digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

ESPN charging ISPs to carry ESPN360

arstechnica.com — 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 (subscription required) for the right to carry the service

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jarcoal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+126ISP's, ESPN, and others it may concern: We just want the bandwidth we pay for. We don't want it manipulated, we don't want extra features, we don't want to be blocked from buying these features separately.
    • procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -25/+17couldn't have said it any better myself.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -34/+9And many of you want a law that would prevent the rest of us from choosing if we are willing to pay for: extra content and extra features.

      If your (or my) ISP goes crazy on charging google for access we can switch. There are lots of options these days. In the meantime, It sure would be nice to have new features dependent on wicked bandwidth that isn't available without a cost.
    • comments, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6
      Copyright 2006 Boston Globe
      Boston Globe

      Distributed by Knight/Ridder Tribune News Service

      June 15, 2006 Thursday

      SECTION: BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL NEWS

      ACC-NO: 20060615-GL-INTERNET-CONTENT-20060615

      LENGTH: 769 words

      HEADLINE: ESPN selling premium content to Internet providers

      BYLINE: Hiawatha Bray, The Boston Globe

      BODY:


      Jun. 15--American office workers can watch every play of the midday World Cup soccer games on their desktop computers -- but only if they subscribe to the right Internet providers.

      In a strategy inspired by cable television, the Walt Disney Company's ESPN sports network offers online broadcasts of the World Cup and other sporting events as premium Internet programming. Internet providers who want to offer the service, called ESPN360, must pay special fees for the right to carry it, in the same way that cable TV systems pay Disney to carry ESPN's TV shows. So far, a handful of Internet providers, including Verizon Communications Inc., Adelphia Communications Corp., and Charter Communications Inc., have signed up for ESPN360, making it available to about 8 million US households.

      It's a policy that could help Disney and other companies find new revenue streams for their entertainment offerings.

      "We are really talking about high-quality premium content that a lot of consumers have a demand for," said Tanya Van Court, vice president and general manager of new media video products at ESPN.

      Bill Heilig, Verizon's executive director for portal and content services, said his company has similar deals with online content providers such as Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., and Viacom Inc. These give Verizon services and features that distinguish it from rivals like cable TV giant Comcast Corp.

      "It is similar to the cable model," said Heilig. "We go out and source the best combination of content and services."

      But others worry that making the Internet more like cable TV will lead to higher prices, as consumers are forced to pay for premium services they don't want.

      "It doesn't matter if you're not a sports fan. You're going to pay," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a high-tech public interest group.

      The rise of premium Internet programming comes when Congress is considering "network neutrality" legislation that would ban Internet providers like Verizon from charging extra fees to companies that want to distribute their content over new premium-quality data networks. A coalition of nonprofit groups and Internet content companies, including Microsoft and Yahoo, say that allowing Internet companies to charge them for the data they broadcast could cripple creativity on the Internet.

      Sohn is one of those lobbying for a ban on premium network fees. But she has no problem with companies charging premium prices for their Internet content, as long as only those who use the services pay for them. If the Internet companies use an "a la carte" pricing system, customers would pay only for the Internet services that they use, and the cost of ESPN360 would be borne only by those who want it instead of being spread out across everyone who subscribes to a participating provider.

      "The Internet's been great because it's been a la carte," Sohn said. "It allows consumers to pay for what they want."

      Cable TV companies are under pressure to embrace the a la carte system. A bill recently introduced in Congress by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona would grant video providers a streamlined nationwide licensing process, bypassing the need to get licenses from thousands of local government bodies. In exchange, the companies would agree to let customers pick only the channels they want.

      For now, Verizon has no plans to offer its premium Internet services on an a la carte basis. All subscribers to the company's broadband services get free access to ESPN360, as well as a choice of either Microsoft's MSN Premium service or Verizon Yahoo Internet service. Verizon has also signed a deal with Viacom to offer exclusive content related to Viacom's Nickelodeon and MTV cable TV channels.

      Verizon's Heilig said that the addition of premium content isn't driving up the price of his company's broadband services. "Our broadband rates are among the lowest, if not the lowest," he said.

      Meanwhile, ESPN plans to use another cable TV gimmick to boost interest in its Internet service -- a free sample of ESPN360. From June 26 through July 19, broadband users can log onto espn360.com to watch World Cup games and other programming, even if their Internet provider hasn't signed a deal with ESPN.

      To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.boston.com/globe. Copyright (c) 2006, The Boston Globe Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
    • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I agree. I don't like the precedent this could set. I have a $60/month cable bill that pays for 200 chanels I don't watch and about 5-10 that I do. I don't even want to think about what my broadband bill would be like in a couple of years if this trend catches on.
    • bageloid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I guess the isp's are starting to feel some of that sting from their own anti-net neutrality position.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38"If your (or my) ISP goes crazy on charging google for access we can switch. There are lots of options these days."

      No. No we can't. Many people have no viable alternatives. My choices are: Pay $70 for 2048/2048 DSL, or dial up. If my ISP decided to start pulling this crap, I would have no alternative.
    • thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13as much as i just want to say "take that isps, this is what you get!!", it is still wrong.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13one don't think it will work, doubt many people will go to their isp and say, yeah i will pay 60$ for the whole Internet and then another 3$ for ESPN. The major websites have tried premium content in the past and tend to fail against all the free content. But I will still personally write ESPN and tell them to go suck my left nut.
      Lanser84 opened his mouth and spewed
      "There are lots of options these days. In the meantime, It sure would be nice to have new features dependent on wicked bandwidth that isn't available without a cost."
      How many isp choices do you have? for me and most of America it is only a couple of options.dsl or cable(i don't include sat because it sucks)
      And in the mean time you have the option of paying extra for your isp for extra bandwidth. We have several tiers of bandwidth options here, from double 56k to 10meg cable.. maybe higher as well haven't checked.
      No i think you are one of those people that has to one up other people and are just interested in having a different net you can brag about. Either that or you work for the telecoms, you do understand how the net works? Google pays almost 2 million a month for bandwidth, they can pay more for more and faster. I pay $60 a month for 5 meg cable, i can pay more for faster. No one is getting a free ride, the isp's just are mad they didn't invent google and want to extort profits from them. I say if the isp's want to do this, they can but not on the public net, just wall off a portion of their own, like AOL, and see if they can get customers that way, but don't go changing the public net that we all enjoy and allowed the isp's the benefit of being part of it all.
      If att wants to try to make a google, using their own bandwidth, i say more power too them, but once they start double charging google, they are going too far.
      I will go back to dial up before i let the telco get away with that crap.
      It will end up, they will block political sites they don't like
      companies like skype and other competition
      they will block questionable sites
      They want to turn the net into a device like your cell. It isn't extra features they want to charge you for, it is all of them. Want new wallpaper for your PC, 2$ for 3 months. Want new desktop sounds, $2 for 3 months. .. Just like sprint will rent me a ring tone for $3 for 3 months of a song I already own and can get from itunes for 99cents and own it as well.
      That is what they are salivating over. micro payments and competition control.

      sorry for the book but ignorance gets me angry.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10This has nothing to do with net neutrality at all!

      Firstly, the companies involved in net neutrality are the backbone companies. Note that they have no place anywhere in this equation!

      Secondly, this isn't a new business model, at all! Where do you think comcast gets all the content they have on comcast.com (including their large video library)? They're paying somebody for it!

      If you throw your arms up and shout "Net neutrality, net neutrality" every time you see ***** like this, you are HURTING THE CAUSE, not helping it!


      "I agree. I don't like the precedent this could set. "

      Have you seen comcast.com? You're years too late.
    • Breakpoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ive been able to watch free ESPN at http://www.ChannelKing.com
    • speaker219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is what the Espn360 Video window looks like:
      I changed the screenshot to give you a better idea of how big the video is.
      screenshot 1 (normal size video): http://charlies-stuff.fragism.com/pics/espn360.jpg
      screenshot 2 (double size video): http://charlies-stuff.fragism.com/pics/espn3602.jpg
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@PowerCow

      Your ad hominem is not an argument. But, alas, unfortunately I would probably not be able to afford all the premium content that I would like - and I don't work for telecom. The *interest* I have in this issue is that I want the market left open to freedom to innovate. I think we all have an interest in that as history has shown. Cutting off these business models in the name of egalitarianism, status-quo worship, or the idea that "we already paid for it in taxes" is a bad choice in the long run. It is a bad idea to enforce by law only 1 possible model.

      Especially with the groundswell behind net-neutrality, I can guarantee that if net-neutrality is voted down, that very moment you will see ads on TV for ISPs offering services that don't restrict access, that give you the same access you have now. Indeed, those services may be cheaper since part of the audience will be paying more for their premium service. Walmart makes it fantastic profit not by charging through the nose but by providing pretty cheap goods at a low price.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2will those isp be allowed on the backbone?
      The backbone will send neutral friendly isps into the slow lane.
      and sorry i expected ot actually get what i paid for when we paid them 200 billion.
  • lordmoosh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I agree with jarcoal. I found it funny that ESPN is doing the same thing to telcos/isps as the telcos/isps were trying to do to content providers like ESPN. Can't we all just get along?
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2It is getting along to charge based on real economic factors. What's contrary to "getting along" is forbidding by law this kind of voluntary interaction.
    • ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Actually what's contrary to "getting along" is telling people that they have to fork over $1 to use your faster cooler slide that was built using governmemt money (the $200,000,000,000 tax breaks/incentives that the Telcos got to deploy fiber to consumers over ten years ago). If you don't then you can use the slide on the other side of the street that isn't shiny or new and had mud poured on it to be slower than the "premium" slide.
    • etnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If the company wants to charge for a premium service, so be it, but let the people who actually want to pay for it foot the bill. I don't give two ***** about ESPN, why should I pay to subsidize somebody who does?

      This business model was neccesary for cable TV because it's a multicast system. There are only so many channels available, and it's the only real way to make the business model work. The internet is not like this at all.

      If the service is bandwidth-intensive on part of ESPN, then they have to choose the pricing model that's appropriate FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY WANT TO PAY FOR IT. If it's bandwidth-intensive for the ISPs, then the ISPs should charge more for CUSTOMERS (not websites, since they have no control over it) who use more bandwidth (oh, wait, you mean ISPs are already lying when they claim that they're selling you a 7Mb / sec connection? Surely you jest...)

      Stop trying to fleece consumers into paying for ***** that they don't want. Stop trying to fleece businesses into subsidizing your network costs.

      Fortunately, unlike the cable industry, there aren't any government-sanctioned monopolies when it comes to the internet. As much as I'm concerned about the radiation, I'm all in favor of the idea of universal wi-fi.
    • ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Lanser84: We're already paying real-world rates for bandwidth (yes all consumers sudsidize the bandwtdth hogs). The people who are against net neutrality want to charge us even more by making us pay for the faster access that the government already gave the telcos $200 billion to build.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I also have no sympathy for subsidizing big business. (And I appreciate your arguments, rather than just digging down for disagreeing.)

      However, laws mandating net neutrality destroy the root of innovation...the freedom to try new business models. It will be a tragedy if, in the name of not having to pay for what taxpayers have already paid for, we disallow by law alternative business models.
    • NJank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3actually, convincing people to pay me for something taxpayers have already paid for sounds like a wonderful alternative business model for me. I'm getting ready to set up a toll booth on my street right this very minute...
  • Frieked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If this works it'll have interesting implications on the whole net neutrality thing.
    • ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I wonder if anyone will ever realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

      That is unless you're the government. Then you only abide by the rules when it suits you and claim "National Security" when it doesn't.
  • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Here's what we're looking at with tiered internet service folks - a duplication of CableTV service. And always - always in the end - the cost is passed on to us.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1A duplication that might bring many new benefits that some of us (not me yet, I'm still paying off school loans) are willing to pay for.
  • anteyekon4myst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Dear Rogers,

    Please do not pay for ESPN360 on my behalf as I do not require or desire this service.

    Thank you,

    Customer wondering if he will get a say in this
    • ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I, as an another Rogers cable TV and cable internet subscriber, also don't want these "free" services that we'll all have to pay in higher subscriber fees.
    • ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did they not raise prices by $7 just last month?
    • ElectroBot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, let's increase the cost of your Extreme service by $8. Oh, but wait. There's a package over here that costs as much as you were paying before but but provides less service.
  • Stark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9has anyone been able to get espn 360 to play a video without constant "buffering" pauses? They need to put whoever was responsible for the free ABC "Lost" videos in charge of 360. Now that was cool.
    • terinjokes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5i just figured it was my (now outdated) mac trying to decode thw WMV streams...
    • krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who's to say they're not throttling it till they get their extortion fees? "Oh look how much faster it is now that you, err, your ISP, is ponying up!"

      /conspiracy
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Who's to say they're not throttling it till they get their extortion fees? "Oh look how much faster it is now that you, err, your ISP, is ponying up!""

      Because he wouldn't see it AT ALL without his ISP ponying up.
  • Frozenpython, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19They need to put a stop to this ASAP before it gets out of hand. Stuff like this is going to kill the internet as we know it now.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4New ideas and the freedom for providers and surfers to choose the terms on which they browse the internet are not dangers to the internet. They are its foundations.
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Lanser, I agree that getting the gov't involved is a bad plan in general. However, what ESPN is trying to do is not related to that. ESPN is apparantly trying to turn the internet into cable TV, where they cajole the cable provider into paying ESPN and spreading the cost out to all customers, rather than forcing each customer that wants ESPN to pay for it directly.

      The solution is to do what this article has done, bring this fact to light, so that everyone can complain to their ISPs not to pay this fee, or to at least be transparent about this charge in any rate increases to customers:

      ESPN360 Fee: 0.50 / month

      And let the fallout solve it.
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Someone wants to view digg, your internet goes up by $1. Someone else wants to visit myspace, your internet goes up by $4. Someone else wants to go to ESPN your internet goes up $14. All you want is digg, you're paying an extra $18 so people that subscribe to the same ISP as you can view their content.

      Charge the people that want access to the sites like ESPN, instead of everyone else that couldn't care less if ESPN never existed. I don't want to pay outrageous prices for crap I'm never going to use, it's why I don't have cable.

      For those that say "go to alternatives" I say "ha, I'm glad you have that freedom, but many don't." What happens when every provider carries that service and passes their cost on to you? What will you do then? Go back to dial up?

      I'm tired of footing the bill for companies that instead of facing the risk, pass the cost of that risk onto everyone else (especially those that don't want the service).
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ThatsUnpossible

      Very good point. Net Neutrality does come into this issue (from the opposite side), but not in the way indicated in the post just above.

      My response to this post was to counter the idea that there should be a legislated solution to the issue which the previous poster had brought up.
  • actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Who cares? Screw ESPN.
    • Frozenpython, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's not the fact that it's ESPN alone. This is going to send a message to ALL the large Media outfits that they can do something like this and get away with it. There for costing US ,the customer, more money for something that has always and should always be free other than your connection fee to the cable/DSL company. Crap like this is going to turn in to your EXTRA HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc... type fees.
  • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I read about this a few days ago in the Wall Street Journal... but it wasn't online yet...

    Very interesting...

    Customer: So, I want broadband, what packages do you offer?
    ISP: We have 1.5, 3, and 6MB services.
    Customer: Can I get to www.ESPN360.com with you?
    ISP: huh, what?
    Customer: Yeah, see ESPN360.com is only available to me if YOU pay to connect to their network.
    ISP: Umm... let me get my supervisor...
    Customer: Well?
    ISP: Yes we carry that...
    Customer: OK great... By the way... What about Google.com, Yahoo.com etc....
  • tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Reverse net-neutrality? Aren't the telco's supposed to be doing that?

  • thomasknowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This is not the cable companies' responsibility to pay for this. If individual customers want this service, let them pay for it. The internet as I see it should remain FULLY customizable by ME.

    This was copy/pasted from my email to ESPN and Comcast.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I agree with your sentiment and would choose a provider that would let me do so.

      However, if this needs a ton of bandwidth, some prioritization and so forth needs to go on at the ISP.

      If we don't like this business-model then we can not spend our money on it - or tell our ISP's..with our voices or our money..not to spend money on it. It's better to preserve our freedom to choose what kind of service we want than to mandate by law what kind of service (some) of us want right now (and before even seeing the new services the other models will make available).
    • ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lanser, if your ISP wants to prioritize this traffic, they don't need to pay ESPN to do it. This is a non-sequitur.

      I don't see this as a net-neutrality issue, this is simply a stupid business move by ESPN and any ISP that agrees to it without giving their customers the option to pay for it or not.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They can prioritize the traffic already. But they would be able to charge differentially...so that people who actually use it pay for it. They will be incentivized to give certain data types more priority if they can make a buck doing so.

      This is where the same issue as net neutrality comes in...whether everyone should have equal access to information regardless of whether they pay for it or not. I'm not against having to pay for differential access.
  • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This service will last one billing cycle, so that the three people that subscribe can cancel.
    who comes up with these idiotic ideas and do they actually sit there and go "Man have i got a great idea..."
    • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Who come up with these ideas? Coblabberating committees.

  • david630, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Espn 360 sucks anyway
    • rustytwonderdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4most of ESPN.com sucks now. It's one of the slowest and bloated sites on the net and half of their articles require a subscription.

      except for the bill simmons articles, i've stopped going there and just use yahoo sports instead.
    • Zipko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The part I hate about espn.com is that even the free content must be paid for if you want to see archives. A few weeks after publishing, every article writen on the site becomes insider only content. So even if the story isn't considered in depth enough to be worth charging for when writen, it suddenly is worth charging for a month later when most of the content is outdated.
  • b0rg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17ESPN is one of the biggest parts of your monthly cable bill. It's a "must-carry"; i.e. cable providers are required to give it to ALL customers, even those on the basic cable tier, and are NOT allowed to provide it as an optional service.

    Your cost to get ESPN is between three and ten bucks a month, not counting what the cable co decides to add on top of that.

    Hope you like watching ... whatever was on ESPN last time I looked? Desert Kayak racing or something equally pointless?
    • infiniti029, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1ESPN ownz ur face, go die in a fire.
    • Reidtheweed01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I acutally like espn, and its one of the few channels I do watch. But thats something many digg users wont be able to understand. It's not my fault G4 and sci-fi are ***** channels, but i still have to pay for those.
    • thegreatsam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ummm....ESPN isn't offered on my basic cable tier.
    • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Reidtheweed01

      That's the problem with cable service here in the US. Regardless of what your taste is in TV, you'll still end up paying for channels you're never going to watch, simply because that's the way they have the business model set up. Do we really want our internet access to be the same way? I have no problem with paying for certain services on the internet, but let me be the one to pick which services I want to pay for and which ones I can do without. Don't lump it in with my broadband bill and expect me to subsidize other people's services, because that's what this is.
    • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3So glad I got rid of both my TV and DishNetwork.
    • samdu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is one of those areas where the "unwashed" masses FAR outnumber the geeks. ESPN is "must carry" TV because it's wildly popular. I'm afraid that this will be the case with ISPs and ESPN360 as well. Some of us tend to forget that the rest of the country is a lot more interested in sports than in computers.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Basic cable packages don't always have bable. I have Comcast basic, and I don't get ESPN.

      As far as what's on ESPN, ESPN1 is usually major sports. For example, Monday Night Football is gong to be on ESPN from now on. I think Desert Kayak is on ESPN 8.
  • djfelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Competition will sort this out. So ESPN360.com wants to charge ISP's for using their service. That's fine. Their subscriber base is going to be much lower than any of ther other competing sports websites. This means that they will not be able to charge as much for advertising, as they will have smaller user numbers. Then along comes a company like AOL, with deep pockets, that can do the same thing, but free to everyone. Higher user count, more ad revenue.

    What I'm trying to say here is that the natural market competition will sort all of this out. ESPN360 thinks that they are going to be so high and mighty that they can charge ISP's for bandwidth ... I would wait and see before I pass judgement on that. As far as I can tell, most ISP's would tell them to go pound sand. I use Cox, and Cox hosts their own sports video feeds. Why would they pay an extortion fee to ESPN360 for a service that competes against their own? Answer: They won't.

    The last thing we need is Government coming in and telling American companies how to compete in the marketplace. The natural way the martket works will sort this out just fine without the FCC mucking things up. The -*last*- thing we need is to give the FCC the power to decide what websites an ISP can connect to.
    • Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The difference in advertising revenues is a good point to bring up. The market factors it all in folks. And, since we don't have government-sponsored monopolies on internet access as we do in so many other industries, the outcomes would be even better. It's extremely dangerous to give the government control of what business models internet-related companies are allowed to use.
  • speaker219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My isp, adelphia, carries espn360.
  • duke_nate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And in other news, The ISPs tell ESPN to go ***** themselves.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Disney and ESPN once again thinking to hard.
  • callingshotgun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I don't agree with charging ISP's to carry your internet content... I can't help but dig that they're getting a taste of their own medicine, you know? Their big defense against this is going to be that "We have the right to deliver whatever internet content we want to our users without being charged premiums."

    Which is where Google, Amazon, Ebay, and every popular basement blogger in the world will step in and say, "That's what we've been saying all along, dumbass."

    I, for one, would like to see more sites try to pull the crap ESPN is trying to pull right now. Maybe that's what it'll take for the telcos to see the point behind net neutrality.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it's a very bad precedent. Think it through, what do you think is going to happen if this doesn't die right away?

      First maybe the charge isn't too high and an ISP will pay and eat the charges (distribute the charges into the monthly fee for everyone)

      Then the charge gets a little bit more and the ISP decides to develop a method to pass the charge directly & automatically to the user on your bill at the end of the month (sound like a 900 number?).

      More content providers see it as a way to collect money and the Internet becomes Pay-per-View or even worse somebody gets the idea they can make money just like scam 900 phone numbers and people start flooding the net with links to pay-per-hit sites and you start getting dinged at the end of the month on your ISP bill for all the sites you hit by accident.

      ed
  • allnightbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5As an avid sports fan and someone who probably watches too much on TV--one who does watch ESPN highlights from time to time--I'd like to say the following.

    ***** you, ESPN.

    I hope no ISPs pay for this service.
  • echobucket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I guess they'd rather extort money from ISPs so that ALL of our bills go up, rather than just making the espn360.com website require paid login accounts. :P

  • thobejp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sounds like he situation is this. The companies providing this/these services know that if they charge people to sign up and use their services directly from their site like newspapers and other Internet content they may get a few thousand paying customers. However, if they charge ISPs for it, then in theory the ISPs will be paying the companies for all their clients(10,000+) even if no one watches it. The companies make out great because they don't have to worry about whether or not people really love their content nearly as much, they get paid anyway. This whole system is messed up...
  • geekguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2AHHHHhhhhhh! You need a subscription to the WSJ to read an article about ESPN requiring ISPs to get a subscription to 360. The whole world will require subscription services. Everything will be subscriptions! Want to read digg.com? Make sure to tell your ISP you want a higher tier of service. Want to buy gas? That will be $3/day instead of $3/gal, whether you come get gas or not. Want to look at the sky? Better pay your monthly sky watching fee. I mean, where will it END?
  • jknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I am thrilled this made it to the frontpage. I submitted it more than 6 months ago. no traction :(
    But seriously what a load of crap. Ug.
  • mbabauer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This has been ESPN's strategy for ESPN360 from day-one. I fail to see where this is a story.
  • Joey67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Perhaps I'm missing something here. Why can't ESPN do exactly the same thing that every other pay site does. If you want their premium content, you pay them and they provide you a login ID and password to view that content. The only reason I can see them trying to do this with ISPs is to force everyone to pay for it. I don't see any benefit here except to ESPN.
  • mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3idk why ESPN can't do ESPN 360 like Major League Baseball does MLB.tv with either a monthly charge to the customer or a one time fee for a certain program... this way the people who want to use it pays for it and then ones who don't don't have to pay... My one experience watching a college basketball game on it last winter was pretty *****... i gave up after 5 minutes cause it was constanly buffering and went to just watching the box score refresh every minute on regular espn.com...
  • bigboludo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would have paid extra on my comcast bill to be able to watch World Cup games on my PC. They're still bastards though.
    • Joey67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The point being that if you want to watch World Cup games on your PC, you should be able to decide if you want to pay for that content. Right now, what ISPs deliver is ALL content. Here's an analogy. You go food shopping every week and pick up your favorite items. The folks at Pampers decide they want to charge supermarkets for carrying their diapers. As a result, the supermarket raises the prices of everything to cover that cost. Even though there is only one particular market that will actually be buying Pampers, all customers will have to pay for them. And since Pampers are such a popular brand and many people need them, the supermarket is almost forced to go along otherwise all the folks that want their Pampers are going to be up in arms.

      That's what ESPN is counting on. They're counting on their viewers to make a stink about not being able to watch 360... or more importantly, they're counting on the ISPs to think the ESPN 360 is so popular that they'll accept ESPN's extortion without ever seeing if it's what their customers really want.
    • LostCluster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1During the World Cup, ESPN360 was running an "All Access" promotion.
  • speaker219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can watch regular espn live online for free:
    http://charlies-stuff.fragism.com/video.php?a=%3Cembed%20type='application/x-mplayer2'%20src=%22http://speaker219.6te.net/espn.asx%22%20width=%22320%22%20height=%22309%22%3E%3Cbr%3EIMPORTANT:%20I%20DO%20NOT%20HOST%20THESE%20VIDEOS,%20THEY%20WERE%20FOUND%20ON%20THE%20INTERNET.&b=ESPN%20Stream
  • runbmd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Techdirt linked to us:

    http://techdirt.com/articles/20060802/1132240.shtml

    I guess we are the "furor."
  • runbmd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1oops...double posted somehow.
  • cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ESPN360...what a cool name. Other choices, iESPN, ESPNWii, iESPNWii360.....
  • Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3...
    ***** ESPN.
  • kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5ESPN is NOTORIOUS for strong-arming Cable Providers. They regularly increase their fees at a higher rate than other cable stations on basic cable. I remember that I was with a smaller Cable Provider that would regularly send us breakdowns of their costs to justify their price increases and ESPN was the biggest offender always. Other stations would raise their rates like 4-6% and they'd raise it 12-15% in a single year.

    I've used 360, and it's not that great. It's bigger versions of videos that are free on their site in addition to some additional highlights and PTI stuff that USED to be available to ESPN Insider members. So they took services away from Insider folks and made now a THIRD tier of service for their website.

    ESPN has STOPPED being about sports in the past 5 years. They are ruining sports journalism by getting in bed with stars they are supposed to be covering. They are taking good journalists and forcing them into stereotypical roles of sports screaming pundits, and losing credibility among sports fans as fast as they earned it back in the early days.
    • Joey67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly... it's the MTV syndrome. Does anyone remember when MTV used to actually play videos (and there was some variety to those)? Now they're just one big commercial.
  • donnyp02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I work for Suddenlink Communications, formerly Cebridge Connections, Cox Communications, and Chart Cable, you would be surprised at how often networks pull this crap. Customers are Always wondering why prices are so high, and why there is a price increase just about every year like clockwork, well on top of gas prices, networks like ESPN like to sock it to the end user, not the cable companies, its beyound our control, if our customers want the content, then we have to pay for it, which is exactly why we are not falling under the NFL networks games this time around and dropping them, they wanted to increase rates so much it was going to force us to increase our rates for the customer, and we decided against it...
  • timeshifter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5People often ask me if they can get Google with their new broadband service. The general public is already confused enough about all this stuff. This will only make it worse. Maybe Dvorak is right, this is the Golden Age of the Internet. Enjoy it while you can.
  • greenreefer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Passed on to us is right. Whether you watch or not.
    ESPN charges the cable provider, charges consumers (read "gamblers") for their "insider" net
    content, now wants to charge the ISP's and us for their good stuff, plus advertising revenue.

    Given the cable monopolies,that should be illegal. .
    there is no excuse to not have it open, let the market prevail, then I would not mind, charge whatever you want, I could opt out.

    Either advertising revenue, or a monthly toll. Both is out of line. It would not survive competition.
    They chase and harass MS to the ends of the earth for including a browser and media player in the 200$ OS that many people never paid for anyway,then leave the 60-80 per month/forever cable monopoly alone. Meanwhile, ESPN runs roughshod over everyone. Frickem.

    I am sick. It really does reek of corruption.

    Wish it did some good to bitch about it.

  • tekmage3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Screw ESPN... and anyone else pulling this kind of junk.
  • glozycom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Check this links

    http://glozy.com Media Portal
    http://tv.glozy.com/Live/portal.htm Watch free 2300 Live TV Stations
    http://cams.glozy.com/portal.htm watch 4000 live webcams
    http://radio.glozy.com/portal.htm listen 8000 radio stations
    http://videos.glozy.com/portal.htm Watch free tv shows and series
    http://movies.glozy.com/portal.htm Watch free movies and downloads
    http://cartoons.glozy.com/portal.htm Watch free cartoons
    http://anime.glozy.com/portal.htm Watch free Anime movies
    http://asian-drama.glozy.com/portal.htm watch Asian Movies
    http://tv-shows.glozy.com/portal.htm TV Shows

    OTHERS
    http://videostop10.com Video Collection Portal
    http://tvportal.co.uk
    http://pinoytelevision.com
    http://nederlandstv.com
    http://pinoystreet.com
    http://bootsgames.com
    http://xbox.bootsgames.com
    http://playstation.bootsgames.com Free online games
    http://nintendo.bootsgames.com Free download games
  • ajr901, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0...do you guys want to know something interesting? At&t is one of the supported ISPs that offer espn30.com, and i have at&t, however, the high speed internet connection that i use from them is one from a 3g wireless laptop connect card. One of those cards that kinda operates as a cellphone and plugs into your computer via usb ports, well, It doesnt work with espn360, espn360 doesnt recognize it as an at&t connection even though it is!!! Every Isp should do what verizon does on espn360. They should let you access espn360 even when your not at home. you just use your username and password that is assigned to you by your isp...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.