Television services and online video discussion.
82 posts Page 1 of 9
by Jonathan Lovelady » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:51 pm
Dane, hope all is well! If this isn't the right place to post this I apologize. I hope this finds you or someone that cares... ESPN3 is the wave of the future! There are many ISP that allow ESPN3 . Now I understand business and I am sure there are good reasons can't or doesn't want to give access to espn3. I have a good relationship with and my connect is good the two things I care about most when it comes to picking my isp. Now I would really like to watch soccer games and football games that ONLY ESPN3 offers.

Jonathan Lovelady
by dane » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:04 pm
I'm generally against the idea of charging all customers for access to an over-the-top Internet service such as ESPN3, which only some may want. It's not cheap, and would drive up the cost of all of our services for all of our customers.

You can read my article on this at:

I do really believe in the model that MLB.TV and MLS (soccer) have engaged. It's a model where viewers who want the sport content pay for that specific content, À la carte. See for example and for more info.

Dane Jasper
by parkerday » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:50 pm
Thank you Dane for not giving in to ESPN3. While it would probably be a welcome addition to the household due to the content, I don't like the idea of my Internet bill subsidizing channels I don't care about. This is a business model that has plagued pay TV for too long (with no end in sight) and I'd hate to see it happen to the Internet as well.
by JamesN » Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:05 pm
As much as I would like the ESPN3 content I completely agree with your stance on this. ESPN being successful in this is the start of a slippery slope.
by ginof » Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:29 am
If I understand your post correctly, ESPN3 would force sonic to charge EVERYONE who subscribes to sonic for their content regardless if its watched. However, they do not bundle the channel with others, unlike many other content providers?

Kudos to them for not bundling the content, but their model has just laid an egg. I would be willing to pay extra for their content, but any sane person realizes that not everyone would. (Perhaps that's why Comcast, et al are so expensive!). Please keep them off of Sonic if that's the way they want it!
by dane » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:19 pm
Yes, they'd make all customers pay some amount per month, rather than just those who want the content. I think this isn't sustainable, as what happens to your Internet bill once ten websites do this? How do you select an ISP, when some buy some content for you and others do not?

It's not bundled with other "channels" because it's a web service, not a linear TV channel.

Dane Jasper
by mmmsaav » Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:19 am
Interesting discussion. We don't subscribe to television services and only watch OTA (over the air) broadcasts. Rarely do we watch content via the internet. The one thing that we would like to have access to is football (i.e. soccer) matches from Europe & Africa and international competitions. (Spanish language TV provides access to some matches OTA, including the World Cup, Mexican league and Latin American international competitions.) Are there alternatives to ESPN3? I'd be willing to pay something reasonable for access (though nothing near regular TV subscription fees). I have found some sites offering matches (; but I'm not sure they are legitimate. Any pointers?
by thulsa_doom » Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:27 pm
mmmsaav wrote:
I'd be willing to pay something reasonable for access (though nothing near regular TV subscription fees). I have found some sites offering matches (; but I'm not sure they are legitimate. Any pointers?

Generally speaking any professional sports event is going to be licensed out to only one broadcaster in a given market, and only one Internet streaming service. Exclusivity is something that is specifically negotiated by broadcasters and sports franchises when the licensing is arranged. Sites like myp2p or atdhe are facilitating rebroadcasts that are almost always in the gray area at best.

A quick look at the DMCA Notice for indicates that they are basically acting as a clearing-house for other folks' streaming content. Because they're just showing links that are posted by members, not streaming the content themselves, they feel their obligations regarding IP protection are limited to honoring specific take-down requests. It's not like they'd have any reason to believe their users were maybe streaming unlicensed soccer matches, right?
John Fitzgerald
Sonic Technical Support
by harryjjj » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:46 pm
Just got hooked up to Great phone and Internet service. I have no cable tv. Therefore I REALLY appreciate ESPN3, being a sports fan, which I will not have now that I've given up AT&T.

Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl, with Stanford, and national championship -- all on ESPN3. ARRRGGG!!!

Worth an extra five bucks a month to me.

San Francisco
by wa2ibm » Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:36 am
harryjjj wrote:
Worth an extra five bucks a month to me.

That's fine, but it's not worth five bucks to me for you to be able to watch it. I don't care about watching ESPN3. Their model is that if any customer of an ISP wants their product, then every customer pays for it, whether they want it or not. That might fly for one product, but then there'll be another, then another and another.

This model is precisely why everyone's cable TV bills are so high. With cable, you're paying for content that you don't care about, whether you want it or not. The only saving grace with cable is that at least they've broken this up into "packages". Even this is annoying, since you end up paying for the entire "package" even if you only want one or two of the "channels" within that package.

No thanks.
82 posts Page 1 of 9

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest