ESPN to ISPs: Pay for Your Customers to Play Video | Hacker News Reader

ESPN to ISPs: Pay for Your Customers to Play Video

blog.wired.com

25 pointsnickb16 comments

Reverse net neutrality. Instead of the restriction coming from the ISPs it's coming from the content provider. I don't see how going back to mid 1990s style AOL ideology will ever work.

To see if your ISP is already involved in this go to http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/index and click watch now. It also has a scary message if you don't have access:

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. For Verizon Customers Only: Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com

I seriously hope this crashes and burns. Various industries are trying to encourage this particular business model, and it's undoubtedly terrible for the consumer as it limits choice.

It's also worth wondering if ISPs could be accused of anti-competitive practices by encouraging 'product tying'.

If the ISPs become content providers, wouldn't they lose their status as common carriers. If they pay for ESPN's services wouldn't they become liable to the FCC for the content that they are paying for and possibly by extension the whole internet.

IANAL and I don't see an ISP losing its common carrier status over paying ESPN(It's too easy for them to buy the regulators.), but I can hope that something would stop this from occurring.

Not that I would advocate anything illegal, but couldn't someone set up a proxy from within an ISP that pays ESPN and open it up to those without access to ESPN.

Legally, ISPs are not subject to common carrier regulation today, so they are not worried about losing a status that they don't have.

The best way to attack this from the point of view of capitalism is to boycott their sponsors. That is remarkably effective. It can take famous personalities off the air, and much more.

Whining doesn't work. Hurting their pocketbook does.

I wonder if this could set up a new model for the Internet, one that would in some ways mirror cable TV. Most sites would still allow any ISP access since they don't have enough demand to have any bartering leverage with the ISPs (and even some that do like Amazon are interested in having as wide a base as possible). Sites like the NY Times, however, might be able to negotiate with the ISPs to license their content. This essentially gives them to ability to negotiate site membership at a much larger scale (and hopefully at a reduced per person rate). On the surface I agree that this does seem bad for consumer choice; however, if it meant the difference between having an NY Times and not having one, it could perhaps be argued otherwise. Of course, this model depends upon consumers having a choice of ISP in the first place.

Ugh, one step closer to the nightmare illustrated in http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral-isp.ht... Here we all were watching the ISPs closely to avoid this from happening, and it turns out that it's the service providers who would take the first step.

I agree, I didn't even see this coming. I figured content creators would want their content on as many 'pipes' as possible. Turns out they're just as greedy as ISPs.

How many times can they sell the exact same product to us?

ESPN360 has been around for years, and I'm honestly surprised it's still running. ESPN is _the_ leader in sports, and I honestly don't know why they don't switch over to a Hulu-type thing, with free content + advertising (I'm sure they can get all their TV advertisers to switch over). I'd love to understand why because, aside from the fact that they themselves don't own sports teams, I don't get it. The day I can watch live sports online is the day I get rid of cable.

Also, Verizon paying for this really makes me excited for FiOS to hit my neighborhood.

I think this is awesome. To me this represents the first step in the content providers saying "f-you, we're not paying to deliver, you're the one with the money connection to the viewers".

The ISPs that are going down the anti-NN rathole are pitting themselves against both their customers and the content providers. In macro they might make some revenue from this stuff but I can't see how it could end well.

I never have and never plan on watching sports on espn's web site. I am going to be very disappointed when my bill goes up because of this.

Did you all forget that content rules the Internet just like any other form of media?

I'm sure that ESPN, Fox as well as WSJ and New York Times will do just fine. They have content, something that will never become a commodity, while pipes and delivering software will be for sure (if not already). Google understands it, Yahoo understands it, this is why they're beefing up on their own content because I don't think anyone doubts that eventually the gatekeepers of information ("traditional" media) will wake up and grab the rest of middlemen by the balls. There is absolutely no reason for ESPN or anywhere else to allow all kinds of reddits to make money on their content, so they're naturally making it available for customers who pays.

What it means for us is now we have yet another vehicle for monetization: can you come up with a way to make TimeWarner a more appealing ISP compared to others? They don't want to be just another no-name pipe provider, they are desperate for value-adding ideas. They are, just look at all that shit they're putting on "Internet CDs" they advertise, like it makes "their internet" safe or faster than someone else's. So if you happen to come up with something better than customized browsers and magical malware blockers, then sell it to them.

Well from a business perspective something like this or capped bandwidth/pay for overages is gonna come to fruition!

I have not had Cable TV for a few years and when I watch TV/movie content it's all thru the net. In time more will do the same and advertising will not be able to sustain the losses accrued from fewer & fewer(to zero) cable TV customers!

It will take sometime (10 to 20 years), but it's inevitable!

"Switching ISPs" is too difficult. ESPN should also offer paid subscriptions, which would enable video regardless of your ISP.

ESPN has always offered ESPN360 to a limited number of ISPs. For instance, I can't get it while at work because our ISP doesn't subscribe. Pretty frustrating since I'm a Verizon customer and can get it at home. Would be great if they allowed me to log in with an ISP account rather than do IP-detection.

can i just proxy through a university system?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com