ESPN gives the middle finger to Net Neutrality
Image courtesy of Wired.com
ESPN currently shows 3,500 sporting events a year through its online service, but if you've signed up to the wrong ISP you'll just get a red box roll over telling you your Internets are wrong.
This is a turn around from the original net neutrality problem which saw ISPs trying to charge websites for bandwidth its subscribers had already paid for. Instead, now ESPN is demanding ISPs pony up for licenses to allow their users to view its content. Some might argue that it's no different from paying for a cable package - if you want the premium content, then you have to pay for it.
However it's not stopped other sites for many years just creating a paid-for section: buy a login and get premium content. Instead ESPN is circumventing this and making everyone using affiliated ISPs, regardless of whether they want to view its content or not.
ESPN is owned by Disney, so expect this cancerous trend to proliferate to other services - in fact, music might also follow the same trend as well.
Some might also argue that the BBC's geo-targetting of its iPlayer service is very closely linked to this kind of trend, especially as it effectively means those who don't own a TV, get content for free anyway (we pay for a TV license in the UK), and viewers outside of our small island have no chance whatsoever of viewing it either.
So, great, we're going to end up with everything we've fought to avoid - a patchy Internet ruled by affiliate programs and licenses. Inevitably it will only make piracy even more widespread as customers frustrated by greedy companies who don't make it easy to consume premium content, will inevitably just look elsewhere. How many of us care enough to change our ISPs? It's not exactly an easy or efficient process after all. We've hit the slippery slope, and there's grease already under our feet.
What do you think the solution is? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
43 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplySo 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.
Cinical, money grabbing *******s.. that's all I have to say.
P
Instead ESPN made it only available to the 'cheap peers' so that ISPs couldn't complain.
But this is the wrong way to go about it.
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.
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
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.
It's not like you can really get the BBC broadcast from other countries either.
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.
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.
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.
Ah
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.
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.
Let the greedy lie in their own feces.
Everyone has a ******* opinion about everything then does nothing...
*sigh* Sorry, just feeling testy...
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).
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 :(
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.
The internet, honelines, are a national utility, there should be no prerequisite of having to get certain ISPs to access content. Fair enough if you need to pay to get premium content that's a different matter.
I think if you challenged it in court it could fall down.
No, they aren't. The government didn't build them and doesn't own the Internet. This isn't the USSR, Cuba or North Korea.
Until the mid-80s & 90s, when they were privatised, all of the UK's utilities were nationalised: electricity, gas & phone (as well as other services like the trainlines, healthcare system, steelworks & coal mining) were all nationalised industries - yet the UK has never been a communist country.
And what is more, we (the post-communist country) had a little problem with our Big Bad Monopolist a few years back... took a huge beating from anti-monopoly comissions and was almost reduced to ashes. As the time goes by, It becomes more and more obvious that the post-soviet countries have way more freedom than you Brits ever seen.
On the topic: This will fail miserably. Restricting potential userbase never worked good for any company, as soon as the investors see the actual profit vs potential profit with unrestricted userbase, the ESPN will open their arms for everyone.