dslreports logo
 story category
ESPN 360 Model Continues To Take Flak
Your content access is determined by which ISP you have...

We've explored how smaller ISPs are annoyed with ESPN's new business model for their "ESPN 360" online video service, which involves striking deals with large ISPs, then urging consumers switch carriers if they want access to ESPN 360 content. This of course completely shakes up the consumer content choice equation, while smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content. Investor's Business Daily notes that consumer groups, the FCC, and smaller cable operators don't like where this model is headed:

quote:
The Pittsburgh-based American Cable Association, which represents small cable companies, has objected to paying online fees for broadband subscribers that do not access ESPN3.com. . .Some rural-based industry groups, such as the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies and the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, worry that if ESPN3.com business models become more common, they'll be forced to divert funds for broadband investment to paying online fees to other content providers.
Despite opposition to this model, ESPN 360 (now just named ESPN3) has had no problem signing up ISP partners if you take a look at their ISP list. Many (us included) assumed this model would collapse under the weight of its own absurdity by now, but we're seeing the model spread to other companies like HBO, whose HBO Go broadband streaming service is only currently available to Verizon or Comcast customers.

If this model spreads, the likely outcome isn't a good one for consumers or small ISPs. In a market where most users only have the choice of one or two ISPs, they likely won't have the ability to switch if they can't get access to the content they want. 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 the may or may not even want.
view:
topics flat nest 
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

BlueC

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Small ISPS

said by hottboiinnc4:

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Small ISPS

You fail to acknowledge that very few ISPs are co-ops that allow members to directly make decisions.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

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?
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

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.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to hottboiinnc4

Premium Member

to hottboiinnc4
said by hottboiinnc4:

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

Re: Small ISPS

said by hottboiinnc4:

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.
avantwireles
join:2003-03-21
Reno, NV

avantwireles to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
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...
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
E-mail is not a worthwhile comparison to accessing 3rd party content. If someone doesn't use an e-mail address, it costs the ISP nothing (even if they use it, it's such little expense). If somebody chooses not to access a 3rd party content provider, the ISP is still paying for the service.

Regardless, it makes monopolies worse. If a large ISP chooses to not pay for certain content, the subscribers suffer. Like I said, it makes sense to leave the content access up to the subscribers and not the ISPs.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Small ISPS

and it can be. are you out sourcing it? Nothing is free.

joepubpc
@sbcglobal.net

joepubpc to hottboiinnc4

Anon

to hottboiinnc4
said by hottboiinnc4:

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4

hottboiinnc4 to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
and mobile provider and the 'net are 2 different things.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
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?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to battleop

Member

to battleop
it stops when you change your ISP if you dont' agree with it.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: Small ISPS

Oh yea, easy option for everyone..... not really....
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
Bananas21ca
join:2008-09-29

Bananas21ca

Member

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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
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.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

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.

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

KrK to hottboiinnc4

Premium Member

to hottboiinnc4
I call BS on this practice. I say ban it for everyone's good.

It won't happen.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

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.
cableside
join:2009-09-22
Jonesboro, AR

1 edit

cableside

Member

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.

••••
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.

•••

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Other End of the Stick

This business model stinks for those of us who do not care for ESPN or any of its other subsidiaries. Why should our subscription costs go up to pay for a website we never visit?

•••••••••
kernelpanic9
join:2010-07-06
Crowley, TX

kernelpanic9

Member

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.

dcplaya
@rr.com

dcplaya

Anon

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.

••••

Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Dagda1175

Member

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.

•••••

Anon_
@..redbandsbolaget.se

Anon_

Anon

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

axus

Member

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.

•••

skuv
@rr.com

skuv

Anon

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_fan
1.20.09 The start of Socialism
Premium Member
join:2003-02-07
Columbia, TN

heels_fan

Premium Member

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.
phatness
join:2002-07-02
Old Greenwich, CT

phatness

Member

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

stridr69

Member

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..

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

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.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

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

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

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.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

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
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.
avantwireles
join:2003-03-21
Reno, NV

avantwireles

Member

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

btB

Anon

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?