So, ESPN hates its customers?

[tmoney35]

i cant believe somebody is already complaining about the espn contract and wondering when it ends

how quickly we forget the dark days on the mtn channel

Sounds like some of the people on the east coast are already back in those dark days after only getting one year in the light

[Mingjai]

Uh yeah let's black out the game so we can get 3,000 more people sitting in their seats even know the tickets have usually always been bought up for a sell out, and by the end of the 3rd quarter the same and 10,000 more people will have already left because we're knocking the puss out Out of New Mexico St.

Blacking out ESPN/ESPN2 games on ESPN3 is not about getting people in seats--it's about getting people to subscribe to a cable package that has ESPN or ESPN2.

ESPN wants people that are paying for access to the games on TV to be able to have the flexibility to watch the game other media. I think it's perfectly understandable that ESPN wants to prevent people who didn't pay for a TV package with ESPN from watching ESPN-broadcast games for free.

[Raiderboy]

I think someone hinted at it earlier, but no one really said it. It looks like you have to have a Comcast TELEVISION subscription in order to view (at least some) ESPN3 content.

I have Comcast internet, and that's what the message said when I tried to watch a game on ESPN3 on Saturday anyway, after I successfully logged in with my Comcast user/pass.

[JamieVallen]

Uh yeah let's black out the game so we can get 3,000 more people sitting in their seats even know the tickets have usually always been bought up for a sell out, and by the end of the 3rd quarter the same and 10,000 more people will have already left because we're knocking the puss out Out of New Mexico St.

Blacking out ESPN/ESPN2 games on ESPN3 is not about getting people in seats--it's about getting people to subscribe to a cable package that has ESPN or ESPN2.

ESPN wants people that are paying for access to the games on TV to be able to have the flexibility to watch the game other media. I think it's perfectly understandable that ESPN wants to prevent people who didn't pay for a TV package with ESPN from watching ESPN-broadcast games for free.

I'm not referring to Espn 3 at all, I actually agree with what you're saying for the most part. I just don't want them to black out games locally, because it's a lame move.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[NCPUMA]

Uh yeah let's black out the game so we can get 3,000 more people sitting in their seats even know the tickets have usually always been bought up for a sell out, and by the end of the 3rd quarter the same and 10,000 more people will have already left because we're knocking the puss out Out of New Mexico St.

Blacking out ESPN/ESPN2 games on ESPN3 is not about getting people in seats--it's about getting people to subscribe to a cable package that has ESPN or ESPN2.

ESPN wants people that are paying for access to the games on TV to be able to have the flexibility to watch the game other media. I think it's perfectly understandable that ESPN wants to prevent people who didn't pay for a TV package with ESPN from watching ESPN-broadcast games for free.

In my state, Time Warner (which essentially has a monopoly) won't let you access ESPN3 unless you buy their cable package. So if the blackouts are about forcing people to buy cable, they're pretty much already doing that.

[SpiffCoug]

ESPN doesn't hate their customers. Like most businesses, they don't like to give away their services for free.

[JamieVallen]

Uh yeah let's black out the game so we can get 3,000 more people sitting in their seats even know the tickets have usually always been bought up for a sell out, and by the end of the 3rd quarter the same and 10,000 more people will have already left because we're knocking the puss out Out of New Mexico St.

Blacking out ESPN/ESPN2 games on ESPN3 is not about getting people in seats--it's about getting people to subscribe to a cable package that has ESPN or ESPN2.

ESPN wants people that are paying for access to the games on TV to be able to have the flexibility to watch the game other media. I think it's perfectly understandable that ESPN wants to prevent people who didn't pay for a TV package with ESPN from watching ESPN-broadcast games for free.

In my state, Time Warner (which essentially has a monopoly) won't let you access ESPN3 unless you buy their cable package. So if the blackouts are about forcing people to buy cable, they're pretty much already doing that.

Unrelated, but when I lived in Texas I had Time Warner and it was possibly the greatest tv access I've ever had. It was cheap, no contract, and no problems with my service. Although the customer service was kind of a joke...

I relied on Espn 3 a little bit last year to be able to watch some games, so I understand the frustration. It kind of sucks that they offered the service before and now have backed out. It seems everyone has kind of gone with the Olympic coverage model, where you had to have one of the big name services in order to watch one of the channels of 10 kabillion hours of streaming that they had to offer. ESPN 3 was a neat thing, kind of
Makes me sad that they'd do this, but at the same time I understand they're probably getting pressured by the cable and satellite companies, who are begging to struggle. (which by the way I find awesome).

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[BroncoBot]

ESPN doesn't hate their customers. Like most businesses, they don't like to give away their services for free.

I've heard this several times and don't understand it. What part of paying for an internet subscription with a company that is paying ESPN for online content makes it "free"?

[Schmoe]

ESPN doesn't hate their customers. Like most businesses, they don't like to give away their services for free.

I've heard this several times and don't understand it. What part of paying for an internet subscription with a company that is paying ESPN for online content makes it "free"?

Which internet provider? Where in your contract does it talk about specific ESPN content?

[BroncoBot]

ESPN doesn't hate their customers. Like most businesses, they don't like to give away their services for free.

I've heard this several times and don't understand it. What part of paying for an internet subscription with a company that is paying ESPN for online content makes it "free"?

Which internet provider? Where in your contract does it talk about specific ESPN content?

Honestly, haven't read the contract, nor will I. But last year at this time I was able to watch any game covered by ESPN or ABC with ESPN3/WE. I was paying for a internet subscription that ESPN recognized as an affiliate and provided content. It even allowed me to remotely access ESPN content. Now, it looks like I get to watch DII schools duke it out. Are you suggesting that ESPN was simply "giving" this service to certain providers but not others? Because my parents were NOT able to stream espn3 with their provider last year.

Point is, it wasn't free.

EDIT- Still haven't read that pesky contract, but here is an affiliate (I guess "free" list according to some on here) listing for ESPN3 and it does have my provider.

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/affList" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;