What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
67 Comments
- deweyhewson, on 06/12/2009, -1/+49When is internet access going to be treated and regulated as a utility, as well it should be?
ISPs are not content providers, they are access providers, and they should not be allowed to restrict or control that access on their own whims. Don't like your customers using Skype over your own VOIP service? Tough. Don't like users using torrents? Tough. Like a utility, either give total access with no preferential treatment, or get out of the game. Telephone companies cannot control who you call, or for how long, and I see no reason it should be different for internet access.
However, I have no problem with the content providers, in this case Disney, restricting access to their content as they see fit. Using the telephone analogy, that would be like a toll-service line charging less for customers of AT&T. It may be poor business, but as consumers we can get our content elsewhere.
But only if the access is unrestricted like we are paying for. - dissolved, on 06/12/2009, -0/+33Please, please don't make access to the internet similar to television.
- philodygmn, on 06/11/2009, -0/+21^
it's one thing to charge users an access fee, another to charge the ISP, potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they're interested in the content or not.
These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay.
^
Even if they didn't make everyone share the burden, dicking with the network is even worse than the entertainment industry abusing it to "gather evidence" of supposed copyright "violation"!
^
these Internet providers are forced to put out a bloated and more expensive Internet package that includes high-priced content that the customer is not interested in receiving.
it's a terrible business model that defeats the whole idea of maximizing exposure on the Internet
^
But it's not as simple as letting them fail, because they drag everyone else down with them. I've never heard anyone who doesn't hate bloatware on PCs, but just try buying one that isn't bristling with it! - RevChris2, on 06/12/2009, -0/+20Wow, reminds me of living in Canada an trying to watch Hulu or half the internet!
Option 1> Move to another country that is the USA
Option 2> Proxy in from a proxy located in the USA
Options 3> bit-torrent - JackSchittt, on 06/12/2009, -0/+15Great. :(
My internet bill is about to go up just so I can get "access" to a site that I have absolutely no interest in. And what's worse is that if this kind of crap catches on, my bill will continue to go up just so I can have access to a bunch of "premium" sites that I have no interest in in the first place.
What happened to net neutrality? If Disney wants to offer ESPN360.com as a subscription site, I have no problems with that. Let the customers opt in. But I shouldn't be essentially forced to become a subscriber (and therefore pay for access) to a site that I have absolutely no interest in in the first place. - inactive, on 06/12/2009, -1/+14The only sites that will charge for access as big money making established sites. Once they start charging, people will eventually find all the same information elsewhere for free. It's just not a sustainable model. The exclusivity will slowly kill their traffic.
- Stalks, on 06/12/2009, -1/+14The algorithm doesn't count comments you moron.
Damnit, I answered to a troll :( - absolutzombie, on 06/12/2009, -0/+10I tried to "watch now" on the mentioned espn360.com and this really friendly window popped up: (comcast)
How to Get Access to ESPN360.com
ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.
Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here’s how you can get access to ESPN360.com.
1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com
2. If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access, sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner. In order to activate remote access, you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider.
3. For Verizon Customers Only:
Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com
4. For Comcast Customers Only:
Great news! ESPN360.com will be free with your Comcast High-Speed Internet subscription beginning August 1st.
Click here to sign up to receive ESPN360.com newsletters and updates - temujin1234, on 06/12/2009, -0/+9I was relieved to see that my ISP didn't purchase ESPN360.com. If an internet user wants to pay for content, fine, but it's ridiculous to force all subscribers to indirectly purchase access. If they do that, why not subscribe all users to BangBus.com as well?
- Phych, on 06/12/2009, -0/+9It's like they WANT us to torrent.
- Wesside, on 06/12/2009, -0/+6You do realize that pretty much EVERYONE on digg is not new to computers.
- twiztidsinz, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5Oh look!
It's another one of 123bucklemyshoe's troll accounts. - w1cked1, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5Yes, but only insofar as they aren't allowed to get a deathgrip on access by making backroom deals with providers like they're doing, thereby gaining immunity to the "free" market, as their profit grabbing will be made illusive to the users who think they got it for free, but didn't.
Once said deathgrip is complete, they will then be able to sell you "packages", just like on cable now.
Really, this content is piggy backing onto "free" information super highway, and trying to hijack it outright. This can't be allowed. It's the second front of the RIAA/MPAA debacle, and where they're now concentrating efforts. - xexx, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5No, I have never called one, yes, I know what they are, and no, it's a terrible idea. paying for content online ISN'T HARD.
- Ne007, on 06/12/2009, -0/+5Just say "***** EM!"
There isn't any one website that is worth paying for....there is always an alternative.
I'd be pissed off that my ISP was stupid enough to buy into that crap....that would actually be an incentive to leave an ISP imo - xexx, on 06/12/2009, -1/+6You're a moron.... last thing we need is 1GB caps and a buck per GB afterwards.
- maccam94, on 06/12/2009, -1/+6Look up "Common Carrier Regulations". Telecom companies are bound by them. So was dialup. In the early 2000s lobbyists from telecommunications groups convinced the FCC to reclassify DSL/Cable as "information services" which are free from Common Carrier Regulations.
Net Neutrality isn't new, it's just a new name conjured up by the telecoms to make it sound new and untested. Everyone, including companies, wants net neutrality. They just don't realize it. If content owners and ISPs start restricting access, everybody loses, including them. - xexx, on 06/12/2009, -1/+5It's called a credit or debit card... they're not hard to get. Paypal can also generate a one time use Mastercard which will work as a credit card but pull money directly from your bank account.
- AmazingSteve, on 06/12/2009, -1/+5Did you even read that before you posted it?
- ptFoe, on 06/12/2009, -2/+6This is why the US should not run the internet
- Atomic1fire, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3If there are subscription services on the internet,
It shouldnt be a ISP package,
cable & satalite are not great as is,
Dish has a bunch of useless filler channels, which are mostly shopping,
and cable is just expensive and rather monolithic
The internet should be a place of choice, regardless of ISP or content provider.
cable is a nice thing to have, but don't try to shape the internet like cable - DDayDawg, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3I think you complete missed the point of the story. The tenets of Net Neutrality are that the net must remain free and transparent. Now, there is nothing at all wrong with charging subscribers, these are businesses and they have to make money, but what ESPN is doing is more like blackmail than a business model. They are going to the service providers and charging them to allow packets from their network to see the site. This is the EXACT same packet shaping process that Comcast was using it's just on the other end of the route.
Then they advertise the hell out of their programming forcing ISPs to pay this blackmail so that the relatively small group of people who subscribe can get to the site. In essence they are forcing all of us to subsidize their service so they can keep the service free for those who use it. I don't know about you but I don't want to be forced into paying part of some jackasses ESPN360 subscription. If the ISPs don't pay up they get cut off and then their customers complain causing them increased costs in lost subscriptions and customer service calls.
If the providers want the internet to be truly neutral then they have to do their part as well. I think that Disney should lose this fight, the FCC should bring the hammer down on them just as hard as they did on Comcast. I'm a big proponent of Net Neutrality but we have to hold the line in both directions for this to work out. - Lynx34, on 06/12/2009, -1/+4Guess what ESPN360 does? Lets you watch games. Way to be opinionated on a topic you're minimally informed on.
- twiztidsinz, on 06/12/2009, -0/+3He (and by "he", I mean you) is your ONLY friend, idiot.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2plus, centralizing transactions in a area where you have no personal control is not always a good idea.
it would be like a vault of credit card numbers and bank numbers just waiting to be hacked,
at least with a decentralized approach, you have choice, and higher possibility of safety, since all these different services will compete for users, and thus try to do better with information for the sake of users. - inactive, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2and we say ***** you right back by getting non ad supported torrents.
- iletumi, on 06/12/2009, -3/+5Bloatware is the lazy tax for those who do not build their own!
- FairDinkumMate, on 06/12/2009, -1/+3Try likening it to the real world:
ESPN have a shop on your main street. In the window of that shop is a TV where they show games. They then convince the local government that when levying local tax, they have to add $1 to everyones taxes & give it to Disney because anyone of those people might watch the TV as they walk down the street. - benthere16, on 06/12/2009, -1/+3This is freakin' ridiculous. In college I learned that espn charges cable providers more than $0.80 cents for their programming per customer, per month. That's along with all the ads, sponserships, etc they display everywhere. Ugh.
- emotecontrol, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2I'll take option 3, thanks. Proxies are always slow.
They could be streaming to me and making me watch their ads, but instead they force me to just download the stuff and they don't get any ad revenue from me. How does that make any sense? - gigitrix, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2Let people pay for ESPN360.com. Just don't force ISPs to pay upfront for a product people likely have no interest in!
- gigitrix, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2noone should!
- stuffradio, on 06/12/2009, -0/+2In a way, they do by having country restrictions on certain websites.
- Tenoq, on 06/12/2009, -1/+3Buy whitebox. Stop buying the brand-name machines if you're sick of bloatware. Your local PC builder will do you a custom box that is likely better, faster and exactly to your specifications - rather than close enough. And their won't be any bloatware on it, if he's worth his salt.
- ddawggin, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1You can torrent live sporting events? Damn.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1hulu is a website,
Not a crappy cable provider,
Not a crap channel filled satellite provider.
Not overly expensive and still holding advertisements.
its a website,
It can't suck your brains out (ignore the commercials)
it can't destroy your internet,
It's just a website.
no one makes you use it,
The internet is for the most part, open to anyone,
its not the equivalent of timewarner or some other big cable/internet company
as it only distributes shows and hosts them on its own website with advertisements,
you act like that is a bad thing, especially when other websites do the same thing. - twiztidsinz, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2You never know anything about what you talk about, so let me give you some advice...
SHUT THE HELL UP. - ReinMasamuri, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1I'd imagine something like this would be easily spoofed...
- charlie55, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2what kind of idiot would pay that? just get an isp that has reasonable rates. if you pay too much, dont ask for the government to intervene. just make smart decisions on your own. is that so ***** hard, you stupid *****?
- keviniskool, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1However, Billy Mays sells ESPN 360, therefore, this is not a problem.
- philodygmn, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1That's only true inasmuch as Apple's margins tax people smart enough to pay someone who does _not_ bloat down their machine; bloat is an unacceptable price for computing to pay just to subsidize punishing people who just want to use their machines instead of master them.
- austroLogi, on 06/12/2009, -3/+4Ok, well... don't pass this cost on to me because I think sports journalism is ***** worthless and I am not interested in it. If I want to see a game I'll watch it .. not read about it.
I wish the ISP market was more competitive so we could have a diversity of choices. Alas that is a long ways off if not heading in the opposite direction. - FairDinkumMate, on 06/12/2009, -1/+2If ESPN is confident that people are happy to pay for their product, why don't they offer people the option of paying for & watching their video or not paying for it & not watching it?
- stuffradio, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1You also misspelled a word.
- inactive, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1not but you can torrent one just 1 hours after it has been shown so it isn't all bad.
- gigitrix, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1someone pays for this somewhere.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1I vote china
/s - gigitrix, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1That fee level is ridiculous when we consider how many people would actually use such a service, and how long they'd use it for. Boycott any ISPs who purchase this rubbish, and support a customer facing subscription model.
- stalky14, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1Good old ESPN up to their old tricks again. Makes me sick. They have the same extortionate business model with cable TV. "You MUST sell it to everybody in every package or nobody gets access!"
This kind of thing is exactly why cable rates have gotten out of hand and more people are going internet-only. It must be stopped before it becomes the norm for online content as well! I'm sad to see that Comcast finally bent over for them, but they already do for the TV side of their business and I suspect that ESPN put pressure on them there as well... which should be illegal as a totally different issue. - expert01, on 06/12/2009, -0/+1Let's make it more like cell phones... if a user wants access to a paid website, besides being billed directly to their card, let them be billed monthly to their internet bill (like cell phone song purchases). The ISP can take a cut of the fee in exchange for collecting payment, and more people are likely to pay for stuff online because it comes to their bill directly.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is