1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News ESPN gives the middle finger to Net Neutrality

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 6 Feb 2009.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,879
    Likes Received:
    76
  2. WILD9

    WILD9 Been here aaaaages

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    574
    Likes Received:
    4
    I hope someone takes a stand against this crap. Maybe google could delist the ESPN website or something, just wishful thinking though isnt it, the corporate steamroller is on its way through :(
     
  3. Florian

    Florian New Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    137
    Likes Received:
    1
    This concept isn't entirely new. People used to pay for AOL or CompuServe to get "premium" content not available on the "normal" internet before anyone even thought of net neutrality. Still, one has to hope that this experiment will be an epic failure.
     
  4. mikeuk2004

    mikeuk2004 What you Looking at Fool!

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    3,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ok so if i read this right, you got be with a specific isp to get the content.

    So what happens if somelse does this kind of thing,.

    Does that mean I would have to have several telephone lines going into my house with different broadband accounts inorder to have access to all of the internet?

    Stupid idea and will anger ISP's surely as it will take their customers unless they pay up for a licence most of its customers wont even use.
     
  5. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    124
    Good thing I've absolutely no care at all for sports, but that doesn't make the prospects of this any less scary.
     
  6. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,812
    Likes Received:
    461
    Sports is the thin end of the wedge. Soon it will be Music and video.

    Cinical, money grabbing *******s.. that's all I have to say.
     
  7. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    The only way I currently have of accessing HD content, since I don't own a blu-ray device, is to download it - but nobody's offering the service. Hello, Big Media, would you like some of my money? Better start offering to sell me things, then, eh?

    P
     
  8. p3n

    p3n New Member

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    778
    Likes Received:
    1
    This isn't neccessarily ESPN's fault - basically the other scenario that could have happened with BBC iPlayer; instead of ISPs complaining that iplayer was using too much bandwidth and the BBC kindly agreeing to let them host a 'mirror' so that traffic wasn't peered with more expensive networks.

    Instead ESPN made it only available to the 'cheap peers' so that ISPs couldn't complain.
     
  9. Fly

    Fly inter arma silent leges

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2001
    Posts:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    2
    The non affiliated ISPs should blacklist ESPN and all associated content. That would make them backtrack rather quickly I think.
     
  10. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,079
    Likes Received:
    356
    this is already happening in youtube with the "this content is not available for your region" notice....
     
  11. perplekks45

    perplekks45 LIKE AN ANIMAL!

    Joined:
    9 May 2004
    Posts:
    5,206
    Likes Received:
    143
    That's a joke, right?
     
  12. D3s3rt_F0x

    D3s3rt_F0x New Member

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    719
    Likes Received:
    6
    See paying for content specifically yes, thats fair enough, having to change to a different ISP no, but There does need to be some way of the companies making money after all they cant do it for free.

    But this is the wrong way to go about it.
     
  13. TGImages

    TGImages Grandpa

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    160
    Likes Received:
    1
    It has to fail. What If I can't get that ISP in my area? What happens when someone else does this with a different ISP? How do I have 2 ISPs as the same time?

    They just took their user base and greatly reduced it. I expect a pretty quick back pedal on this which a change to paid for content within the site regardless of how you get there. The current method just does not make sense.
     
  14. TGImages

    TGImages Grandpa

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    160
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just read the wired release... it's even worse. Your ISP has to cough up cash to ESPN to show that content... and you as a user of that ISP are going to see that passed along in your ISP fees even if you don't use or ever go to ESPN. I can see a class action lawsuit against the ISP and/or EPSN over this issue... charging customers for content they don't want.
     
  15. MrMonroe

    MrMonroe New Member

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it's a brilliant move by ESPN. It's like, supervillian-level stuff. It's certainly not good for customers, but it's going to make ESPN rich as hell.

    Also, to whoever wrote this article for bit-tech:

    I know you guys are games and tech journalists, but you're still journalists. This isn't a news article, it's an op-ed piece. If you're editorializing it should really be on the main page, where we expect it. If it doesn't warrant a headline article, just drop it in here, straight up. I guarantee the bit-tech community has enough vitriol for actions like this to go around.

    /twocents
     
  16. Flibblebot

    Flibblebot Smile with me

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2005
    Posts:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    140
    There's a difference between filtering content to different regions for copyright reasons, but what ESPN is not regional filtering, it's forcing you to change ISPs just to get its content - and presumably more money than they'd get since they're charging twice for the service: once to the ISP to become an affiliate and once to the end user for their subscription fee.

    It's different from what the Beeb is doing too: yes, it appears to be free to us, but it is funded by the licence fee; there might be a few people who don't pay their licence fee but access iPlayer, but I'd imagine they're few and far between.

    What ESPN is doing is wrong, greedy and represents the worst aspects of the media companies.
     
  17. fyes

    fyes New Member

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2005
    Posts:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    Net neutrality has a noble ring to it. Sadly, it's just a name. I wonder if we should have "Cola Neutrality", where any fast food chain must serve both Pepsi and Coke. We can't let McDonald's give Cola Neutrality the finger by having an exclusive agreement with Coke. Why, that would be giving those two companies freedom of contract and association and expose them to the vagaries of consumer choice.
     
  18. Sir Digby

    Sir Digby The Supprising Adventures

    Joined:
    18 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    91
    I feel that it a little unfair to bring the BBC iplayer into this discussion - that has good reason to be limited to just Britain.

    It's not like you can really get the BBC broadcast from other countries either.
     
  19. nicae

    nicae New Member

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2008
    Posts:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    other ISPs should just plain reroute people to ESPNs rivals, while people should just stop going to ESPN in the first place
     
  20. reaper1984

    reaper1984 New Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't worry too much, it's going to be an epic failure. How many people are going to go through the palava of changing their ISP to get one website, even if it does have lots of sport. Piracy will increase and they will make less money than they did in the first place. Can't see it lasting long myself. It's a bit like telling someone they have to get a new TV just to watch one single extra channel. It's not going to happen.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page