Slashdot Mirror
ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay
lochii sends us to Wired for reporting on ESPN's game plan to extract royalties from all ISPs, for a "license" for their users to view ESPN video. Currently, according to ESPN, 40% of US Internet users connect through ISPs who are paying the (undisclosed) fees; others are unable to view the content. Quoting: "This is a reversal of the model pushed by some major broadband companies that would like to charge content companies for the right to use their pipes. If other full-length video providers like Hulu and HBO get in on the act, the time could be approaching when you'll choose your Internet service based on what selection of content it offers. Eventually, popular non-video websites might follow suit. Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"
and it was called AOL.
Thats not how Internet work, and how we want internet to work.
Go fuck yourselves
-Woof woof woof!
My business requires that I travel. On a slow week I use two different ISPs. In a busy week, a dozen. And we're not even talking about vacations yet.
If your site isn't available everywhere, I'll find something else. Nobody's content is that valuable.
Although, if I'm wrong and this business model does take off, the back side is even uglier: there will be ISPs that offer their services based on what you can't get. It will cater to employers, libraries, schools and other places that don't want people accessing certain sites.
"lochii sends us to Wired for reporting on ESPN's game plan to extract royalties from all ISPs, for a "license" for their users to view ESPN video. "
And let's extend this to all the other content carried over broadband connections. See the problem now? Sheer bottom line will keep most ISPs from joining this bandwagon.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Freakin idiots. ESPN, a content producer, is using their weight to ruin the internet.
This is so bass ackwards to the way the internet works and will continue to work. My only hope is that this idea fails with gusto, so that it can be used as a warning shot to all others who think they can "OWN" the internet like they owned the captive audiences on cable TV.
TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon. Ever since I got Hulu on my Xbox, I've discovered how much I just don't care, and don't need, cable/satelite tv.
Net neutrality needs to specifically outlaw this sort of thing.
Locking down information on the net is exactly how to ruin the net.
All that being said, we'll just use a proxy and move on.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
...with booze, and hookers!
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
so let me get this right, because I dont give a F#%K about ESPN, never gone there in my life and never plan too, I have to pay because they want to shake down my ISP for money?
Its bad enough that I have to pay the freaking ESPN Tax added onto my cable bill when I don't even want it. Many I know are fleeing cable so they DO NOT have to pay for things like this.
If everyone could choose between hundreds of ISPs, this would be fine. But that's not the case; most people have only a very few rational options for ISPs (if you want reasonable bandwidth), i.e., monopolies, duopolies, etc. This is absurdly monopolistic.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"
That's ESPN's vision. The reality is: "I started using Google cause Yahoo! stopped working."
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
This will get about as far as ESPN's wireless phone service did.
They have in the past few years tried to push their website to be more video oriented, setting it up to be similar to their flagship Sports Center program, where the sports news isn't as much read, but delivered as on TV. They recently redesigned their website to make the video content an even more integral part of how they deliver sports news. What they don't understand is that some (many?) people don't want it that way. I quit watching their SC stuff on TV for the most part when the fluff really started to pile up. It simply takes too long to get to the point of the story.
When I'm looking for news on the web, even sports news, I want the important stuff immediately. I can get that much faster skimming through a story than watching a few minutes of unimportant filler video. Their website is fine when I want to see a replay of an amazing play or something, but if I want the straight dope, I don't want to sit through a video; I want to read about it. So, I go to sports illustrated and other sites to get news, rarely visiting espn anymore. Its weird, because when I was 1st started really using the internet back in 96-97 or so, espn.com was one of the sites I visited most, but it hasn't been that way in a few years.
I don't see it working out for websites that don't provide content as it happens (I assume ESPN360 has live streams of sporting events). As long as the visitor is receiving your data, someone will just mirror it on their own website, or distribute it on P2P networks, without arbitrarily blocking off certain ISPs.
Also, how do they determine who your ISP is? If it's just by IP address, I imagine proxies, or things like Tor, can easily get around that. I hope they don't expect you do submit your billing info every time you log in.
so why should I pay for it with higher ISP fees? This is a typical corporate scumbag tactic. Do 'we the people' need to come together in a class action suit to recover the money stolen from us? If you think people should pay for your content, then charge those who actually access it.
..and they expect this to work because?
So what if my ISP is my cable provider (effing Comcast)? Am I effectively paying twice for this content?
If this becomes the standard system, and the cable companies are used to this kind of system with HBO, Cinamax, etc, then you'll find websites only available through subscription and your cable company will offer you packages.
ESPN.com could shut off access to their site except through authorized ISPs. This looks very attractive to content providers that are losing revenue on broadcast TV and to the cable companies who also fear online content as being free.
I suspect the fee for ESPN is low, just to start the process. Once it get's to be a normal thing, you'll find your access to parts of the internet filtered and ad revenue will no longer be the way websites pay for their bandwidth/workers/hardware. It will be exactly like premium channels on cable.
The question this raises will be the normal website. The one that can't negotiate a fee. Will these die off slowly? Will they become part of an ala carte "everything else"? Will LiveJournal, Facebook and Twitter try to negotiate deals with ISPs?
This was the direction everyone fears the internet heading. The "wild west" will become channels. If websites firewall off unsubscribed viewers and large ISPs control these channels, will the democracy of the internet be in peril or will corporate internet be killing itself?
That being said, their ISP-subscription model, while better than a customer-based subscription model (nickel-and-diming the customer for content?), still sucks. I'd much prefer the more open-access advertiser-based model that sites like Hulu and Joost are using. Then again, even those sites, in reality, are just a bigger version of this ISP-subscription model -- they're only accessible to US-based ISPs, not international. Hopefully, this will change so that people outside the US stop bitching,...
Nobody forced ESPN to put their content on the internet... Why not just charge users that want to subscribe to their service? ISPs will just use thing as an excuse to hike up rates for their already sub-par service.
While it's fun to sit back and yell "hur, hur, dumb jocks are ruining mah intarwebs!" it needs to be noted at ESPN's parent company is none other than that friend of the little guy, the copyright crusaders themselves, Disney. They are swinging ABC and ESPN around as their entertainment 'killer apps.' They've used their networks as tools like this before, go.com anyone?
I'd be thrilled if ESPN backed away from the amount of video they're using on their site. Call me crazy but I go to a website for an article I can read in peace, not for 30 seconds of commercials followed by whatever annoying, b-team anchor has gotten stuck doing web highlights. They've developed a handful of interesting and entertaining columnists, what they haven't developed are any decent anchors in the past five years.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
i guess this is to pay for all their "expert advice" like Chris (I lost 40 pounds from my mouth) Berman and his great football commentary...
Oh dear gawd, this couldn't be a worse idea if they tried. And they do seem to be trying... Yes, I know this model works with TV but the internet is not TV. People making decisions like this clearly do NOT understand the nature of the internet.
The more I hear about this kind of "monetizing" effort, the more I imagine the water cooler conversation like: "I used to use the internet before it became totally useless. Now I just get my news from the newspaper."
ISPs and "content producers" are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
Big deal. This isn't for video clips available from ESPN.com, it is for their former premium product ESPN 360, which doesn't even show ESPN TV (due, I'm sure, to cable contracts), but various minor live sporting events (minor college football and basketball, MLS, NASCAR Nationwide series). The only difference between this and other products that have been selling versions to ISPs for years is that there is no pay version, you must get this through your ISP.
I have stopped visiting espn.com as much recently because for whatever reason if I accidentally leave it open in a tab it will randomly start playing a video five hours later when I am doing something else.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's happening everywhere. Nobody is paying money to subscribe to a website. ESPN tried this and failed to get support because there are so many free things out there (you know, like the internet used to be). The problem for them is they also make money off of advertising and need eyeballs. They are trying to figure out ways to play both sides to maximize their profits, and individual users have already told them to go screw themselves.
When I first saw the 360 message, I thought it might have been that Verizon was essentially partnering with ESPN to minimize the bandwidth (a cacheing scheme to minimize the traffic). Guess it's just another money play.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This raises two issues for me:
1. I am not a sports fan, and I expect ESPN to issue me a credit if my ISP is paying them for a service I do not use and do not want. Now that I think about it, if I could get a discount for having their channels removed from my TV service that would be great, too.
2. ESPN has just eliminated a huge swath of the Internet-using public from viewing their content. If it's a subscription service, sell it as such. The way they are handling this seems like it would be bad for their business.
If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.
Putting moderation advice in your
Yep, it might, and I'll pick the nice, cheap, fast one that has no additional content along those lines and doesn't go "look customers, you can view videos 24/7 by paying us a bit extra" while ignoring the fact that their bandwidth will be drained in no-time when people try it.
I'm not sure which would be worse - ISPs charging more because content providers add extra content, or the recent UK suggestion of a yearly "broadband tax" to 'compensate' the record labels for P2P downloads.
I have no problem with the content producers getting paid for their content, and no problem paying for what I use, but I do have a big problem subsidizing somebody else's habit. If ESPN can do this, then what's to stop MTV, Hulu, Playboy, Vivid, etc... If they need money for their internet content, it's the specific end-users who should carry the cost...
I don't understand why existing well known business models cannot apply to internet TV: advertiser supported, like today's broadcast television, subscriber supported, like HBO, or a true pay-to-play, like today's pay-per-view.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
The internet has been successful, because people just route around damage. I would consider this artificial damage by ESPN and it will fail.
One of the reasons people are tuning out of TV is exactly this mentality and one of the reasons the internet is so succesful is it's openness and if there are closed sites (aka, like NFL Network), you control the contract yourself, whether or not to sign up or not, it's not up to your TV or Cable company.
If they take this power out of the internet end-users hands (the CHOICE to pay, vs the not even having the choice because it's not available because you're cable company doesn't want it), the internet as we know it will die and new open form will have to be grown.
Why are they pissing off a significant percentage of my target audience?
ESPN is just trying to stick to their classic business model.
When the only way to get ESPN was cable TV, they lobbied the cable companies to make sure ESPN was included on as many channel packages as possible, even if it meant ignoring consumer requests. That way more people paid their fee, even if they were not watching the shows. And they made money off people who never watched their channel.
This is just an attempt to repeat that model. Now cable TV is the net, cable companies are ISPs, but even though ESPN is on all packages by default, they're not making money off non-watchers anymore.
Guess what ESPN, proxies and offshore ISPs will not go away. So I guess you're gonna have to depend on the quality of your shows in order to make money. Bummer...
If you create a market niche, someone will fill it. By shutting themselves out from some providers, they present other content companies with the opportunity to become top dog for those providers. This would be like Microsoft telling PC manufacturers that "we won't let you put Internet Exploder on your Windows-based machines unless you pay us a surcharge".
So my employer has a remote access site that I cannot access when I'm on the road because the hotel doesn't get ISP X? This is getting redicurous; this isn't just a US issue, it's a world-wide thing. Fuck this, I'm moving to the moon.
How do we report this anti-competitive blockage of communications to the FCC?
Your website is not better than porn. Even if it were, I don't pay for my porn anyway. Unlike the major networks, you don't make any real product, you jut report happenings that are reported elsewhere as well. And your original programming, is weak at best. So weak in fact, that I don't give a rats ass. However, if you make my cable bill go up, be sure I will cancel the packages you are a part of, and given sufficient cost increases, cancel cable all together. Currently local broadcast TV carries all the sports and entertainment I need. The rest I can get from Netflix.
If you want to derive revenue from the web, make ESPN a subscription site and watch your hit count plummet. But don't go charging my cable company for some hypothetical value that frankly will assuredly be overstated.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I was chatting with a friend who was setting up a triple play type deal at his local telco. He was surprised to find out that the licenses for ESPN cost them about as much as all of their other licenses combined. Thats what happens when you get a monopoly.
I'm going to bet that ESPN essentially isn't charging anything for this right now. Probably cable companies and Verizon get ESPN360 on the web as a sweetener along with ESPN on their cable/FIOS systems. They then hope to use this to force other ISPs to pay for it, and of course once they have it established they'll jack of the fees for the big players also.
Please keep in mind that ESPN's parent company is Disney. Given their history of manipulating copyright laws to protect rights to Mickey Mouse, it's no surprise that they would try to pull a fast one like this with ESPN 360.
Tell your ISP you don't want to pay an ESPN tax or any other content provider trying to force its product down their throat. If customers want ESPN360 they can pay for it themselves.
If you can get someone to stay on the line long enough, you could try and explain where this is headed and why it's a bad thing. As in, how many companies do they want to start paying to provide their content? How will that effect their pricing and profitability in the long run?
Major ISPS: you content providers are making money off our pipes. We are going to charge you for that!
Content Providers: Net Neutrality!!!! Er, wait. Our content is valuable, and you are using your pipes to distribute it. We are going to charge YOU for that!
Major ISPS: Er....Net Neutrality!!!!!
Not everyone who uses the internet is out to watch television.
This just shows why a public broadband infrastructure down to the last mile is needed for a free (not just money) society.
Imagine when CNN, AP, and other news businesses start doing this. Imagine if various gov't agencies start doing this for revenue.
Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $2000/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get.
Fixed that for you, Time+10 years.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If you don't like this, call them at 888-549-3776, and go on their web site and write a complaint and ask for a refund if you ISP is paying them, and charging you, and you don't want their "service." If you really want to make a difference, pick a random day of the week and time and schedule a reminder to call them once a week on this topic. It does cost them, and they will take notice, if enough people call them enough times on a regular basis. A short-lived complaint blast that goes away after a day, or week, will either not be noticed, or ignored because it was a one-time event. You can also contact your congress critter and tell them you would like them to investigate such practices and put a stop to it. But again, it would be better if you regularly brought this to their attention rather than a one-time event.
Soon there will be a torrenting feature to you internet connection and the RIAA will fight it. Plus, thats a lot information to garner from the connection. What if I used a proxy. Like when Demonoid got banned from Canada...
If I wanted ESPN, I'd subscribe to cable or FIOS TV. It seems that that those subscriptions are less appealing because of the Internet, so instead of adapting, companies are slowly trying to lump the cable subscription into the Internet subscription. Just like I shouldn't be forced to buy Windows with a new computer, I should not be forced to essentially purchase cable with my Internet connection. This development is troubling to say the least.
I think this is just the angle that could create such a disgusting model of greed. ISP's are not going to take a strong stance on the issue, they have been looking for any way to profit more and control the masses. This kind of stuff stifles freedom of information, sets a precedent, and creates a have and have not structure. I am so pissed when I read stuff like this.
ESPN is owned by Disney. If this works out for ESPN, you can bet your sweet ass Disney will be following suit in a big way (hello, ABC, etc).
Here's to hoping Steve Jobs recovers quickly and uses his 8% of Disney stock to put a massive foot up somebody's ass to quickly end this.
I had no idea this was happening until last week I went on ESPN360.com to see if they had any of the Australian Open matches streaming. To my surprise when the website loaded I got a message stating "Congratulations! Your ISP, Cavalier LLC, is part of the ESPN network" or something to that effect. At first I was excited. Free streaming matches! Then I realized "what about everyone else?" This is blatantly a violation of Net Neutrality.
You mean, this is what we should expect in the future?
http://skeptisys.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/5z6vt4n3.jpg
This makes me think.
It is morally and legally acceptable for companies to continually raise the price of services through "bundling", essentially telling consumers they can pay a higher rate to get that one piece of content they want or they don't get it at all.
However, when the option for the consumer to get the content they want in an affordable fashion (e.g.. P2P) at their leisure and for viewing on any device they please; they are criminals.
It's no wonder most consumers don't see file sharing as a crime. They pay huge amounts of cash for cable/satellite TV services that force them to pay for content they don't want in a take it or leave it fashion. Fairness dictates those same consumers have the right to view the content they do want to see and not pay more for it because it's subsidized by paying for the content they don't want to see and don't have a choice to get rid of.
This is just another attempt, IMHO, by Corporate America to turn the internet into a whored-out media wasteland indistinguishable from print, radio, or television. They want to become the gatekeepers of the internet because it drives them batshit insane to know that people can freely access information that hasn't first been filtered by them for content and then distributed at a premium.
Go fuck yourselves, ESPN.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
A government regulator needs to step in now before this gets out of hand.
I just emailed Eastlink, my ISP, and thanked them for not being in on this crap too!
Watch ESPN.
Write down the names of the advertisers.
Contant Advertisers - COMPLAIN LOUDLY - that you won't buy their products if they continue to adertise on ESPN.
If
ESPN corrects behavior - GREAT
Enough people do this and ad buyers leave - ESPN Goes broke - GREAT.
Not enough people do this, it's ignorned - BUMMER.
fi
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
this is what has been in planning for a few years; to turn the net into cable tv. a delivery only system which gives total control to content on the net and also gives the failing media companies a new revenue stream.
there is a HUGE push behind this by many many media companies, so be very worried. only insane opposition has a hope of stopping this, and that is a slim one.
-.no
I may be way out in left base, but isn't it possible to use a proxy from inside the ISP to get around this?
This is not to view ESPN.com, but instead ESPN360.com, which televises live television not available on the TV. It's just an extra incentive for ISPs to advertise, but I'm sure most people aren't even aware. The summary makes it seems like it is the whole site.
my ISP should be a common carrier like my phone company. It should deliver the goods over its wires, but I DO NOT WANT MY ISP TO BE A CONTENT PROVIDER!
And really, they should not want to be a content provider, either. Considering all the liability it brings with it, when they are also the carrier.
So, if an ISP doesn't pay, ESPN won't deliver their content through their system? That is going to bite ESPN in the ass, big time. During the course of a day, I use 3 or 4 different ISPs to access the Interweb. What happens if one of them signs up with ESPN's competitor? Its doubtful that an employer is going to sign up for a service package burdened with hidden costs from various content providers. So, no ESPN at work on my lunch hour. My residential 'broadband' is a municipal WiFi service. It'll be a cold day in hell before the city ever starts writing checks to ESPN/Disney for content.
It appears that ESPN will be shooting themselves in the foot with this one. And you know what they say about the one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.
Have gnu, will travel.
If I want access to their content I can pull out my card and buy it. I don't like paying for things I don't use like ESPN.
I know people are outraged by this but what ESPN is doing is different than how your viewing it.
The ISPs are having to pay for this because ESPN sets up a server at their location and they have their own network they deliver this thru.
If ESPN didn't have this all set up separately then these videos would be slow to load. Your ISP is paying because they get a direct connection to ESPN's videos which brings it just a couple of hops to your house.
If you've ever watched sports on ESPN360 it is a very fast efficient service. The only exception to this was when UGA played and it was only carried on PPV or 360. It was terribly bogged down in the Atlanta area. May not have been for the rest of the country.
While moves like this will definately have a huge impact on the US Internet, in many ways the rest of the world is unaffected. I live in Canada and have no way of accessing ESPN360 content. While I have no desire to access their content, I'm sure there are others up here who would like to. They are cutting themselves off from the rest of the world.
This may be a sign of the way things go. In the future, there may be a US Internet, and an Internet for the rest of the world. I just hope Canada doesn't follow the lead of the US, the way we normally do.
the systems of clueless windows users
so, this is a "free" service if you run windows? just install the lightweight app (if you have anti-virus software installed, you may need to disable it for this install.)
It looks like I'm one of the people getting a double screwing from this. I can get the content (because I'm on Verizon, and they have a 'powered by Verizon' badge on the site, so obviously Verizon is paying for this content in some way), but I can't get the content because their player plugin is only for Windoze and Mac. And I don't want the content.
The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
Qwest doesn't pay em :)
And I don't even have to check my home computer as my ISP only has a handful (literally) of residential customers.
. . . jerkwad.
I think it's time that we start boycotting companies like this. If ESPN wants to go this route, it's time to go to alternatives. I'm sure that there are a number of other sites that we can get sports information from. I bet if it's done during March Madness, let's see how soon they would change their tune.
Wow, not one of these posts has even the glimmer of a valid complaint that I can bother to rebut. It's all just whining with no coherent reasoning behind it. I'm amazed. A new low.
I knew you free entertainment types felt entitled, but bitching about a premium content deal for something that has quite a bit of expense to deliver is kind of shocking. I guess the next story will be a complaint that there are websites that charge fees for membership? I dunno. It's hard to say where this attitude logically leads because there's no logic behind it.
There is unanimous opposition to this sort of deal making. This is clearly the time to separate the content from the pipes. Make the owners of the pipes common carriers and make them act that way. Sheesh! As if they don't have enough money.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Eventually, popular non-video websites might follow suit. Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"
More like "I went with *DifferentISP* because they're $10 cheaper and I can get that other content/service from bittorrent/another website".
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
"ESPN cuts itself off from Internet viewers"
Good luck with that business model, guys.
To me, a sport is something you do, not watch. I don't watch ESPN. Charging my ISP, which they will no doubt pass on to me, is outright fraud, plain and simple. I can not more strenuously object to this plan without resorting to vulgarity.
Nathan's blog
And here I was trying to find a way to shut their insufferable videos up.
I checked their list of "supported" ISP's and the one I use isn't on it. I use an ADSL2+ connection with a custom reverse dns. There's no way for them to tell my ISP by host name; they'd need to lookup the netblock instead. However they're blocking access, it doesn't seem to be foolproof.
If you don't want it, don't factor it into your decision of who to buy internet access from. Conversely, if you DO want it, then DO factor it into your decision. If it's not available from any of the ISPs in your area, that's a cross you may have to bear.
Some ISPs provide free usenet access that a lot of people don't use.
Some ISPs provide free antivirus software that a lot of people don't use.
Some ISPs provide 24 hour tech support for home networks that a lot of people don't use.
I don't need any of things, but I'm not bitching about the fact that my ISP provides them to the customers who do find these things useful.
whether cable or satellite, your provider's are paying ESPN $2-$3 per month for each subscriber. what a load of $hit. Screw ESPN and lobby your congressman for a-la-carte cable. Watch out, your isp rates will go up just like cable. ESPN will continue to demand more and more money each year from the ISPs just like they do from the cable co's.
I am unable to access the ESPN video site from Brighthouse Networks!
Finally, the schmoes at Brighthouse did something right.
Screw ESPN! I don't want their content and this move guarantees that I'll never have to see it.
Any ISP that pays the likes of ESPN deserves to die. I wish they had listed who the "40% of ISPs" are so that I could boycott the idiots.
http://thepiratebay.org/
Why shouldn't I be able to run a membership-only website and then broker a deal to provide automatic membership to an ISP's customers?
Both ACM and Springer already do this. Even though I hate that they do this (it gets annoying when I'm off campus), I can't find a good moral or legal reason why they can't.
This is my New Year's Resolution: "If it's not on the internet, it doesn't exist." I think the same applies to ESPN; it doesn't exist.
No, I will not work for your startup