ESPN360 Dies an Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality
| 40
|
by DNL
ESPN has done something amazingly good -- it has shown that network neutrality is a good idea.
About a week ago, I was ready to pronounce that ESPN is officially evil. No, not because they force crud down my throat, like some random NASCAR race, or the WNBA, or Arena football (which I actually like), or Cold Pizza. Nor because most of their good content is behind the "INsider wall". Not because they banned me from their message boards for, well, not being a childish moron. And not because their idea of a blog -- Henry Abbott's excluded -- is a blogghoreaic spewing of links but only to major newspapers.
No, ESPN was due the "Officially Evil" because ESPN360 violated a fundamental principle of the World Wide Web -- network neutrality. Network neutrality basically means that websites should be accessable from any ISP. If I want to visit ArmchairGM, for example, I should be able to do so from Time Warner Cable (like I have at home), Verizon DSL (me at work), Cablevision, Cox Internet, Earthlink, AOL, NetZero, etc.
ESPN360 violated this tenet. And now, ESPN360 is dead. It will be reborn, and hopefully correctly. If not, ESPN is indeed either stupid or evil -- and potentially both. But let's give the "Worldwide Leader" the benefit of the doubt -- for now.
In doing so, let's take a tour of the tragic mistake ESPN made, by rewinding a week or so.
I surfed over to ESPN360's home page. It's a standard ESPN page but focused on video:
Yep -- an ad, ESPN tabs, etc. Looks like regular ESPN. I listen to about ten second of the Fantasy Focus, and then it cuts away. I hear something both unexpected and shocking:
- We're sorry, but you don't have access to ESPN360. Please contact your Internet Service Provider and ask them to partner with ESPN360
The video echos this ridiculousness, as shown by this screen shot:
What's that? I have to ask my ISP to get me access to a website?
Apparently, yes. Forget network neutrality. On the right, there's a place for "Out of Network ESPN360.com Users" to sign in, using Verizon or AT&T credentials, but I'm not sure that I have either. Under that, it says "Get ESPN360.com" and prompts me to enter my zip code to find a provider. At this point, I can't imagine it will find me one. There's only one provider in my area -- Time Warner Cable -- that I know of. In any event, it's not like I'm going to switch ISPs just to watch PTI.
But, nonetheless, I put in my zip code. ESPN pops up a window which says:
- ESPN360.com is available nationwide, but you must subscribe to a participating broadband internet service provider. Complete the fields below for more information on how to get ESPN360.com today.
Okay, no problem. I fill out the form and see this:
In short, ESPN has violated the principle of network neutrality, and asks me to be its advocate in "convincing" my ISP to "partner" with them -- a partnership which will cost my ISP money and lead to me paying more for internet access. ESPN outright refuses to let me pay for the service directly. As stated by the Wall Street Journal:
- An unusual business model similar to how many cable TV networks operate also has likely limited its growth. ESPN360 charges its Internet service a monthly fee instead of recruiting individual subscribers to pay a fee for its content. While it can claim AT&T Inc. and Verizon as customers, major cable companies like Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. have balked at the idea of paying for a single service that not all of their Web customers want. "That's not a model we're looking to take into the Internet space," says a Cox spokesman.
Why is this a big deal?
Mostly, because it sets a terrible precedent, and is unseemly to boot. Taking the latter first: It's unseemly because there's a big ad atop the ESPN360 page. The same ESPN360 whose sole function is to tell me that I can't use the service. Imagine if you came to ArmchairGM and, when you tried to click a link to read an article, you saw (a) an ad and (b) a big banner which said "Sorry, your ISP didn't pay us, so you can't read this article. Why don't you write a letter to your ISP to get them to pay us?"
You'd never come back, and rightfully so.
The precedent though, is worse. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "[a]n ESPN spokesman declined to reveal what companies pay to get ESPN360." For now, it's safe to assume that AT&T, Verizon, etc. are either partnering to provide other ESPN services, such as Verizon's VCast of ESPN video over mobile phones; or are simply writing ESPN a check. However, what happens when another, smaller internet content provider -- say, the Sporting News or even ArmchairGM -- does something that ESPN doesn't like? ESPN has a history of condoning attempts to silence its critics -- firing Gregg Easterbrook for making arguably offensive comments is fine, but deleting his archived stories is absurd; defaming Jason Whitlock for claiming ESPN mistreated him is simply unworthy of "the Worldwide Leader"; repeatedly taking blogger's content without citation; and not taking action against Colin Cowherd when he instigated a denial of service attack against The Big Lead are just some examples of ESPN's heavyhanded, no-holds-barred approach. What's to say that ESPN won't tell AT&T that if AT&T customers want ESPN services, AT&T needs to block other websites? Bad press is a non-issue when you are the press.
But that may not matter -- because it seems that ESPN may be getting it. Well, maybe. They announced yesterday that ESPN360 is going to be "relaunched", with a focus on live events. However, the Journal also reports that ESPN may continue on their path of violating principles of network neutrality.
If the do, ESPN360 will once again fail. Not because it's evil, though; because it's bad for business. The Journal summed it up nicely: "As a result [of their policy], ESPN360 reaches fewer than 16 million households. A total of 53.3 million homes had high-speed connections in the first quarter of 2007[.]"
ESPN is leaving a lot of money on the table in order to emphasize that it is the "Worldwide Leader." Every day, though, these egotistical maneuvers make that self-given moniker less and less true.
