Insight into ESPN's thought process

[zls44]

US Open tennis moving to cable-only starting in two years. I await upstater crying out about what a disservice it is to take the final off free TV.

 

[huskymedic]

Love how stuck in the muck most sports fans are in their thinking, living way back in the ancient past of 2011 or something. Most of the young who will be driving the media access of the future don't give two farts about TV options and are moving to internet choices at a rapidly expanding rate. So if cable does start charging the proverbial $150 for a station, the rush to abandon cable will just escalate. As the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid," and if cable does institute a la carte pricing that is still more onerous, customers will start streaming for the exit in even larger numbers due to the non-economics of an antiquated restrictive system. Sure, ESPN will still figure out ways to pull decent revenue off the internet, but there is far less control and much more of a "give it to me free" attitude on the net. And there's so much free sports on the web that young sports fans can learn to change their viewing habits without much trouble. Yeah, old timers who are flush enough to not care about the money will probably still be wrapped around cable for many years down the road when much of America's youth has moved on.

ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473400083982568.html

"ESPN, the cable sports channel majority-owned by Walt Disney Co., has had discussions with at least one major U.S. carrier to subsidize wireless connectivity on behalf of its users, according to people familiar with the matter. Under one potential scenario, the company would pay a carrier to guarantee that people viewing ESPN mobile content wouldn't have that usage counted toward their monthly data caps."

 

[minidarren]

ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473400083982568.html

"ESPN, the cable sports channel majority-owned by Walt Disney Co., has had discussions with at least one major U.S. carrier to subsidize wireless connectivity on behalf of its users, according to people familiar with the matter. Under one potential scenario, the company would pay a carrier to guarantee that people viewing ESPN mobile content wouldn't have that usage counted toward their monthly data caps."

Thats pretty cool and tells you the kind of money those dudes have...

 

[J187Money]

ESPN3 is typically provided with any higher tier internet package. I think all the providers offer it now.

I can watch ESPN3 in the house because I have AT&T Uverse internet. But I can't watch it outside of the house because I don't have AT&T Uverse TV (I have DirecTV).

 

[J187Money]

Thats pretty cool and tells you the kind of money those dudes have...

Because of our tax breaks of course

 

[J187Money]

It's an extreme hypothetical of course. I was pointing out, though, that there is no restriction on slingbox being sent to ONE person who does not live in that household (in my case, I have slingbox hooked to my octogenarian parents TV, but my bro and I pay all bills. I use it to watch the Patriots these days). There is no restriction there (not because I pay for half, there wouldn't be one even if I didn't).

If that person operating the slingbox doesn't have "rights" to that access, someone could cry foul. They just won't.

Slingbox only cares that you follow its own T&Cs. The cable company could cry foul, but would they ever find out? No.

Real life example: my brother in Cleveland had DVR'd something that I couldn't find elsewhere and wasn't being replayed. He gave me the login to his DVR so I could watch it on my phone. Technically someone loses in that transaction because I got something for free that I wasn't entitled to. I don't feel bad because a) I paid for that programming and just missed it and b) I did try to find it on iTunes but they weren't selling it and c) neither Hulu or any of the other services online had it.

(btw this is what frustrates me - when I am forced to "steal" content because I can't actually buy it anywhere)

 

[upstater]

Your continued attempts at rationalizing this is what's bizarre. You're stealing, and getting away with it. Smile.

Your ESPN3 scenario is perfectly plausible. Not every cable op has put in a provision for internet-only customers. Some have.

So ignore what I wrote and just say I'm stealing. uh-huh. A couple of you have said that, others have disagreed. But you haven't addressed the questions to see what exactly makes it stealing. So, basically, you have nothing to add.

 

[J187Money]

I'm pretty sure sports fans need more than ESPN and ESPN2.

Last I checked Fox, RSNs, NBCS, ESPNU, TNT, TBS, CBS, BTN, SECN, PAC12Net, MLB, NFL, NHL plus others are all on cable.

True. I went to DirecTV for the because I wanted ESPNU and NESN (which Cablevision didn't offer at the time).

 

[upstater]

Call it whatever you would like to call it, but cable providers do not provide basic TV to internet only subscribers. Its unethical for the technician to be advising you that you can just hook up to this line to get free TV. Because, quite frankly, there is nothing different about that line than the one that feeds to your cable modem. Throw a two way splitter behind your modem and put in a TV, voila!

Cable providers have to pay broadcast stations for the content that they distribute. In what wacky business world would it make sense for them to give a product away for no charge while the broadcasters are trying to up their rates by >100% each contract negotiation. Yes, the same broadcasters that send their signals out over the air CHARGE cable operators to carry their signals.

Short of climbing a telephone pole and hooking yourself up, I dont think your situation Upstater, means that you are a cable thief. The responsibility of providing the cusotmers with the correct service rests with the cable provider. Are there questionable ethics? Sure. Im not patting myself on the back or anything, but I once went through a drive thru at Wendy's. Handed the guy a 20.00 bill for my 9. meal. The guy hands me back a 100.00 bill and some change. I drove off to the parking lot where I normally went to eat my dinner on 3rd shift. I felt wrong by keeping that $100.00 bill so I went back through the drive thru and gave it back to the guy. He was greatful as it probably would have cost him his job for his drawer being off my $100.00.

I have no idea what TW does for their internet only customers. By you saying they only use contractors tells me a lot of what is going on up there. Maybe Warren Buffets investment has made it so that TW could give a damn less about a few hundred thosand dollars per year. Does TW each that dollar per subscriber as negotiated in the article below? Or do they pass the buck onto the customer? Keep in mind, this is signal that is sent over the airwaves and can be picked up with an antenna.

http://www.today.com/id/34632823/ns/today-entertainment/t/fox-time-warner-reach-programming-deal/

all great points. I've considered it. But the $100 Wendy's gave you is not the same thing. Why? You got value over and above what you paid. You also got a sandwich. I don't even need the thing I got, hardly ever use it (SNY) and could watch SNY otherwise (on sling). The basic cable picture isn't even that good because it's analog (it's blurry on my HDTV). So, when it's a matter of getting something (or even getting cash) for nothing that's one thing. But this is something else. This is the company systematically servicing all its customers in this fashion.

 

[upstater]

ESPN3 is typically provided with any higher tier internet package. I think all the providers offer it now.

I see. I didn't realize that. So, ESPN is already sidestepping the cable TV people?

 

[upstater]

US Open tennis moving to cable-only starting in two years. I await upstater crying out about what a disservice it is to take the final off free TV.

Tennis? No thanks. I always laugh at the tennis and golf fans who call soccer a wimp sport. My god, the irony.

Do I think the state subsidized teams that play in the NCAA tourney should be over-the-air (they get good ratings, so commerce is not in play here). Yes!

 

[upstater]

The cable company could cry foul, but would they ever find out? No.

This is what I'm wondering. Could they cry foul? After all, they only got slingmedia to agree to one user at a time. Presumably, they could have gone after them to insist that the paying cable subscriber is also the slingmedia account holder, the same way ESPN3 used to be linked with the cable subscriber. So, I guess I wonder why the cable companies were unable to force that.

 

[J187Money]

This is what I'm wondering. Could they cry foul? After all, they only got slingmedia to agree to one user at a time. Presumably, they could have gone after them to insist that the paying cable subscriber is also the slingmedia account holder, the same way ESPN3 used to be linked with the cable subscriber. So, I guess I wonder why the cable companies were unable to force that.

Because at the end of the day you can't prove "who" logged in. I am certain that if you called up TWC legal and asked them (legal, not a customer service person) they would confirm that only someone in the household that is benefiting from the cable subscription should be able to use the Slingbox. But at some point you get into "fair use" arguments, much in the way that the RIAA and the record industry never really went after people making bootleg tapes, but when they were able to digitally "prove" who was "stealing" music they went after them.

 

[upstater]

Because at the end of the day you can't prove "who" logged in. I am certain that if you called up TWC legal and asked them (legal, not a customer service person) they would confirm that only someone in the household that is benefiting from the cable subscription should be able to use the Slingbox. But at some point you get into "fair use" arguments, much in the way that the RIAA and the record industry never really went after people making bootleg tapes, but when they were able to digitally "prove" who was "stealing" music they went after them.

This makes sense. one change, someone in the household (or, the person paying the bill).

 

[J187Money]

This makes sense. one change, someone in the household (or, the person paying the bill).

That last part is interesting. If I pay the bill for my mother, but don't live with her, should I have access? I would feel entitled, but legally? Hmmm...

 

[UPitt]

So ignore what I wrote and just say I'm stealing. uh-huh. A couple of you have said that, others have disagreed. But you haven't addressed the questions to see what exactly makes it stealing. So, basically, you have nothing to add.

YOUR STEALING!!!

I already addressed exactly what makes this stealing, but I will try again:

Passive theft occurs when a user receives cable service without the knowledge of the cable company. This is most common when an individual moves into an apartment with existing service and uses the cable without subscribing or notifying the cable provider of the error.

You have insisted that you only pay for internet and do not pay for cable.
You have stated that the cable company has not disabled your cable TV.
You have stated that you watch SNY, TBS, and TNT for free by hooking your TV up to the cable line.
You are committing passive theft of cable by using the cable without subscribing or notifying the provider of the error.

If you still do not understand, then please call your cable provider and thank them for the free cable. I am sure they will help explain why this is considered stealing cable. Maybe you will be lucky enough to receive a hefty bill in the mail or maybe even a court date.

What bothers me the most is that you are so proud that you are stealing cable. I would be embarrassed if I was you. You do know that subscribers earn cash rewards for turning in people who steal cable.

 

[ddminct]

YOUR STEALING!!!

I already addressed exactly what makes this stealing, but I will try again:

Passive theft occurs when a user receives cable service without the knowledge of the cable company. This is most common when an individual moves into an apartment with existing service and uses the cable without subscribing or notifying the cable provider of the error.

You have insisted that you only pay for internet and do not pay for cable.
You have stated that the cable company has not disabled your cable TV.
You have stated that you watch SNY, TBS, and TNT for free by hooking your TV up to the cable line.
You are committing passive theft of cable by using the cable without subscribing or notifying the provider of the error.

If you still do not understand, then please call your cable provider and thank them for the free cable. I am sure they will help explain why this is considered stealing cable. Maybe you will be lucky enough to receive a hefty bill in the mail or maybe even a court date.

What bothers me the most is that you are so proud that you are stealing cable. I would be embarrassed if I was you. You do know that subscribers earn cash rewards for turning in people who steal cable.

I think you've made your point now why don't you f off

 

[upstater]

YOUR STEALING!!!

I already addressed exactly what makes this stealing, but I will try again:

Passive theft occurs when a user receives cable service without the knowledge of the cable company. This is most common when an individual moves into an apartment with existing service and uses the cable without subscribing or notifying the cable provider of the error.

You have insisted that you only pay for internet and do not pay for cable.
You have stated that the cable company has not disabled your cable TV.
You have stated that you watch SNY, TBS, and TNT for free by hooking your TV up to the cable line.
You are committing passive theft of cable by using the cable without subscribing or notifying the provider of the error.

If you still do not understand, then please call your cable provider and thank them for the free cable. I am sure they will help explain why this is considered stealing cable. Maybe you will be lucky enough to receive a hefty bill in the mail or maybe even a court date.

What bothers me the most is that you are so proud that you are stealing cable. I would be embarrassed if I was you. You do know that subscribers earn cash rewards for turning in people who steal cable.

Again you haven't read the posts. Why do you keep posting without reading?

You highlighted something that does not apply. I didn't have any service or ANY signal when I moved into my home.

Stop being a stupid idiot.

The cable company does this systematically. They know. Everyone with internet-only has the same exact service in this area. The cable company does not want to spend the money to send a subcontractor out. That's it. Whether I want it or not, it's coming into my house. And no, I don't watch TNT or TBS for free. It is being pumped into my house. I don't watch it for free because I don't watch it. As for SNY, I do watch that on basic, but before this I watched it on Slingbox. 6 or a half-dozen.

Now, answer the questions I asked: is it stealing if someone is having the service pumped into their home, without paying for it, and without their knowledge? Is that stealing?

What the heck is the matter with people repeating the same thing over and over without reading posts, and making the same mistakes over and over again?

 

[minidarren]

Honestly I disagree. Lets assume Upstater called the cable provider, ordered the "Turbo" tier of internet service, and had it installed. The technician comes out to Upstaters lavish home and installs his internet without installing the proper pieces to ensure that Upstater is receiving what he ordered. The burden lies on the cable company. Is he supposed to hound them until they come out to his house and disconnect his service?

Ethically, is he incorrect, sure. But I think it is far fetched to say that he is stealing cable.

The Wendy's thing absolutely compares. I got value over and above what I paid for, as are you. You are paying for internet, but receiving internet and basic TV. Whether you use it or not doesnt matter, you are still getting it. I am not in the bunch that believes you are stealing. I think that cable operators have a responsibility to ensure that their customers are getting the services that they should be getting. If they dont do this, then its on them. Additionally, the only way someone gets cable unknowingly or passively as it has been described is by a) moving into a residence where someone onced lived, moved out, and didnt disconnect their service b) moving into a residence whre someone onced lived, moved out, called to cancel their service, and the cable co drags their feet getting out there to disco c) you go out of your way to find a way to connect to a line which is cable theft.

 

[upstater]

Honestly I disagree. Lets assume Upstater called the cable provider, ordered the "Turbo" tier of internet service, and had it installed. The technician comes out to Upstaters lavish home and installs his internet without installing the proper pieces to ensure that Upstater is receiving what he ordered. The burden lies on the cable company. Is he supposed to hound them until they come out to his house and disconnect his service?

Ethically, is he incorrect, sure. But I think it is far fetched to say that he is stealing cable.

The Wendy's thing absolutely compares. I got value over and above what I paid for, as are you. You are paying for internet, but receiving internet and basic TV. Whether you use it or not doesnt matter, you are still getting it. I am not in the bunch that believes you are stealing. I think that cable operators have a responsibility to ensure that their customers are getting the services that they should be getting. If they dont do this, then its on them. Additionally, the only way someone gets cable unknowingly or passively as it has been described is by a) moving into a residence where someone onced lived, moved out, and didnt disconnect their service b) moving into a residence whre someone onced lived, moved out, called to cancel their service, and the cable co drags their feet getting out there to disco c) you go out of your way to find a way to connect to a line which is cable theft.

I understand the ethical part. SNY is the thing in question for me, the only thing I turn it on for (for obvious reasons). I would otherwise watch SNY on Slingplayer. I would not pay $25 a month for SNY (though honestly, it is probably worth it for me from December through February). But since I can get it on Slingplayer, I wouldn't pay to have it. My cable service in Conn. (through ATT Uverse) is actually in my name, even if I don't reside there. But that's no different than what my life used to be like when I commuted between Ann Arbor, MI and Rochester, NY. Only had cable in MI, and "slung" what I wanted in Rochester.

 

[UPitt]

Again you haven't read the posts. Why do you keep posting without reading?

You highlighted something that does not apply. I didn't have any service or ANY signal when I moved into my home.

Stop being a stupid idiot.

The cable company does this systematically. They know. Everyone with internet-only has the same exact service in this area. The cable company does not want to spend the money to send a subcontractor out. That's it. Whether I want it or not, it's coming into my house. And no, I don't watch TNT or TBS for free. It is being pumped into my house. I don't watch it for free because I don't watch it. As for SNY, I do watch that on basic, but before this I watched it on Slingbox. 6 or a half-dozen.

Did you pay cable service when you used slingbox, or did you hook up the slingbox to a friends TV service?
If you paid for service, that would not be stealing.
If you hooked up to a friends TV service, that would be theft.

Now, answer the questions I asked: is it stealing if someone is having the service pumped into their home, without paying for it, and without their knowledge? Is that stealing?

No, this would not be stealing. Even if you have knowledge of the cable being pumped into your house, it is not stealing. Stealing cable takes place when you turn on your TV and watch the media product you are not paying for. At that point you are aware that you are watching media that you did not pay for.

I agree with some people that the cable company has a responsibility to ensure that you are provided with what you paid for and nothing more. And it would be nearly impossible for the cable company to do anything to the customer because it was the cable companies fault. But, watching media via the cable line, slingbox, or streaming on the internet that you did not pay for is technically stealing.

What the heck is the matter with people repeating the same thing over and over without reading posts, and making the same mistakes over and over again?

 

[CL82]

For what it is worth I don't think Upstater is stealing. The cable company has decided that it is cost efficient for them to run cable tv through the same pipeline. I think many, many people "steal" signals (can't really say broadcast right?), but his is not one of these cases. If they wanted to, the cable company could interrogate the system to see what is hooked up, a modern equivalent of the phone company checking for impedance. Verizon does this. That fact that they are not tells me that they don't view this as an issue. IMO you shouldn't either.

I won't feed the troll anymore, but it rankled me that you are calling the Upstater a thief. A unabashed PSU booster? Sure, but a thief, not so much.

I still think this guy is a ZLS alter-ego.

 

[upstater]

A unabashed PSU booster?

Why you... I oughta...

 

[minidarren]

For what it is worth I don't think Upstater is stealing. The cable company has decided that it is cost efficient for them to run cable tv through the same pipeline. I think many, many people "steal" signals (can't really say broadcast right?), but his is not one of these cases. If they wanted to, the cable company could interrogate the system to see what is hooked up, a modern equivalent of the phone company checking for impedance. Verizon does this. That fact that they are not tells me that they don't view this as an issue. IMO you shouldn't either.

I won't feed the troll anymore, but it rankled me that you are calling the Upstater a thief. A unabashed PSU booster? Sure, but a thief, not so much.

I still think this guy is a ZLS alter-ego.

Cost effective to run CATV through the same pipeline? How about the fact that cable companies use two mediums. They don't have another choice. Fiber to the node and coax to the customers home. Has nothing to do with the pipeline. Has to do with sending a tech out to trap him. Why its not done at the install is beyond me. I'm sure they have their reasons.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

Cost effective to run CATV through the same pipeline? How about the fact that cable companies use two mediums. They don't have another choice. Fiber to the node and coax to the customers home. Has nothing to do with the pipeline. Has to do with sending a tech out to trap him. Why its not done at the install is beyond me. I'm sure they have their reasons.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

http://www.comtecwny.com/

This is the company I always see doing Time Warner's work for them.

 

[CL82]

Cost effective to run CATV through the same pipeline? How about the fact that cable companies use two mediums. They don't have another choice. Fiber to the node and coax to the customers home. Has nothing to do with the pipeline. Has to do with sending a tech out to trap him. Why its not done at the install is beyond me. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

....and internet and cable is coming through "fiber to the node and coax to the customers home," thus they are using the "same pipeline." It has nothing to do with someone physically being at the residence to check what is coming through the pipeline as that can be checked remotely. They made a business decision. That's all there is to it.

 

[minidarren]

....and internet and cable is coming through "fiber to the node and coax to the customers home," thus they are using the "same pipeline." It has nothing to do with someone physically being at the residence to check what is coming through the pipeline as that can be checked remotely. They made a business decision. That's all there is to it.

I have been in the industry for 11 years. It is all that I know. The level of service Upstater is receiving for TV cannot be check remotely. Its an analog service that is physically trapped at his residence. Why the don't trap it. IDK.

Digital services can absolutely be checked remotely.

Your post made it sound like they had an option other than coax to provide the service.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

I have been in the industry for 11 years. It is all that I know. The level of service Upstater is receiving for TV cannot be check remotely. Its an analog service that is physically trapped at his residence. Why the don't trap it. IDK.

Digital services can absolutely be checked remotely.

Your post made it sound like they had an option other than coax to provide the service.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

It's good to know the technical details. This is just a mix-up because of the tech. If everything were digital, I wouldn't have basic piped into my home.

 

[CL82]

I have been in the industry for 11 years. It is all that I know. The level of service Upstater is receiving for TV cannot be check remotely. Its an analog service that is physically trapped at his residence. Why the don't trap it. IDK.

Digital services can absolutely be checked remotely.

Your post made it sound like they had an option other than coax to provide the service.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ah okay. I think I have it. It is an analog signal so they can't read what is hooked up to it or if it is being used. I know that my company knows everything that I have hooked up and they can interrogate the system to verify it.

I know that the old Bell Telephone used to know how many telephones were hooked up. That was based upon impedance from the bell, I believe. What I think you are saying is that they can't tell if an analog system is being used as there isn't a big enough load? Or is that they just don't care enough to check?

Thanks for the info btw.

 

[minidarren]

They check, but it is done by an audit/security team. The go pole by pole verifying services.

Digital services are different. On install a signal is sent to the box that tells it what signals to decode therefore allowing the viewer to watch. All signals, unless blocked at the pole, come into peoples homes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2