Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 6 Feb 2009.
People will just download it from 'alternative' sources
Usually we are, but c'mon, this is cancerous for the internet and our consumption of media. There is absolutely NOTHING good about what ESPN is going unless you are a shareholder. There is no other balancing of their position. I did drop in another alternative, that was iPlayer, but rarely nothing much compares to it.
That's true - don't get me wrong, I love iPlayer - but the BBC doesn't offer even a subscription service to people outside the UK and the internet is designed to be for everyone. If I want to - I should be able to view websites the other side of the world, which I do regularly. It doesn't matter where you command the data from.
I don't watch anything espn. related. If my isp pays for this, which in turn makes me pay for it,, I will switch isp's just to not pay for it. then d/l the media from alternative sources, then delete it, just to spite them. Same thing, if they are scanning ip's from espn's side; then no worries, but if espn is trying to force the isp's to filter-allow then that's just one more hop on my broadband, that will even further drop my ping times..
Again, if TWC here in the states goes with that, I will switch to a slower dsl just to F'n show them what's up.
But your example is not the same as ESPN is doing.
To extend your analogy, it would be as though McDonalds only served you if you drove to them in a Ford. If you used, say, a Chrysler then they wouldn't serve you.
That's not consumer choice.
A subscription to the iplayer for other countries would indeed be an excellent idea
Agreed. Although I have little doubt that this will be a gesture that will fail abysmally, I have enough sense to understand that this will be a precedence-setter for all kinds of content providers. As such, I would have little to no problem intentionally seeding ESPN's restricted content (which I personally would never watch as I am not a huge sports person) if it would assist in driving the message through the skulls of their management. The Internet is not a medium where you can implement whatever business practices you think will make you the most money, consumer be damned. It never has been, and it never will be.
You'd thought they'd have learned their lesson from the MAFIAA by now.
- Diosjenin -
I like your extension, and agree that it is closer to what ESPN is doing. I disagree that it is not consumer choice. You always have the choice to do business with the company or not. If you really want McDonald's, you'll determine that for you, it's worth ensuring that you own a Ford. More likely, you'll drive what you drive and give McD's the one (or two) finger salute. It's still your choice.
yeah i think Ima be giving espn the one finger salute for a bit this is kinda low
In principle I agree that this is a bad thing for all net users, but in reality I can't really see too many people switching ISP just to get this. That would be a pain in the arse.
Except that this isn't a situation where you can change over to any ISP anytime you want. I know where my parents live, Comcast is the only available option (if you don't want to use DSL or dial-up - and seeing as lower-speed providers live on a small enough margin as it is, they probably won't see fit to give ESPN anything).
And don't forget that ESPN also has exclusive broadcast rights to a very high number of sports games/events/etc., so as it stands, they are often the only place to go to if you want to watch certain content.
So the McD/Ford equivalent would be that McDonalds has made themselves the only chain legally allowed to sell, say, chicken strips, and then they refuse to serve you unless you drive a Ford. If you want a burger, yeah, you can go somewhere else, but if you want chicken strips, you need to drive a Ford. (Oh, and Fords are only available to buy in a third of the country).
I certainly agree it's your choice to give them the one-finger salute, but even calling it a 'choice' seems a bit of a stretch to me.
- Diosjenin -
When the use or threat of state sanctioned violence (e.g. a legally protected monopoly as in your example) is in play, all bets are off -- the consumer is unlikely to win. Ironically, "Net Neutrality", as I understand it, would require enforcement from the state, with the accompanying use or threat of violence.
In my view, the one-finger salute is a great choice. It's a clear signal to the company that you will not do business with them on the terms they have proposed. What I think you're really griping about is that they haven't proposed a business arrangement with you on terms that you want.
... I can do without ESPN. If they want to play this game, let them. They'll have some success since many people can't live without ESPN. Those who can't live without but have some modicum of respect for economic responsibility will protest. Then there are others like me who will boycott ESPN. I can get my sports news elsewhere.
Let the greedy lie in their own feces.
Compuserve thought this was a good idea once too...
Wide spread knowledge is what makes or breaks these moves by companies. Under the table tactics seems to be only noticed by people when it starts to affect them (and usually its so far gone that there is nothing that can be done about it). So, where is the information to do something about it? Post some resources, in the article, that gets people to act!
Everyone has a ******* opinion about everything then does nothing...
*sigh* Sorry, just feeling testy...
hopefully Obama's eco stimulus package is passed then so the US can give the middle finger right back at ESPN
I think youll find that people outside the relm do have a chance. Thats how i manage it!
Indeed, As stated above i have ways of bypassing the Geo-IP but it means that im effectivly paying for a subsciption anyway just the money isnt going to the BBC.
I would happily switch over if the option was there (and it was linked with channel 4).
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The MMC (Monopolies & Mergers Commission in the UK) has just turned down a request from a consortium consisting of the 4 traditional terrestrial providers (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 & Five) to provide a video on demand service, as it was seen as monopolistic behaviour.
This despite the fact that about the only other VOD services in the UK are provided by Virgin, the incumbent cable provider, or BT, the incumbent telecoms provider
This aught to give some more power to people in support of net neutrality, showing that it clearly is a present issue that needs to be stopped now before it is too late.
Guys, this article is making a problem where there is none to worry about.
Put it into perspective of TV service. Did two (or more) TV standards ever evolve where you had to buy a certain type of TV to watch ABC and a completely different TV to watch CBS and yet another TV to watch NBC? No. Ultimately it is in these companies' best interest to have as wide a distribution as possible. I feel that if CBS suddenly decided that you needed to buy an 'approved' Sony TV that CBS would probably hurt themselves greatly, but that it is their right to make a dumb decision. That's because I believe in freedom and that "things work themselves out with patience."
Freedom is far more important to me than being able to watch ESPN and no, watching ESPN does not equal freedom. Watching ESPN needs to be viewed as a fruit of freedom, not a birthright. Considering ESPN as a birthright sets a very dangerous precedent. I do NOT want to live in such a country.
This is the main issue that we are really dealing with here and that Net Neutrality advocates need to address (but aren't). This is that there are government-backed monopolies all across the country. This is why Cable and phone companies already do control to what we have access and have done for decades. This is a local government issue. Contact your county representatives and demand that they re-negotiate with the cable/phone companies that they can not filter traffic like this. Do it systematically and organize together to make it happen across the country.
Alternatively, demand from your elected representatives who support and back these ISP monopolies that they end the agreements with Comcast/Cox/Verizon/etc/etc. These companies will balk and make all kinds of threats but watch, if it is done right, no one will lose service and competition will flourish and people will gain freedom to choose what service (for a price, I'm sure) they use.
I agree that what I propose here is a bigger hurdle than the federal government passing a 'net neutrality' bill, but I assure you it will actually work, unlike a law from Congress. I assure you, Congress is already bought and sold. They won't help you. This is why the current crop of Net Neutrality advocates are wasting our time. Net Neutrality in its current flavor WON'T WORK. You can make laws to make things illegal but people (the corporations) will react accordingly. I promise you that.
Separate names with a comma.