THSCC Forums

While this post isn't exactly "what's on TV" I think it is related, and those of you subscribed here ought to have some thoughts on this:

www.espn3.com (new ALMS deal) and www.speed2.com are potential new sources for the racing we don't get on Speed.

Problem is, the sites have "partnered" with certain ISPs, and if you're not a customer of one of the ISPs, you can't get the programming.

Is this not a net neutrality issue? It's one thing to be a subscription based website where anyone has the choice to subscribe to access or not... I have no problem with that. But when a website limits who can view their program by who the customer is paying for internet service, it really gets under my skin.

thoughts?

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

Cancel all of your subscriptions with that service and let them know the reason why.

_________________
In need of car.

I don't think I understand Jason... my point is, the way it's set up now, WHO my ISP provider is is now determining what I can view on the internet. So at best it's forcing me (if I want to view the contents on those sites) to choose between Satellite and Cable, and at worst, it's simply not giving people an option if they don't have access to any of the "approved" or "partnered" ISPs.

I'm not going to cancel my CenturyLink DSL account just because they haven't partnered with these sites. Cause the trade off going to SuddenLink is absolutely not worth it (nor would it be with TWC if that were available to me.)

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

Net Neutrality just deals with allowing equal access to all on the internet. Your email has the same priority as GE's webcast. Has nothing really to do with programming - that's competition

ESPN's model is just to expand the CATV model into Internet delivery. Your ISP has to subscribe to their service (pay ESPN) to get access to the content.

I guess to me, right or wrong, it feels like this is NOT equal access to content. I don't have the same access that someone who happens to be on TWC has. Right?

TWC shouldn't be competing with ME for access to the content on Speed2. Embarq shouldn't have to compete with TWC for their customer's access to Speed2. (However, like I said, it's absolutely Speed2's right to charge a subscription fee to the consumer. )

It would be different I think if there were more choice in ISP's.

Sorry... this is getting ready to go WAY off topic.

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

I read your post to read that ESPN was only allowing their content to pass through a certain ISP. If ESPN is in control of this, then your only recourse is to switch to that ISP or call ESPN and let them know that you're dropping whatever service you're currently getting ESPN through because of their policy.

If the ISPs are in control of it, then contact your ISP and tell them that you're switching because they don't offer ESPN.

I am assuming that it "really gets under your skin" and you want to make a statement about it. Basically the only feedback you have here is your wallet.

_________________
In need of car.

I guess I'm just pissed that it's the same s**t the channels pull with TV... basically forcing the consumer to force the provider to pay the channel to show the programming.

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

Free Market System. The production has to get paid for somehow. It will be interesting to see how the TV industry goes from here. I don't ever watch a commercial, DVR everything. Will advertisers stop advertising? Then watching stuff will get more expensive. We'll be able to tell our grandkids we used to get all the stuff on tv for just 100 a month!

_________________
2002 MCS, 2003 MCS Track Rat, 2003 Generic White Yukon, 2003 BMWk1200rs, 1973 CB350F, 02 996. 08 Cayenne Turbo
http://www.clinehallagency.com

But that's just it Cline! This business plan ISN'T free market! If it was, I would have the choice to view/pay for ESPN3 or Speed2. Instead, my choice is determined by who my ISP is while at the same time being forced to choose between a provider (and ALL their other products which I may or may not want) just to have access to an individual site's content.

It's a cowardly thing to do by ESPN and Speed if you ask me. But again, I need to know what's in it for the ISP partnership... is it just a way for those ISPs to get new subscribers? They MUST be paying ESPN or Speed something... otherwise it would be the worst business plan ever for the websites.

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

Same here. When someone ask me what night/time something comes on I tell them I don't know because I DVR everything.

_________________
Vincent Keene
'06 Ford Mustang GT (track rat)
'15 Dodge Charger R/T (yeah, it's got a HEMI!)
'07 Ford Fusion SE (205,000 miles and counting)
'98 Chevy Z-24 (retired)
'93 Acura Integra (Team SWB 24HOL Car)

Admin Note: I split this off the TV thread as I didn't want this topic to die. I find it very interesting personally.

I am on Frontier DSL which is on the list, so apparently I am able to view ESPN3. Interestingly enough there is also a deal with Microsoft as you can also view ESPN3 via Xbox Live, but your ISP still have to be on the list.

I am a BIG Net Neutrality fan, but I don't know how to classify this problem. I think typical Net Neutrality issues are when the source vendor would like it to be available to anyone, but the ISP either throttles, blocks, or charges the supplier. It sounds like ESPN is doing this slightly different in that they are saying that this is premium content and that part of their revenue stream is to charge any ISP a fee. Much like ESPN would expect a TWC, DirecTV, Dish Network, etc. cable/sat provider to pay them to deliver their content.

I personally would prefer the revenue stream consist more of an ala-carte style, but I understand why they don't do that. It is for the same exact reason that cable/sat providers don't do ala-carte. If everything was ala-carte then each of us would pick the 4-5 channels that we cared about and only pay for those. The end result is that the cost per channel would probably go way up and my end of month bill would be about the same as now.

Providers are able to create bundles which appeal to a larger audience so people like us may pay for a bundle that carries SpeedTV, but we also get other channels. So I subsidize someone else's need to watch Hallmark channel and the Hallmark channel fans subsidize my need to watch SpeedTV channel.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

Thanks Richard!!

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

Richard, I think you're right on target... and you're right, as far as NN, it is certainly a gray area (for me at least).

So I guess maybe what's happening is that ESPN and Speed/Fox are trying to "upsell" the Cable/Satellite providers with an add-on to what they already pay for TV content?

Which I guess they have every right to do... but why not ALSO provide a subscription plan to customers directly using the same filter, only reversed (if your ISP is NOT on the list, then you can subscribe to ESPN3/Speed2 for $X.XX per month/year)?

_________________
Stacy King
Midlife Crisis Participant

This is no different that the NFL package and Directv. You have U-Verse or Cable? Then no NFL package for you.

While a lot of people see TV and Internet as a commodity, you quickly realize it's note when things like this start happening. - AB

_________________
'14 Toyota Sequoia Platinum 4WD
Super Westerfield Bros - '93 Integra - LeChump Du Jour
STX 93 - Scion FR-S