $50 a year? Geez isn't that a little high?
I think they won't do subscriptions as well is because this model makes it stick to the one address. You wouldn't be able to goto buddy's house, sign in, and watch from there; or... just lend buddy your username and password so he can watch some figure skating... with his wife of course. | |
|
| | | | | Re: A la carte ESPN360 would be nice with ESPN3 you can go to a buddy's house and login if his provider is not a partner. That is a feature that they offer. | |
|
| | The smaller ISP's don't pay more overall Yes, they pay more per subscriber, but a large ISP also has to pay per subscriber. So the large ISP is paying more money per month overall to ESPN than the smaller ISP would be.
This is how most things work in bulk. If I start a company making cell phones and I need 4 inch LCD screens, but I only plan to make 1000 phones per month, I'm going to be paying a lot more per LCD screen than someone making 100000 phones a month.
This is the same reason why companies like TWC are fighting price increases by ESPN, because ESPN wants a fee per subscriber, and wants ESPN to be on the basic service tier. So that they get money for every subscriber and not just the ones that watch the channel.
I'm sure small cable companies also pay a lot more per subscriber to carry ESPN than TWC, DirecTV, or Comcast.
It's how buying in bulk works. | |
|
 heels_fan1.20.09 The start of SocialismPremium
join:2003-02-07
Columbia, TN
kudos:1 | cost when ESPN is charging MSO's $4.50 a subscriber and is one of the the larges amount out there, why would a small MSO want to add another .75 cents on to that.
And people wonder why their cable bill goes up every year.
--
everyone is born ignorant. some are born stupid, others achieve stupidity and the rest have stupidity thrust upon them. | |
|
phatness
join:2002-07-02
Old Greenwich, CT | World Cup It's interesting how we allow this to continue in this country as other country's good sportsmanship and fans a like would not allow it. For example, the World Cup could not be watched in the United States from a computer unless your ISP is a subscriber to ESPN3.com.
In other countries, this is not the case and you only have to be accessing the web from a computer with an IP address that was within the country. In Canada, you browsed to cbc.ca and you could watch every world cup game. In the U.K., you browsed to bbc.co.uk and watched every game.
We allow this to continue and it will only get worse as this article states. | |
|
| stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
1 edit | Re: World Cup
That's because CBC and BBC are government owned. Paid by the taxpayer(BBC is paid for by a tax on EVERY television sold/owned in the UK). Maybe you want 'Bama TV here in the states, eh?
I can see it now...Welcome to Obama TV.."Change you can(sic) believe in" TV! Scenes of the Obama's on yet another vacation, ect.. | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  Content companies are the rising cost threat - not access
The end result is also likely higher costs for consumers, as the cost of paying these companies winds up being passed down to the end user for content they may or may not even want. Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, etc are calling all the shots. They drive higher costs for cable TV; Sat TV; and now will as well for online video viewing. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | More channels/companies will do this and thus more price hikes will occur with the companies claiming that they are being forced into raising rates due to these deals
Awesome, we lose | |
|
| jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: More channels/companies will do this Yes, but it is not simply a price increase to cover their losses, they use these "enhancements" to make a bit of a profit themselves. Granted, it's not as convenient as slapping a widget onto their set-top-boxes and raising the "rental" fees for these devices, but this is a partnership, not just a money-making scheme by the content providers.
Comcast is able to make money from this format as well, it's just indirect and not as obvious. | |
|
| | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: More channels/companies will do this I am just suspect about what our enhancement actually is and how much the price increase would be
If we are getting ALL HBO shows at our fingertips or something like that (which I would love)....then I guess I understand a minimal increase
But I just suspect that we as customers will get little OR will get what we originally had but packaged as "new" and a nice hike as well | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | The irony of it all Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that ISPs were bitching about content providers getting a "free ride" on their pipes and that those content providers should pay the ISPs? Now those same ISPs are PAYING those same content providers for access to "free loading" content. | |
|
| | | Re: The irony of it all Time for ISPs to start denying DNS resolution to domains that do this sort of thing... IF it's fair for the content providers, (denying via ISP) its fair for the ISP... | |
|
btB
@sbcglobal.net | They keep changing ESPN3. When it was ESPN360, the video was fine. Ever since they renamed it to ESPN3, you never know what you are getting. Sometimes it looks okay. Other times it looks like crap. Now they introduced some half-ass full screen mode that only utilizes about 60% of your computer screen. What the hell are they trying to accomplish with all these changes? | |
|
|
|
