More and more people are ditching cable and broadcast television in favor of watching their favorite shows via over-the-top video sites. Here are two online-only TV watchers' perspectives.
With more premium streaming video available than ever before, we had to wonder what it would be like to like to ditch the cable and satellite companies and rely only on the internet for TV shows. Once we started asking around, however, we found that many people had already done so.
For this story, we interviewed two people who've said "no" to traditional TV: Kimberly Maxwell, a 22-year-old medical student in Philadelphia, and Luis Villegas, a 39-year-old musician and guitar teacher living in Los Angeles. While their reasons, home environments, and even streaming methods couldn't be more different, they're both thrilled with their decision.
Kimberly
When she attended West Point, frequent TV-watching wasn't an option, so Kimberly Maxwell never became television-obsessed. While she could have easily gotten her own set now that she's a first-year med student at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, she chose not to.
"When I moved to Philadelphia I didn't have a TV already, and the first couple months I was here I found I was just really never home to watch it so I didn't get one. When school started, I really didn't have time for it."
Instead, Kimberly watches the few programs she enjoys on her 14.1-inch laptop screen, which suits her fine for solo viewing. She admits that it doesn't work well when company is over.
"The only weird thing about not having a television is entertaining people. You come over to someone's apartment and it's kind of a failsafe to just turn on the TV and they can watch TV and you can go about whatever you need to do. But I don't really have that option so there's a lot more going out, a lot less sitting around."
Hulu is Kimberly's site of choice, and she rarely strays from it when choosing shows. Her favorites include The Office and Life. Hulu is especially popular with soldiers on deployment, she says.
While she can't catch every popular show—she has a friend who often talks about ridiculous reality shows that Kimberly can't find online—that doesn't bother her. "I don't really feel like I'm missing out on much," she says with a laugh. She stresses that anyone relying on internet video needs to be flexible: there are many shows you just won't find.
Economics were a factor, but only a slight one, in her decision to go with streaming video. She doubts she would watch enough to justify the cost of cable. Mostly, however, she simply finds that online TV fits her life better. She can see the few programs she enjoys whenever she wants. While she's considered getting a Netflix account, enough of her friends have one that it satisfies her need for occasional movies. Several of her friends have also made the switch to solely streaming video, and she thinks that young people are more willing to give up regular TV.
"I've never lived in a city like this. There's so much culture and art here, why watch it on a screen when you can go out and see some pretty amazing things in person?"
Luis
As a husband and father of two, Luis had a tougher road in giving up traditional TV: He had to sell his family on the idea. His wife was easy to convince, since she was never an avid viewer, but the kids needed reassurance.
"If it was just me, I would have done it in a heartbeat, but it took me a little while to convince my kids," he says. "I had to convince them that we'd have to do it a different way, but that they could still watch most of the shows that they liked. They're seven- and nine-years-old, so they're young but old enough to grasp the concept that okay, this isn't cable anymore, this is the computer."
Economics played more of a role in Luis's decision. He's a professional musician, and when bookings slowed down during the current recession, he and his wife looked for expenses they could cut. The $60/month TV bill seemed a good place to start.
"In times like these, people are having fewer parties, so my workload isn't as heavy as normal. We're dependent on people wanting to hear live music," he says.
They had to move from DSL to broadband to have a connection fast enough for streaming, but they're still saving $35 per month overall. Plus, the faster connection makes it easier to do other things online.
With a Macintosh computer already connected to his living room's 50-inch HD plasma flat screen, Luis was a natural for Boxee. He's been using it since February and loves the selection and convenience.
"Somebody turned me on to Hulu and I thought, wow, this has almost everything I watch on regular television. Then somebody turned me on to Boxee, which aggregates content from different networks like CBS and CNN." He's also tried Plex, which is available for Macs.
While Luis is flexible, some shows, including 24, House, and Survivor, had to be online for him to make the switch, since he and his wife watch them together. The one thing he misses is full CNN shows.
"On Boxee, they do have a CNN channel which is more excerpts, I think—a little bit of this, a little bit of that," he says. "There are no full programs on there. That was one that we miss the most: we'd watch AC360 and The Larry King Show, mostly. I haven't watched those since we moved over to online."
While most of his family's shows come from Boxee, his kids stream their favorites from Cartoon Network's site. The added effort to watch streamed programs seem to keeps them from watching too much, he says. One of the side perks of the switch has been that his kids now watch less television and spend more time playing.
"They either will play with their toys at home or listen to music, so it kind of helped out," he says.
His family also enjoys a Netflix account with unlimited streaming, and since that works with Boxee they can easily download movies whenever they like. The Netflix interface is a winner, he says, as even his less tech-savvy wife can select a movie with ease.
The move to online programming has worked out so well for Luis, that he doesn't see himself returning to cable when his business improves.
"I don't really plan on going back. If we did, it wouldn't be for me; it would probably come from either my kids or my wife, but they seem fine, too. This might be detrimental to the cable companies."
As online options grow, we expect a lot more people to follow the path set by Kimberly and Luis, ditching regular TV and embracing online video.
Showing posts with label sports streaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports streaming. Show all posts
Monday, May 4, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Pirate Bay Trial: Episode III
Yesterday (day 3) the Pirate Bay trial was not as full of tension as it was on Tuesday but some things did clash again, of course. On one side there were prosecutors with rather weak attempts of finding the admins of the site guilty of how the users actually use The Pirate Bay for swapping illegal content and, on the other side, there was the legal team for the defendants stating that their clients cannot be hold responsible for what users choose to upload.
Again was invoked the rather stupid theory 1 download = 1 lost sale which we brought up in another post – “the music industry really believes that the music illegally shared equals the music that would otherwise be paid for?! It they do it means they are tremendously stupid, if not, it means they are just a bunch of hypocritical greedy bastards.”
The defence was prompt to respond: “We don’t know who the uploaders are. We don’t know how the uploaders came to possess the material, that is to say, the protected material. We don’t know how Fredrik Neij may have influenced the uploader.”
“And perhaps more importantly, how did he promote this, other than that he, via The Pirate Bay, provided a legal function and technology.”
“I submit that the torrent files one finds on The Pirate Bay can also be found by other search engines, like Google,” the defence added.
So far, the future looks bright for The Pirate Bay. Despite the existence of some other charges remaining and constituting the prosecution’s high hopes (read: we’ll settle even for this much), the development of things up to this moment point to one happy clear-name
Again was invoked the rather stupid theory 1 download = 1 lost sale which we brought up in another post – “the music industry really believes that the music illegally shared equals the music that would otherwise be paid for?! It they do it means they are tremendously stupid, if not, it means they are just a bunch of hypocritical greedy bastards.”
The defence was prompt to respond: “We don’t know who the uploaders are. We don’t know how the uploaders came to possess the material, that is to say, the protected material. We don’t know how Fredrik Neij may have influenced the uploader.”
“And perhaps more importantly, how did he promote this, other than that he, via The Pirate Bay, provided a legal function and technology.”
“I submit that the torrent files one finds on The Pirate Bay can also be found by other search engines, like Google,” the defence added.
So far, the future looks bright for The Pirate Bay. Despite the existence of some other charges remaining and constituting the prosecution’s high hopes (read: we’ll settle even for this much), the development of things up to this moment point to one happy clear-name
Saturday, January 10, 2009
TV technology is headliner at electronics show CES 2009
LAS VEGAS | Exhibitors at this year’s International Consumer Electronics Show, which officially began Thursday, appear determined to not let the recession slow down the stream of new gadgets and software.
But one of the big focuses of the show is a consumer device that predates the others — the television. TV makers are adding such features as streaming Internet movies and 3-D, betting they can keep consumers away from basic, no-frills sets.
The manufacturers are fighting an unhappy trend. DisplaySearch, a research firm, forecasts that global sales of LCD TVs, the most popular kind, will fall 16 percent in 2009 to $64 billion. That would be the first sales decline since the technology debuted in TVs in 2000.
To entice consumers, manufacturers are touting relatively inexpensive advances — including top-line and value-priced TVs that connect to the Internet.
Such TVs started appearing a year ago with limited functions, like being able to display news and weather reports. Now, back-end systems and for streaming movies are coming together.
For instance, LG Electronics Inc. and Vizio Corp. announced that some of their TVs will be able to show video from Netflix Inc.’s streaming service. LG said the service would add $200 to $300 to the price of a TV. Panasonic Corp. and Sony Corp. televisions will show videos from Amazon.com Inc.’s Unbox service.
Yahoo Inc. is emerging as the leading provider of other Internet data services, through its Widget Engine. Sony, LG, Toshiba Corp. and Samsung Electronics Co. all plan to introduce TVs that can grab Flickr photos, YouTube videos and news.
Two other new features cut across the top-tier models: improved handling of fast-moving scenes and reduced power use.
Last year, manufacturers touted sets that display 120 frames per second, for sharper and smoother action and panning scenes. TV signals and discs have only 24 to 30 frames per second, so the sets compute more frames to stick between the existing ones. This year, most manufacturers are raising the bar to 240 frames per second, but not by computing more new frames. Instead, the backlight will switch on and off quickly, fooling the eye into perceiving even smoother movement.
Manufacturers also have jumped on the opportunity to get their sets certified under the new, much tougher Energy Star requirements set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In November, the agency introduced limits for the power use of switched-on TVs. The old rules only specified the amount of power TVs use in standby mode, with the screen off.
The goal for the Energy Star program is to recognize the most energy-efficient products, those in the top 25 percent of a category. But most new TVs announced at the show will meet the requirements, so the EPA probably will have to raise the bar.
Sony introduced what it called its “first green line” of LCD TVs. The Eco Bravia models will use 40 percent less power than last year’s models, exceeding the latest Energy Star requirements. Samsung and Panasonic announced TVs with similar cuts in power consumption, without branding them as “green.”
Samsung, the world’s largest TV maker, is making a big push in LCD TVs that are backlit by light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, rather than fluorescent tubes. This is less radical than dispensing with LCDs to use a different technology known as organic LEDs, yet it promises power savings, eye-popping colors and contrast.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Beyond NUTV: Getting around your dorm’s limited programming
The countdown to the October 15th Project Runway finale is ticking. Fresh Battlestar Galactica episodes are slated for early 2009. Four of the best NFL games of each week get the 90-minute treatment on NFL Replay. The fall TV line-up includes new vampire series True Blood, the return of the lethal Dexter and British-imported sitcom The IT Crowd.
Any of the above sound good? Unfortunately, if you’re in a dorm and rely on the computer-based expanded NUTV service for programming, you’re going to need to find alternatives.
Though NUTV includes 37 channels, including Spike, FX and Nickelodeon, several student favorites are left out. Missing are some fairly basic cable networks— Bravo (Runway), Sci-Fi (Galactica), NFL Network (Replay) and Independent Film (IT Crowd)— as well as premium channels like HBO (True Blood) and Showtime (Dexter).
Junior Allie Kerr spent her first two years at Northwestern in Shepard, without access to Bravo, a favorite network. Her solution: day-after Project Runway parties with friends, watching the show as YouTube clips. “It was kind of pathetic, but we were addicted, so we did what we could,” she says. “It was rough because you’d have to avoid spoilers for that 24-hour span.”
Most networks, though, protect their financial interests and copyrights by pulling any full episodes from sites like YouTube— making it not just a matter of seeing a show immediately, but seeing it any time in the near future.
Freshman Jordan Blumenthal, who says he misses programming on Showtime and HBO, calls the lack of certain channels “an inconvenience.” For dorm residents to watch shows like Showtime’s Californication, “you have to resort to either waiting for it to come on DVD [or] illegal means of downloading it.”
Director of technology support services Wendy King cautions against the latter choice. “The university has policies in place against any infringement of copyright law,” King says. “I would caution that if someone wants to watch a show, they get it from a legal source.” That’s a warning to take seriously— last summer, over a dozen Northwestern students faced litigation from the RIAA for illegal downloading.
But dorm students need not despair. For the dedicated, Northwestern resourcefulness can carry the day. For instance, Kerr caught her hometown Washington Redskins games (rarely broadcast in Chicago) with Sirius online radio alongside online play-by-play charts. Other options for catching some of those more elusive shows:
Channel websites: Some networks host a few episodes of their shows online. The Sci-Fi channel website has a bunch. In the case of missed hometown NFL games, NFL.com offers fairly detailed highlight reels.
Pros: You’re getting it from the official sites, so it’s legal. You’ve got it right at home on your computer. And there are little to no commercials. (For instance—although NUTV does get Comedy Central—The Daily Show’s website features about two commercials per complete episode.)
Cons: Unfortunately, very few networks do this, and the ones that do are liable to show you just enough to get you hooked. Others might feature only minute-long clips.
Other websites: Hulu.com and Veoh.com are two of the most popular sites for streaming entire episodes of TV shows, and are certified legitimate.
Pros: Videos on-demand straight from the internet onto your computer, frequently just after they air. Many older shows and lesser-known channels. In the case of Hulu and Veoh, currently no legal issues.
Cons: A lot of clips, but rarely full episodes. Neither has anything from HBO, and Hulu only has complete episodes of a few Bravo shows. Currently, Veoh does have a video of the Dexter Season 3 pilot, as well as a few other Showtime shows (Weeds is one) but the site’s player has a bad reputation and the video collection is far from complete.
Slingbox: A invention of a California company called Sling Media, the Slingbox is a nifty gadget that transfers your home video signal over the Internet straight to your computer. Known as “place-shifting” (in comparison to TiVo’s “time-shifting”), Slingbox and comparative products are thought by many to be the next development in television convenience.
Pros: Any show you get at home, you get on your computer. Change channels from the comfort of your dorm room with an infrared signaler that latches onto your home cable box.
Cons: It’s not exactly easy to set up. You’d need to do part at home, part at your dorm, and the process might look tricky (or impossible) to a non-technophile. If you do get it working, the feed can occasionally look choppy.
Any of the above sound good? Unfortunately, if you’re in a dorm and rely on the computer-based expanded NUTV service for programming, you’re going to need to find alternatives.
Though NUTV includes 37 channels, including Spike, FX and Nickelodeon, several student favorites are left out. Missing are some fairly basic cable networks— Bravo (Runway), Sci-Fi (Galactica), NFL Network (Replay) and Independent Film (IT Crowd)— as well as premium channels like HBO (True Blood) and Showtime (Dexter).
Junior Allie Kerr spent her first two years at Northwestern in Shepard, without access to Bravo, a favorite network. Her solution: day-after Project Runway parties with friends, watching the show as YouTube clips. “It was kind of pathetic, but we were addicted, so we did what we could,” she says. “It was rough because you’d have to avoid spoilers for that 24-hour span.”
Most networks, though, protect their financial interests and copyrights by pulling any full episodes from sites like YouTube— making it not just a matter of seeing a show immediately, but seeing it any time in the near future.
Freshman Jordan Blumenthal, who says he misses programming on Showtime and HBO, calls the lack of certain channels “an inconvenience.” For dorm residents to watch shows like Showtime’s Californication, “you have to resort to either waiting for it to come on DVD [or] illegal means of downloading it.”
Director of technology support services Wendy King cautions against the latter choice. “The university has policies in place against any infringement of copyright law,” King says. “I would caution that if someone wants to watch a show, they get it from a legal source.” That’s a warning to take seriously— last summer, over a dozen Northwestern students faced litigation from the RIAA for illegal downloading.
But dorm students need not despair. For the dedicated, Northwestern resourcefulness can carry the day. For instance, Kerr caught her hometown Washington Redskins games (rarely broadcast in Chicago) with Sirius online radio alongside online play-by-play charts. Other options for catching some of those more elusive shows:
Channel websites: Some networks host a few episodes of their shows online. The Sci-Fi channel website has a bunch. In the case of missed hometown NFL games, NFL.com offers fairly detailed highlight reels.
Pros: You’re getting it from the official sites, so it’s legal. You’ve got it right at home on your computer. And there are little to no commercials. (For instance—although NUTV does get Comedy Central—The Daily Show’s website features about two commercials per complete episode.)
Cons: Unfortunately, very few networks do this, and the ones that do are liable to show you just enough to get you hooked. Others might feature only minute-long clips.
Other websites: Hulu.com and Veoh.com are two of the most popular sites for streaming entire episodes of TV shows, and are certified legitimate.
Pros: Videos on-demand straight from the internet onto your computer, frequently just after they air. Many older shows and lesser-known channels. In the case of Hulu and Veoh, currently no legal issues.
Cons: A lot of clips, but rarely full episodes. Neither has anything from HBO, and Hulu only has complete episodes of a few Bravo shows. Currently, Veoh does have a video of the Dexter Season 3 pilot, as well as a few other Showtime shows (Weeds is one) but the site’s player has a bad reputation and the video collection is far from complete.
Slingbox: A invention of a California company called Sling Media, the Slingbox is a nifty gadget that transfers your home video signal over the Internet straight to your computer. Known as “place-shifting” (in comparison to TiVo’s “time-shifting”), Slingbox and comparative products are thought by many to be the next development in television convenience.
Pros: Any show you get at home, you get on your computer. Change channels from the comfort of your dorm room with an infrared signaler that latches onto your home cable box.
Cons: It’s not exactly easy to set up. You’d need to do part at home, part at your dorm, and the process might look tricky (or impossible) to a non-technophile. If you do get it working, the feed can occasionally look choppy.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
ESPN's ISP discrimination shakes Net neutrality hornet's nest
ESPN360.com bills itself as the premier destination for streaming access to live sports events.
If the sport or team you love isn't important enough to be shown on cable TV, no fear, ESPN will stream it to you online for free. Well, that is if you a subscriber to the right Internet service provider.
ESPN's warm welcome to customers of ISPs that have signed deals.
Customers of AT&T DSL and Verizon's Fios services, along with approximately 20 more ISPs, can have free, 24-hour per day access to ESPN's exclusive sports content. Customers of Comcast, Cox, and hundreds of other ISPs, both big and small, are left out in the cold--forbidden to access content that ESPN has, via exclusive contracts, guaranteed that you cannot obtain via any other means in the U.S.
Love Italian soccer and get your Internet access through Comcast? Too bad.
After telling out-of-luck users that their ISPs haven't coughed up funds for their customers to access ESPN360, the sports network informs them that AT&T customers do have access, and helpfully provides them with a toll-free number that they can call to make the switch to that ISP. How nice of ESPN.
(Credit: ESPN360.com)
There are many reasons why an ISP would decide against paying ESPN for its premium Web content. A spokesperson for Cox Communications told a journalist back in 2006 that signing on to carry ESPN360 would require Cox to burden all of its customers with additional costs--even those who don't want the service.
Many customers in the United States still have no real choice for their ISP. For example, if you live out in rural Montana and the one cash-starved regional ISP that offers broadband Internet access hasn't agreed to ESPN's shakedown effort, you have no options.
Not surprisingly, this discriminatory policy concerns Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press, the group leading the fight against Comcast's anti-BitTorrent filtering and other foes of Net neutrality. When asked for his view, he issued the following statement:
ESPN360 raises the unsettling prospect that each ISP will someday have its own distinctive "Internet experience" that includes all kinds of exclusive content in parallel walled-gardens. That is a troubling vision for anyone that values an open media system shared by all Internet users alike.
Most interesting, I suppose, is ESPN's policy of discriminating against particular ISPs, while at the same time giving free access to any user visiting the site from a U.S. military or university Internet connection; that is, users coming in via a .edu or .mil IP address get to view the sports content without any money changing hands between ESPN and Uncle Sam.
While the decision to support the troops (via free access to European soccer) is a noble one, the decision to give college students a free ride is extremely interesting. After all, the major media companies have shown no real restraint in trying to shake down university users--at times, taking thousands of them to court for their attempts to download content for free.
The cynical among us might perhaps see this as a Joe Camel-esque tactic--offer free access when they're young, hope that they develop a habit, and once they graduate or leave the military, they'll look for an ISP that has cut a deal with ESPN.
ESPN spokesman Paul Melvin dismissed my cynicism, explaining the decision to offer free service to these millions of Americans:
These groups are not commercially served by an ISP, and they are not likely to be commercially served in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given this, there is no reasonable chance that we could strike a deal with a retail ISP, nor that the market will continue to grow and offer them greater choice. As a result we adjusted to these specific circumstances.
To try to understand how government regulators would see this issue, I turned to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the most powerful members of Congress in issues related to telecommunications and Net neutrality.
[This issue has] nothing to do with network neutrality debates, which focus on the practices of the broadband providers. What is in question, is the practice of a content provider, a website owner, in terms of how it chooses to make its content available ... I don't see it as a matter for policy makers to get involved in. I see it as a matter for private contracts, to be determined by content providers.
The congressman is correct in that this is not a traditional Net neutrality conversation per se, since that term usually applies to discrimination by the company owning the "last mile"--the connection to a user's home. Perhaps a new term will need to be invented by the "Save the Internet" crowd, so as not to further dilute the "Net neutrality" phrase. However, what does concern me is the rather shameless attempt by ESPN to shake down big ISPs, while at the same time giving away its content to millions of college students for free.
Boucher added that:
If ESPN had market power, I would agree that there would be anti-trust issues. Companies that have market power have different market obligations. [However], this is one web site that is putting up sports content, competing with others. Even though ESPN is popular, I don't think [anti trust] applies. It might in TV broadcast, but certainly not on the Internet.
While I respect the congressman (and am a huge fan of his work in fighting against the dreaded Digital Millennium Copyright Act), I think he is on the wrong side of this issue. Due to the exclusive contracts that ESPN has negotiated with various sports associations, the company does have market power. If you love European soccer or another sport that can't draw enough viewers to justify TV coverage, there is simply no other (legal) way to view live sports events in the U.S. ESPN is the only game in town.
Libertarians out there will, like the congressman, argue that ESPN is a private company and has a right to decide which customers can access its content. If ESPN offered a generic service (like e-mail, horoscopes, or photo sharing), that would certainly be true. However, because ESPN has exclusive contracts for U.S. distribution of many types of sports content, I don't think these same rules apply. ESPN shouldn't be able to get exclusive access to this content, and then deny it to millions of Americans.
Yes, the content is expensive--which is why ESPN could allow the customers of non-kickback-paying ISPs to pull out their credit cards, and sign up for an individual account in order to view these games. Unfortunately, this is not something ESPN is interested in. Explaining this lack of an individual subscriber option, ESPN's Paul Melvin simply stated that "it is not the business model that we've chosen."
If the sport or team you love isn't important enough to be shown on cable TV, no fear, ESPN will stream it to you online for free. Well, that is if you a subscriber to the right Internet service provider.
ESPN's warm welcome to customers of ISPs that have signed deals.
Customers of AT&T DSL and Verizon's Fios services, along with approximately 20 more ISPs, can have free, 24-hour per day access to ESPN's exclusive sports content. Customers of Comcast, Cox, and hundreds of other ISPs, both big and small, are left out in the cold--forbidden to access content that ESPN has, via exclusive contracts, guaranteed that you cannot obtain via any other means in the U.S.
Love Italian soccer and get your Internet access through Comcast? Too bad.
After telling out-of-luck users that their ISPs haven't coughed up funds for their customers to access ESPN360, the sports network informs them that AT&T customers do have access, and helpfully provides them with a toll-free number that they can call to make the switch to that ISP. How nice of ESPN.
(Credit: ESPN360.com)
There are many reasons why an ISP would decide against paying ESPN for its premium Web content. A spokesperson for Cox Communications told a journalist back in 2006 that signing on to carry ESPN360 would require Cox to burden all of its customers with additional costs--even those who don't want the service.
Many customers in the United States still have no real choice for their ISP. For example, if you live out in rural Montana and the one cash-starved regional ISP that offers broadband Internet access hasn't agreed to ESPN's shakedown effort, you have no options.
Not surprisingly, this discriminatory policy concerns Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press, the group leading the fight against Comcast's anti-BitTorrent filtering and other foes of Net neutrality. When asked for his view, he issued the following statement:
ESPN360 raises the unsettling prospect that each ISP will someday have its own distinctive "Internet experience" that includes all kinds of exclusive content in parallel walled-gardens. That is a troubling vision for anyone that values an open media system shared by all Internet users alike.
Most interesting, I suppose, is ESPN's policy of discriminating against particular ISPs, while at the same time giving free access to any user visiting the site from a U.S. military or university Internet connection; that is, users coming in via a .edu or .mil IP address get to view the sports content without any money changing hands between ESPN and Uncle Sam.
While the decision to support the troops (via free access to European soccer) is a noble one, the decision to give college students a free ride is extremely interesting. After all, the major media companies have shown no real restraint in trying to shake down university users--at times, taking thousands of them to court for their attempts to download content for free.
The cynical among us might perhaps see this as a Joe Camel-esque tactic--offer free access when they're young, hope that they develop a habit, and once they graduate or leave the military, they'll look for an ISP that has cut a deal with ESPN.
ESPN spokesman Paul Melvin dismissed my cynicism, explaining the decision to offer free service to these millions of Americans:
These groups are not commercially served by an ISP, and they are not likely to be commercially served in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given this, there is no reasonable chance that we could strike a deal with a retail ISP, nor that the market will continue to grow and offer them greater choice. As a result we adjusted to these specific circumstances.
To try to understand how government regulators would see this issue, I turned to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), one of the most powerful members of Congress in issues related to telecommunications and Net neutrality.
[This issue has] nothing to do with network neutrality debates, which focus on the practices of the broadband providers. What is in question, is the practice of a content provider, a website owner, in terms of how it chooses to make its content available ... I don't see it as a matter for policy makers to get involved in. I see it as a matter for private contracts, to be determined by content providers.
The congressman is correct in that this is not a traditional Net neutrality conversation per se, since that term usually applies to discrimination by the company owning the "last mile"--the connection to a user's home. Perhaps a new term will need to be invented by the "Save the Internet" crowd, so as not to further dilute the "Net neutrality" phrase. However, what does concern me is the rather shameless attempt by ESPN to shake down big ISPs, while at the same time giving away its content to millions of college students for free.
Boucher added that:
If ESPN had market power, I would agree that there would be anti-trust issues. Companies that have market power have different market obligations. [However], this is one web site that is putting up sports content, competing with others. Even though ESPN is popular, I don't think [anti trust] applies. It might in TV broadcast, but certainly not on the Internet.
While I respect the congressman (and am a huge fan of his work in fighting against the dreaded Digital Millennium Copyright Act), I think he is on the wrong side of this issue. Due to the exclusive contracts that ESPN has negotiated with various sports associations, the company does have market power. If you love European soccer or another sport that can't draw enough viewers to justify TV coverage, there is simply no other (legal) way to view live sports events in the U.S. ESPN is the only game in town.
Libertarians out there will, like the congressman, argue that ESPN is a private company and has a right to decide which customers can access its content. If ESPN offered a generic service (like e-mail, horoscopes, or photo sharing), that would certainly be true. However, because ESPN has exclusive contracts for U.S. distribution of many types of sports content, I don't think these same rules apply. ESPN shouldn't be able to get exclusive access to this content, and then deny it to millions of Americans.
Yes, the content is expensive--which is why ESPN could allow the customers of non-kickback-paying ISPs to pull out their credit cards, and sign up for an individual account in order to view these games. Unfortunately, this is not something ESPN is interested in. Explaining this lack of an individual subscriber option, ESPN's Paul Melvin simply stated that "it is not the business model that we've chosen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)