Talk:ESPN3

Outside the US?

I don't think the following is accurate:

"... to sports fans in North America, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Middle East, New Zealand, and Europe (except Italy)."

As far as I can tell, ESPN3/WatchESPN is not available outside the US - or, more accurately, is not available via ISPs/television service providers outside the US.

ESPN Player (http://www.espnplayer.com), on the other hand, is available outside the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.212.81 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The sentence that reads: "On September 2, 2010, a deal was announced between Disney, parent company of ESPN, and Time Warner Cable to allow access to ESPN3 to all Road Runner High Speed Online customers who also subscribe to a Time Warner Cable package that includes ESPN is inaccurate.

It is not the Road Runner High Speed Online customers who were affected, but rather, the Time Warner Cable subs.

In support of this factual correction please refer to this article, which more accurately explains the facts: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/digital-downloads/broadband/e3i70ba82a0840c6bbf00316a292fd199c5

Internet-only subscribers of TWC are no longer able to access ESPN3.com, even though WatchESPN's FAQ states that it should. I confirmed this by attempting access myself and calling both ESPN and TWC, none of which are citable sources. The only thing I could find on the web confirming this is this thread on a racing fan's website: http://www.americanlemansfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2739. Still I think it's pertinent information that should make it's way into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandtanzarian (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Gameplan

This section is false, I'm watching GamePlan on DirecTV right now, it was not removed as an option for providers.71.241.100.227 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Supported ISPs

A list of supported ISPs is requsted.

I'll try to get that for you :)

FYI-- just tried the site on Safari w/ Mac, and I can see the non-360 videos-- not sure about 360 itself, because TimeWarner in Brooklyn isn't a subscriber.

The New Version

This article now looks lousy compared to the new, current version released a couple days ago. MyESPN was phased out, so how can this be fixed Soxrock 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did. :D Basically, not trying to insult or whatever, it had too much ad copy, not enough encyclopedia stuff. Just the facts, neh? :) SirFozzie 23:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's good enough, I'm an ESPN360 user, so I've got some knowledge on the program.Soxrock 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I have turned it into a stub while we wait for Soxrock to add some more information, as he has promised.--Desmond Hobson 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added everything I saw on ESPN360 as of current time. Soxrock 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no more air hockey at ESPN site

link

Is ther a link to ESPN360??  GD1223 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

cost/profitability?

anyone know how much it costs ESPN to run (associated facts like how much initial investment etc)? how much ISP's pay for it? and, finally with a little addition, whether it is profitable yet/when it became profitable and how much? Thanks -- Jieagles (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Network Neutrality

Changed: Some may argue that this violates the concept of net neutrality blocking certain people with "smaller" ISPs. To: This violates the concept of net neutrality as the ESPN3.com portion of the internet is no longer neutral to the hosting ISP trying to connect. People using smaller ISPs are more likely to be blocked. This is an example of the internet turning into something more like cable television, where networks control access to content. Whoever would argue otherwise doesn't understand NN or how the internet works. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a violation of network neutrality, because it is a content provider that is restricting access, not the ISP. They are charging a fee for their service and restricting access to those who pay the fee. The only difference ESPN3 and other pay sites is that they're making your ISP pay the fee on your behalf. No one would argue that paid websites are a violation of network neutrality. Network neutrality deals with the network - the wires that carry the traffic, NOT the endpoints. Using your logic, the firewall on your router is violating network neutrality because it's blocking access to your portion of the Internet. For a longer explanation of the difference, read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2271662/ And if you're going to assert that it violates network neutrality, stop using weasel words and cite a source. It doesn't even violate network neutrality as it is defined in the wikipedia article on network neutrality. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't understand network neutrality. The slate article was interesting but you missed the part where they never claim that ESPN3.com isn't violating network neutrality. Slate also doesn't say it is. NN doesn't magically end at some point before your house. You pay for an connection to the internet, not someone's sliced and diced econo-net. Paywalls, do indeed, on a very fundamental level, break network neutrality. But most everyone is ok with that as it's left to the individuals. If one day, to do anything meaningful on the internet, you'll have to go through a paywall, then yes, NN will be dead. At least in that regard. But that's all a moot rant, as there are plenty of sources to cite that do claim ESPN3 breaks NN. You might disagree, but let's not have wikipedia suffer for it. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-neutrality-foul-in-espn-online-video-charges/ http://armchairgm.wikia.com/index.php?title=ESPN360_Dies_an_Unneccessay_Death:_A_Lesson_in_Network_Neutrality http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/espn-stands-fir/ http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/02/06/espn-gives-a-middle-finger-to-net-neutralit/1 Gimme a sec while I go aggregate some knowledge. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The sole purpose of the Internet is to carry packets from one computer node to another. The goal of the Internet is not to provide sufficient uniquely identifying information on a packet to allow one network node to determine the ISP of another network node. The current architecture of the Internet currently allows for the latter of these, but that does not mean that it is an intended feature. Exploiting this accidental "feature" absolutely is a violation of network neutrality, as it places the job of financially sustaining websites on the shoulders of ISPs. That is not the purpose of an ISP; an ISP exists simply to enable communication between two endpoints on the Internet, not to identify a website's subscribers for the website (any such end-user authentication is solely the responsibility of the website). As for the previous comment that this turns the Internet "into something more like cable television", that is absolutely a correct statement. With cable television, cable providers single-handedly decide which channels and programs to finance and provide to customers; the end-consumer has no say in the matter. This is in extreme contrast to the Internet, which has a much more democratic (and less authoritarian) nature; ISP subscribers individually decide which websites to use and pay for, and ISPs have no say in the matter. ESPN3 violates the democratic model of the Internet, and the way in which it does so is a violation of Net Neutrality. ESPN3 simply represents another instance in the repeated failure of large media conglomerates to understand the democratic nature of the Internet, and to respect and operate within its boundaries. Both authors of the previous two comments on this topic seem to fail to understand one or more of these points. Nonetheless, I will do what those authors neglected to, and post my comment before making a controversial edit (such as was done by Mugsywwiii when he obliterated content on a controversial topic without discussion). @modi (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about editing unsourced information out of an article, especially when it violates wikipedia guidelines (as I noted in my edit comment). I agree with you that the way ESPN3 handles subscriptions is different from the way the Internet has always worked, but you have not made any argument for WHY it violates network neutrality. A content provider restricting access to its content is fundamentally and significantly different from a network operator restricting traffic. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make this simple. It's still the ISP restricting traffic. Under GuyISP you have access to ESPN3.com while under DudeISP you do not. Now, the actual act of blocking occurs at ESPN3.com, but functionally it's exactly the same. The money just goes a different direction. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are a customer of an ISP that pays for ESPN3 on your behalf, you can watch it on any other high speed internet provider by logging into your account. Which ISPs are blocking ESPN3? Choosing not to pay for a service for customers is not the same thing as blocking that service. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this page is still being followed, but ESPN3 absolutely violates network neutrality. It takes control of accessing content away from individual consumers and places it in the hands of ISPs. Under this type of model, individuals are essentially electing representatives (in the form of ISPs) to select content for them rather than selecting content for themselves. When an ISP selects the content that individual consumers will have access to, the ISP is also necessarily selecting the content that individual consumers will not have access to. This violates a fundamental principle of network neutrality, which states that ISPs should have no ability to restrict the content that individual consumers access. If no coherent defense is provided against this argument -- something not provided thus far -- I will edit this article to accurately reflect ESPN's egregious violation of network neutrality principles. @modi (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ESPN3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65qEFUBNV?url=http://espnmediazone3.com/wpmu/ to http://espnmediazone3.com/wpmu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126061503/http://blogs.investors.com/click/index.php/home/60-tech/1872-disneys-espn-plays-defense-over-broadband-fees to http://blogs.investors.com/click/index.php/home/60-tech/1872-disneys-espn-plays-defense-over-broadband-fees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)