As broadband becomes commonplace in most homes across America, television networks have boosted their online video offerings and made paid content available for free in many cases. ESPN is taking a different approach to ESPN360, its online video offering, charging Internet service providers for the right to carry the service.
ESPN’s attempt to get ISPs to foot the bill is commonplace in the cable and satellite TV world, where the likes of Comcast and DIRECTV pay a per-subscriber fee to ESPN for its programming. On the Internet, it’s a different story. End-users are expected to foot the bill for such premium services, either via a subscription or pay-per-view model.
ISPs have mixed reactions about the new service. Some are embracing it, like Verizon and Charter. In particular, Verizon carries it because the company believes it helps them stand out from the competition.
Other ISPs are standing on the sidelines. Cox Communications, in particular, doesn’t like it at all. A spokesperson for the company said that signing on to carry it would require Cox to burden all of its customers with additional costs—even those that don’t want the service.
A spokesperson for the company said that signing on to carry it would require Cox to burden all of its customers with additional costs—even those that don’t want the service.
Hahahahahahahah. I laugh.
The same way that Cox already forces me to pay additional costs for about 30 cable TV channels that I have no interest in. (Lifetime? Oxygen? HSN? The list goes on and on.)
Certainly a laughable situation when your cable company is also your ISP, but do we really want our ISP’s to be making content decisions for us? I would hate to have to switch providers in order to access a particular flavor of internet content.
Oh Boo Hoo Hoo — it’s okay for us to extort every penny we can, but we don’t like it when someone bends us over and gives us the old “no Vasoline job.”
Cry me a river, scum sucking cable pigs…
Mike T
I don’t want ESPN. And I certainly don’t want to pay for it, either overtly or with hidden charges. As with AOL’s recent decision to go for free, this will backfire on ESPN. People don’t want to pay for their “Free Internet”. Maybe for a specific site, but not the internet.
Screw ESPN, never watch it, never go to the site. And I don’t want to pay for it.
I don’t understand…the ISP’s carry what? I hook up to the internet, and I’m on the internet. If they’re on the internet I should be able to hook in right? Does ESPN block access to it’s site from me or something? How stupid is that?
But wait, I just tried “espn360” from my SBC DSL and it works fine…not that I’m really interested in watching it. But I can. Or is this something that ESPN is thinking of doing…blocking access. Again, that would be stupid. Especially since they show commericals on it.
ESPN, Shopping channels, Religious channels, Chick channels are all the same. I don’t watch them and I HATE having to pay for them. Guess Verizon going to do me the same “Favor” now. 🙁
I will pay ESPN not to have to watch ESPN360 pop up when I want to view the scoreboard.
*crosses fingers a few very smart and brave souls can make a ad-hoc infrastructure bypassing ISPs*
Sounds like a topi cof Cranky Geeks!
When did the Mob start running ESPN?
ESPN, go to hell!
This is just another example of an old-school media/content provider trying to use its clout to show that it is still relevant. Personally, I don’t give a hoot about ESPN — I find their show to be rediculous and annoying. Don’t they understand that on the Internet its not all about one company dominating the dissemination of comment? But then again, a channel that calls one of its shows “Cold Pizza” is obviously able to stay in business by appealing to the lowest common denominator of sports fans….
ESPN charges now for some content. That is fine. I won’t pay for it. Other sites do the same, and in a few cases I will pay. This is not a problem, per se.
But this proposal would be a bad trend. I guess ESPN wants to simplify their cash flow by forcing ISPs to pay extra up front rather than hope we will all do it one user at a time. If this becomes ubiquitous, then the internet will become a collection of free sites, and then some specialty sites we pay extra for through our ISPs, even if we don’t want them–sounds like AOL to me.
Perhaps ESPN has unwittingly fired the first salvo in regards to what big websites will do to the ISP’s if they attempt to get them to pay more to be on their service. Can you see Google, Yahoo doing this if net neutrality is blocked? I certainly can.
#6 The technical details would involve some kind of tag that the ISP would attach to your requests to the Web site (ESPN) that would tell them if you’re paid up or not. Without the tag, you’d get the sign up sheet (packed with bad advertising and mega-pop-up windows) instead of the service. ESPN probably doesn’t care if you paid an additional cost to Comcast (or such). ESPN simply wants to wholesale a service to the ISP’s and let the ISP’s worry about the marketing. This wouldn’t be a bad thing as long as the content providers don’t start contoling things the way the Media giants do (which is monopolistic).
So ESPN wants to charge the ISPs for a service that uses more bandwidth, due to video downloads. This makes no sense, in the end ESPN is just kicking the extra cost to the consumer whether they charge directly or force the ISPs to pass along the increase. As it is now, ESPN chargers for their ‘insider’ priveleges and if you want to pay fine, if not (like me) I go somewhere else for my sports news. This model won’t work and as many of you have noted, people will just walk away from ESPN in their attempts to turn the internet into a cable television structure.
I work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition, a group that is opposed to net neutrality. I wouldn’t call this reverse net neutrality, but it is an interesting gamble by ESPN.
i wish i could get my cable a la cart.
It’s a circle that seems to be coming around. Commercial (broadcast TV) where the content is free to the end user but you have to watch commercials. Cable and satelitte, where you pay for watching commercials but, for more money, you can watch programming with a lot of promo’s but no commercials. And now, web content, free to the end user, but surrounded by commercial content.
And all this driven by incessant screeching that the modern human must be, at all times, completely immersed in entertainment content, but only audio or video. For some reason no one is pushing books. I guess it’s hard to write a commercial extolling the benefits of curling up in a quiet corner with a good book.
IF nobody PAYS, then What do you think they will do??
MAKE it FREE.
#17…Steph….there ya go….thats exactly what I want as well…and sattilite as well. I’m sick of having to pay for Japanese or Chinese soap operas just to have sattilite.
What would happen if Google did this? I think many people would drop their ISP if they couldn’t get Google.
Hahahahano. So broadband providers are getting into bundling? OK — hope they enjoy watching those choppy 360 feeds when Google’s hard-fought subsidy regulates everybody into the slow lane.
This has nothing to do with “net neutrality,” yet by putatively sticking it to The Man (big telecom) you’re becoming what you say you hate in others. Like the blackface picture of Joe Lieberman — he’s friends with Republicans, so it’s okay to incorporate him in racist caricature, right?
And FYI, I work for HandsOff.org. We’re talking about QoS over there this week. We like thinking progressively about network development. Sorry if Dvorak and friends have decided to be reactionaries.
P.S. Can I get full games on ESPN 360? That actually might be worth it…