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.'"

Comments

I thought we already had this option...

[Jason daHaus]

and it was called AOL.

Re:I thought we already had this option...

[MobyDisk]

EXACTLY. For those unfamiliar, let me explain why:

AOL = What a non-neutral internet looks like. And it was why AOL died. AOL would partner with different companies, and those companies would provide content to AOL customers. Eventually, AOL couldn't keep up with the vast amount of content on the open internet, so they lost out. Prodigy and CompuServe used the same exact model.

It kinda made sense back before there were standard protocols like HTTP for providing content, and before it was possible to bill users for the content they viewed.

This is the worst-case scenario for a non-neutral internet. Every ISP that "partnered" with ESPN needs to cancel their deals, so that ESPN is forced to play the game the same way as everyone else.

Re:I thought we already had this option...

[Red Flayer]

"Capitalism" would be letting individual people pay for an ESPN360 account, and then sign in to view the videos.

This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.

The problem is what role the ISPs play -- are they a delivery service, or are they a retailer of services? If they are a delivery service, are they content-agnostic [net-neutrality], or not?

According to how ESPN360 works, ISPs function as a retailer of services, with ESPN as the packager/wholesaler.

Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $200/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get. Of course, your only other option will be dialup, because in most cities one ISP has a local-government-granted monopoly AND we don't yet have equal-access provisions like we do for the phone lines.

If this model catches on (and it will, unless we get better support for net neutrality), what we will see is a variety of tiered packages from our large ISPs, just like what we have for cable TV. Basic, Family, Premium, Ultimate Sports, etc, at different prices. Plus some ISPs will offer an a la carte model -- $50 for basic service, plus $X for each source, $2X for some sources.

This does a couple things that the content providers (like ESPN360) really like -- it gets them out of the subscription handling/fulfillment aspect (which is expensive). It shifts some of the marketing burden onto the ISPs (who, if competing on content available, will tout the 'stations' they carry, and promote those stations).

This does a couple things the ISPs like. It allows the big ISPs to better dominate the smaller ISPs via economy of scale. It allows them to bill differently -- making bandwidth less important to the average subscriber. Joe Sixpack is going to care a whole lot more about what content is available than his bandwidth. Expect even more confusing pricing structures.

For the end-consumer, though, this stinks. All around. But since we are slaves to our content, it doesn't matter -- we'll pay and pay and pay, because we refuse to do without, and there are few viable options.

The solution to this is net neutrality. Let the ISPs carry packets, and let the consumer make agreements with the content wholesalers directly -- this is how you think it should work, and I agree.

The problem is that without legislated net neutrality, it's not going to happen. The consumer is severely outweighed by the content wholesalers/producers and the ISPs, and we need to use our legislative system in order to have our concerns make any impact on how internet service is going to be handled in the future.

Error!

[Tei]

Thats not how Internet work, and how we want internet to work.
Go fuck yourselves

Re:Net Neutrality

[JCSoRocks]

The Internet has officially been ruined. I thought AOL was bad. This is ridiculous. Now if only their was a way for us to senD Over a meSsage about how we feel...

Re:Net Neutrality

[UnTdWrLdGv]

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.

Does Hulu offer 5.1 Dolby Digital and 720p or better resolution with ZERO commercials and live sports? Once I can get that quickly and easily on the net without having to wait for someone to upload a torrent and then wait again for it to download AND live sports, I will be done with cable/satellite. But until that day I will bite the bullet and over pay because of the quality and convenience. I hate my cable company, but as a sports fan and an A/V nut, I'm stuck with them for now.

Who wants net neutrality NOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!!!

Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW?

[DrLang21]

This actually makes an interesting point. Could this very situation finally convince ISPs that net neutrality is a good idea?