Talk:ESPN3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outside the US? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gameplan 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The New Version 

message: 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)
thread_title: Stub

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  cost/profitability? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Network Neutrality 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified