On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Kevin Brown
<kevin_brown@qwest.net> wrote:
I have largely stayed out of the net neutrality debate as I don't really
understand both sides.
I do not have access to cable tv of any kind, but I have Cox for my
internet access. When the Olympics were on I could not watch them online
because I do not have a windows PC, so NBC was off limits. While other
countries had the olympics broadcast online I could not figure out a way
to watch them because I am in the US. However, if I used a public proxy
in Mexico, which I feel more than fine doing since I live 2 miles from
the border, I was able to watch the olympics on several internet sites.
Now, I am trying to watch the World Cup. Yesterday, I was able to watch
all day long the pre-game coverage and the concert through Cox and
ESPN3. But today I cannot access the actual games. It seems if I go to
ESPN3 I must be a member of a supporting company, which Cox is because
the whole site says "Powered by Cox" yet Cox is not in the list of
supported companies so I cannot watch it!
However, by once again putting in my mexican proxy I go to the espn3 web
site, click on the game I want to watch, and TA DA ! instantly pops up
the game in all its flash glory.
So what gives? Because World Cup is not a popular thing in the US I
cannot watch it? I have this same problem with WRC as well.
So what side of Net Neutrality should I be on, because this is totally
wrong! A US citizen and I cannot watch the stinkin' game online because
I live in the US? However any other country can access our american
companies (espn) and access the game coverage? This should be illegal!
Yet I am the one who would get in trouble if they found I was going
through a proxy...
http://espn.go.com/espn3/index/_/sport/soccer-futbol