Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay

Posted by kdawson on from the other-side-of-anti-net-neutrality dept.

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.'"

3 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Commuters and travelers by ByOhTek · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The problem is, most of the sites that those groups would want to block are pay-by-user driven, and the pay-by-ISP model would probably not interest them. So the flipside is less likely.

    That being said, I don't want to pay an ESPN tax, I don't watch ESPN, I check ESPNs website, at most ONCE a year, for the OSU vs. Michigan game score. They aren't worth $0.02 to me.

    Really, I can check my local news for that, but ESPN happens to be the first I think of.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  2. why not have user subscriptions? by lophophore · · Score: 1, Redundant

    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
  3. Re:I thought we already had this option... by tepples · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Think about it - where you live right now, do you have a choice of ISP's?

    The video provider might counter that you have a choice of places to live. Before direct broadcast satellite television became popular, people had to move to a city with cable TV to get ESPN.