PDA

View Full Version : MLSE Channel



Kooper
11-27-2011, 08:49 AM
If you thought paying 3$ a month for Gol TV was a lot imagine what a dedicated MLSE channel would cost.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1093199--maple-leaf-sports-plans-broadcast-gamble?bn=1

If they go for a single channel that plays Leafs, Raptors and TFC the cost to watch just TFC could be stupid. They could set up the channel with a single premium cost (like Setanta) and since TFC will be the only content between April and September (barring the playoffs) do you think they will be dropping the cost?

This could be a huge money maker for Leafs and Raptors rights. If they get all the games then if you are a fan you will have to pay. But if MLSE makes the mistake they keep making and think that TFC fans are like Leaf Fans they will kill the fan base. I am convinced that moving games to GolTV has really hurt attendance at the game because casual fans have no chance to watch the games. At 15$ a month a lot more people will tune out.

Brooker
11-27-2011, 09:11 AM
One thing is certain. The Maple Leafs can’t start their regional sports network any time soon. The team’s local broadcast contract isn’t up until 2015.

No sense worrying about speculation so soon.

TorontoPat
11-27-2011, 09:17 AM
If you thought paying 3$ a month for Gol TV was a lot imagine what a dedicated MLSE channel would cost.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1093199--maple-leaf-sports-plans-broadcast-gamble?bn=1

If they go for a single channel that plays Leafs, Raptors and TFC the cost to watch just TFC could be stupid. They could set up the channel with a single premium cost (like Setanta) and since TFC will be the only content between April and September (barring the playoffs) do you think they will be dropping the cost?

This could be a huge money maker for Leafs and Raptors rights. If they get all the games then if you are a fan you will have to pay. But if MLSE makes the mistake they keep making and think that TFC fans are like Leaf Fans they will kill the fan base. I am convinced that moving games to GolTV has really hurt attendance at the game because casual fans have no chance to watch the games. At 15$ a month a lot more people will tune out.
Who can get GOL for $3 a month? I can't, the deal I can get get is 14.95 for a package with 3 or 4 other channels I can careless about.

ensco
11-27-2011, 09:20 AM
This is still the price negotiation on the sale of MLSE. This is what it was always about. It is just resuming on another battlefield.

When MLSE explains to Rogers/Bell that Sportsnet and TSN won't get any more games from any of those teams, but would they mind putting the MLSE channel in, and oh, by the way, here's your paltry cut, thanks a lot....the fur will fly. When YES did it, the NY cable cos didn't put the channel in for months. You couldn't watch the Yankees. The uproar was ferocious. But YES eventually prevailed.

So what to think. It's all about the numbers. Forget the other teams, it's about the Leafs. I don't think the numbers in that story are right. If I get these numbers wrong, somebody correct me....

Today MLSE get $700K a game from Sportsnet/TSN (for Leafs). The potential is more like 60 games (not the 46 mentioned in the story). So that's around $40 million for 60 games. Now imagine an MLSE channel for those 60 games. That wouldn't be a $1.50 a month offering in the sports tier, MLSE would have no leverage to get that channel placement from Rogers et al, there's no obligation for the cable cos to put it in there. The correct assumption is that it has to be a specialty tier a la Setanta. So say MLSE charge $20 a month.

Say they get 200,000 subs over 7 months. I think ratings for the midweek games are something like 700,000-1,000,000 people, so that's around a 25% take up rate. Not conservative imho. $140 (over 7 months) is a lot of money.

MLSE would have to give a portion of the subscriber revenue to the cable/satellite provider (this part is a big assumption, it's what the fight will be about). Let's say a third, leaving MLSE with around $20 million in subscriber revenue over the 7 month hockey season in this scenario. So therefore MLSE would need $20 million in ad revenue, or $300K/game, to break even. I'm guessing $300K is probably 50-60% of what Rogers currently get, but remember, viewers on the MLSE channel would be only 25% of what Rogers currently get. So why would advertisers pay more than 25% of what they currently pay?

It does not appear to make sense. This is why Rogers/Bell won't pay up. MLSE's bluff is being called.

The numbers may be worse than I assumed above. Will even 25% of current free viewers pay? This would not be easy, imho.

I'm betting Rogers understand this market better than MLSE does.

Pookie
11-27-2011, 09:28 AM
^ IMO Rogers holds a lot of leverage and has a strategy in place.

Rogers now owns Setanta (Sportsnet World). Rogers is also refusing to add GolTV in HD, despite MLSE's assertion that they offered it free to Rogers.

MLSE knows that ratings on GolTV are crap, to match the broadcast quality. They also know that brand exposure is key to generating interest and ticket sales.

Rogers is essentially saying to MLSE that if you want to show TFC games in this market you are going to have to do so on our channel. And if you don't want to play, we'll just show other MLS games like a Whitecaps or Impact game as a complete random example.

My money is on Rogers to secure TFC broadcast rights in the near future.

Klinsmann
11-27-2011, 09:32 AM
Who can get GOL for $3 a month? I can't, the deal I can get get is 14.95 for a package with 3 or 4 other channels I can careless about.

I have GOL TV with Rogers, I pay just under $3 / month for it.

Shakes McQueen
11-27-2011, 09:32 AM
The article makes it sound like a pretty dumb move, so I'll wait and see what comes of it.

Putting Leafs games on a pricy specialty channel would kill growth of the fanbase.

- Scott

Brooker
11-27-2011, 09:42 AM
Who can get GOL for $3 a month? I can't, the deal I can get get is 14.95 for a package with 3 or 4 other channels I can careless about.

Me. It's dirt cheap.

Kooper
11-27-2011, 09:54 AM
The numbers may be worse than I assumed above. Will even 25% of current free viewers pay? This would not be easy, imho.

I'm betting Rogers understand this market better than MLSE does.

The other revenue stream to take into consideration is the ads. Gol TV advertizing is dire because the audience is small but the audience would be much better so we could expect ads from the big advertizers, beers, booze, fast food... That would be a lot of money because the advertizers would be essentially paying to advertize to Men 18-50 years old: the most important advertizing demographic.

Homer Simpson: "I'm a white male aged 18 to 49, everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are."

ensco
11-27-2011, 10:06 AM
The other revenue stream to take into consideration is the ads. Gol TV advertizing is dire because the audience is small but the audience would be much better so we could expect ads from the big advertizers, beers, booze, fast food... That would be a lot of money because the advertizers would be essentially paying to advertize to Men 18-50 years old: the most important advertizing demographic.


This is true either way. Difference is that you are delivering a lot fewer viewers in the MLSE Channel model, which would majorly negatively affect these advertisers.

boban
11-27-2011, 10:20 AM
The article makes it sound like a pretty dumb move, so I'll wait and see what comes of it.

Putting Leafs games on a pricy specialty channel would kill growth of the fanbase.

- Scott
I would tend to agree but as the article says YES did it and it doesn't seem to hurt the Yankees, nor MSG with Rangers and Knicks come to think about it.

I know one thing, I wouldn't watch one more game on TV of Toronto teams if this happened. Look what has happened with the brilliant move of TFC on GolTV.

boban
11-27-2011, 10:21 AM
The other revenue stream to take into consideration is the ads. Gol TV advertizing is dire because the audience is small but the audience would be much better so we could expect ads from the big advertizers, beers, booze, fast food... That would be a lot of money because the advertizers would be essentially paying to advertize to Men 18-50 years old: the most important advertizing demographic.

Homer Simpson: "I'm a white male aged 18 to 49, everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are."
He addressed the ads, and the revenue would be less than what TSN and Sportsnet get currently as the audience would be smaller.

Beach_Red
11-27-2011, 11:41 AM
The article makes it sound like a pretty dumb move, so I'll wait and see what comes of it.

Putting Leafs games on a pricy specialty channel would kill growth of the fanbase.

- Scott

It was hard to imagine they could do much more to kill the growth of the fanbase but we should never underestimate these guys ;).

It would be interesting to see this happen. Maybe we'd find out how much of the market really is hockey fans as opposed to Leafs fans. Rogers and TSN would both counterprogram aggresively with other NHL games and all kinds of price breaks and specials.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 11:41 AM
I have GOL TV with Rogers, I pay just under $3 / month for it.

before i became a student again in sept and had cable, it was something like 2.50 a month for goltv for me too, i didnt have to buy a package or any of that nonsense

MarkEightThree
11-27-2011, 11:54 AM
MLSE is bringing a RealSports channel to Xbox 360 on December 6th. I'm guessing it will be mostly highlight packages and stuff from GolTV and Leafs TV.

jabbronies
11-27-2011, 12:14 PM
I won't buy GolTV, even if every TFC away game is shown on it.
Doesn't make sense that I have to pay more money, even at 3$, to watch my home town team play in a second tier league.

I wonder if Argo, Marlie or Rock fans would pony up addition cash on top of the over priced cable they are already paying?

Kooper
11-27-2011, 02:02 PM
It was hard to imagine they could do much more to kill the growth of the fanbase but we should never underestimate these guys ;).

It would be interesting to see this happen. Maybe we'd find out how much of the market really is hockey fans as opposed to Leafs fans. Rogers and TSN would both counterprogram aggresively with other NHL games and all kinds of price breaks and specials.

Yeah but if MLSE plays their cards right with the rights they will push all the out of market games in Toronto to pay per view or NHL center Ice. I am an Ottawa fan and I think I get to watch 10 games a season because most of the games are on Sportsnet East which is blacked out in Toronto unless they are playing the Leafs.

If that happens then as a hockey fan you have 3 options. Either watch Toronto on MLSE, pay for Center Ice or no hockey. Thanks MLSE.

boban
11-27-2011, 02:06 PM
Yeah but if MLSE plays their cards right with the rights they will push all the out of market games in Toronto to pay per view or NHL center Ice. I am an Ottawa fan and I think I get to watch 10 games a season because most of the games are on Sportsnet East which is blacked out in Toronto unless they are playing the Leafs.

If that happens then as a hockey fan you have 3 options. Either watch Toronto on MLSE, pay for Center Ice or no hockey. Thanks MLSE.
Not really. There is a Saturday national broadcast as well as 1-2 midweek national televised games on TSN.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 02:11 PM
MLSE is bringing a RealSports channel to Xbox 360 on December 6th. I'm guessing it will be mostly highlight packages and stuff from GolTV and Leafs TV.


Tell me more about this, will you have to pay for this like net flicks? Will they show games?

swan
11-27-2011, 04:05 PM
well living in the states this year the only matches i got to watch on t.v were champs league (Fox soccer showed them) i have to buy mls live and watch the opposing team feed even when we are at home..

if it wasn't for mls live i wouldn't be able to watch any games ( could watch every game on CBC though) thanks to the way MLSE run this team and in turn they probably would lose a fan not that they care...

KezmanCCCC
11-27-2011, 04:28 PM
Who can get GOL for $3 a month? I can't, the deal I can get get is 14.95 for a package with 3 or 4 other channels I can careless about.


i have goltv and its 3$ a month aswell.... i think its really stupid if MLSE privatized all their teams matches... what kind of bullshit is that?

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 04:32 PM
i know people love the idea of mls being on the cbc, i too think its a great idea, the fact is it wouldnt get very good ratings and it definitely would not take priority over other things like show jumpign and shit like that as a result we'd be lucky if it was on reg cbc let alone 2 hours after the game had been played

jloome
11-27-2011, 04:43 PM
This is still the price negotiation on the sale of MLSE. This is what it was always about. It is just resuming on another battlefield.

When MLSE explains to Rogers/Bell that Sportsnet and TSN won't get any more games from any of those teams, but would they mind putting the MLSE channel in, and oh, by the way, here's your paltry cut, thanks a lot....the fur will fly. When YES did it, the NY cable cos didn't put the channel in for months. You couldn't watch the Yankees. The uproar was ferocious. But YES eventually prevailed.

So what to think. It's all about the numbers. Forget the other teams, it's about the Leafs. I don't think the numbers in that story are right. If I get these numbers wrong, somebody correct me....

Today MLSE get $700K a game from Sportsnet/TSN (for Leafs). The potential is more like 60 games (not the 46 mentioned in the story). So that's around $40 million for 60 games. Now imagine an MLSE channel for those 60 games. That wouldn't be a $1.50 a month offering in the sports tier, MLSE would have no leverage to get that channel placement from Rogers et al, there's no obligation for the cable cos to put it in there. The correct assumption is that it has to be a specialty tier a la Setanta. So say MLSE charge $20 a month.

Say they get 200,000 subs over 7 months. I think ratings for the midweek games are something like 700,000-1,000,000 people, so that's around a 25% take up rate. Not conservative imho. $140 (over 7 months) is a lot of money.

MLSE would have to give a portion of the subscriber revenue to the cable/satellite provider (this part is a big assumption, it's what the fight will be about). Let's say a third, leaving MLSE with around $20 million in subscriber revenue over the 7 month hockey season in this scenario. So therefore MLSE would need $20 million in ad revenue, or $300K/game, to break even. I'm guessing $300K is probably 50-60% of what Rogers currently get, but remember, viewers on the MLSE channel would be only 25% of what Rogers currently get. So why would advertisers pay more than 25% of what they currently pay?

It does not appear to make sense. This is why Rogers/Bell won't pay up. MLSE's bluff is being called.

The numbers may be worse than I assumed above. Will even 25% of current free viewers pay? This would not be easy, imho.

I'm betting Rogers understand this market better than MLSE does.

Bingo.

boban
11-27-2011, 04:44 PM
i know people love the idea of mls being on the cbc, i too think its a great idea, the fact is it wouldnt get very good ratings and it definitely would not take priority over other things like show jumpign and shit like that as a result we'd be lucky if it was on reg cbc let alone 2 hours after the game had been played
I tend to disagree. CBC was doing a soccer day and pushing soccer alot lately.
The reach the channel has can't be touched by other tv stations. Also what they done with last years world cup was great is an example of what they could do with soccer in general, and also TFC.

Whoop
11-27-2011, 05:14 PM
It's just a matter of time before there is a MLSE channel.

That's the next stage in the process. The YES and MSG networks are the models.

boban
11-27-2011, 05:35 PM
It's just a matter of time before there is a MLSE channel.

That's the next stage in the process. The YES and MSG networks are the models.
Regrettably thats what I see as well. Don;t like it one bit.
I just wish they would put the effort into winning just as much or more so than these business ventures.

Whoop
11-27-2011, 05:46 PM
If not a MLSE channel, the future is definitely PPV for games.

They could do it now for Leaf games if they wanted to, the demand is there. The demand isn't there for the Raptors or TFC yet. The key would be to bundle them all together and pay more of a premium for all 3.

Pookie
11-27-2011, 05:47 PM
It was hard to imagine they could do much more to kill the growth of the fanbase but we should never underestimate these guys ;).

It would be interesting to see this happen. Maybe we'd find out how much of the market really is hockey fans as opposed to Leafs fans. Rogers and TSN would both counterprogram aggresively with other NHL games and all kinds of price breaks and specials.

Since MLSE isn't opposed to working with the Argos :hide: , they should ask them how blacking out their CFL games worked for growing their fan base.

Kooper
11-27-2011, 05:49 PM
Not really. There is a Saturday national broadcast as well as 1-2 midweek national televised games on TSN.

For hockey country having only 2-4 games a week on regular cable is shocking. If you regularlly support a team that is not toronto you will likely only get a couple of games a year. TSN's mid week games tend to be pretty weak. This week it is Toronto-Boston but it is often out of market games but if I don't care about Dallas-Minnesota or the Leafs there is no hockey to watch.

Pookie
11-27-2011, 05:54 PM
If not a MLSE channel, the future is definitely PPV for games.

They could do it now for Leaf games if they wanted to, the demand is there. The demand isn't there for the Raptors or TFC yet. The key would be to bundle them all together and pay more of a premium for all 3.

I think the future is bigger than simply PPV. Users are looking to pay for custom content, not simply pay for a group of channels they never use + specialty channels.

In a world where cable really isn't necessary in order to get TV content, this is of prime importance.

MLSE would be putting its stamp on controlling the content which is more important than the revenue derived off a PPV event(s). In controlling the content, you don't necessarily need to control the delivery of it... provided others have paid an appropriate fee for the rights to distribute it in line with your specifications.

As evidenced by Rogers' bid/interest in MLSE, which is about securing content more than it is about securing their channels. (see Blue Jays, Rogers Purchase)

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 06:02 PM
I tend to disagree. CBC was doing a soccer day and pushing soccer alot lately.
The reach the channel has can't be touched by other tv stations. Also what they done with last years world cup was great is an example of what they could do with soccer in general, and also TFC.

i dont doubt that they COULD do it but i do not think for a second they WOULD do it given the chance, especially as they have had a chance to do something in the past with regards to TFC and did a poor job of it

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 06:04 PM
thats not to mention the significant difference in interest and viewership re: the world cup

boban
11-27-2011, 06:40 PM
i dont doubt that they COULD do it but i do not think for a second they WOULD do it given the chance, especially as they have had a chance to do something in the past with regards to TFC and did a poor job of it
I don't know about a poor job with it. Certainly they haven't butchered it the way TSN has.
Remember when CBC started with TFC it was in the infancy. They were getting better. Also, as the WC as an example, CBC proved they can do a better job than TSN at soccer, as I am sure CBC would if given a second chance.

boban
11-27-2011, 06:41 PM
thats not to mention the significant difference in interest and viewership re: the world cup
I realize that, but I referenced it to show how they can do a good job and get the viewers - maybe even more so than TSN.

ForeverTFC
11-27-2011, 06:44 PM
I think a lot of people are ignoring a key advantage MLSE has here.

What would keep them from offering this channel on-line for $20 a month? If the cable companies want to classify the channel as a speciality one with a high price tag, nothing can keep MLSE from also offering the channel on the internet to subscribers.

I currently do not have cable. When I did, I watched TFC, Raptors, Leafs and NFL games. That is the only use my cable had, and I had to get the VIP package to have access to The Score and TSN/TSN2. Now I stream pretty much everything if I'm not at the games. If I can't find a stream, I go to the bar down the street. I could no longer justify $60 for cable.

HOWEVER, $20 a month for the channel online, to watch the games in HD? Sign me up without hesitation!

ensco
11-27-2011, 08:22 PM
I think a lot of people are ignoring a key advantage MLSE has here.

What would keep them from offering this channel on-line for $20 a month?

Ever wonder why the cable/satellite providers are also the internet service providers? They intend to demand a cut if this happens (it's a much bigger threat than MLSE, every network will want to do it).

It's the great debate in telco regulation. Will the ISPs be allowed to "meter" content?

Oldtimer
11-27-2011, 08:31 PM
I found MLS Live to be a very good deal, despite some games being blacked out.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2011, 08:40 PM
Ever wonder why the cable/satellite providers are also the internet service providers? They intend to demand a cut if this happens (it's a much bigger threat than MLSE, every network will want to do it).

It's the great debate in telco regulation. Will the ISPs be allowed to "meter" content?


as it stands if you have internet that allows you to upload/download 60 gigs of media, you can use 60 gigs worth of streaming each month (as an example), so although the companies may not like how much money they are getting, they are still getting some money.

Might also force them to change their cable options/internet options for good or bad

ForeverTFC
11-27-2011, 09:12 PM
Ever wonder why the cable/satellite providers are also the internet service providers? They intend to demand a cut if this happens (it's a much bigger threat than MLSE, every network will want to do it).

It's the great debate in telco regulation. Will the ISPs be allowed to "meter" content?

I understand that, but there isn't a better time to start this than now. The big networks don't have the incentive to do this as of yet since they have built a good relationship with the cable providers. MLSE on the other hand doesn't have much to lose if these companies do not want to play ball in the first place.

With all the heat and attention on the CRTC at the moment, this could be a messy PR war for them.

BUT, I think we all recognize that this is simply posturing by the Teachers so that they can get one of these guys to buy out their stake. I don't think anything substantial will come of this.

Rudi
11-27-2011, 09:17 PM
Didn't MLSE get a license from the CRTC to run a local OTA channel?

Whatever happened to that?

Roogsy
11-27-2011, 11:17 PM
Considering that Toronto is one of the rare places in the sports world where teams from other cities are supported, making it harder to support the hometown team just seems like a dumb idea if you ask me. All it will do is encourage more local sports fans to become fans of other teams as it will disconnect the local fanbase from their own team. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

Pookie
11-27-2011, 11:24 PM
^ in sports that define regional broadcast rights, making fans in the city fans of other teams in that sport seems hard to do. It's not like they can broadcast all 82 Montreal Canadiens games in this market.

The real risk is making those fans, fans of more accessible sports and/or other forms of entertainment.

TFCREDNWHITE
11-27-2011, 11:38 PM
Who can get GOL for $3 a month? I can't, the deal I can get get is 14.95 for a package with 3 or 4 other channels I can careless about.

I get it for $3 bucks a month! And I love it!

ag futbol
11-28-2011, 02:03 AM
^ in sports that define regional broadcast rights, making fans in the city fans of other teams in that sport seems hard to do. It's not like they can broadcast all 82 Montreal Canadiens games in this market.

The real risk is making those fans, fans of more accessible sports and/or other forms of entertainment.
Well actually my understanding is if you get NHL center ice and the full sports package you'll actually get a full 82.

As much as I'd like to hope they wouldn't, I'd bet leaf fans would subscribe to this channel. But it would be an unmitigated disaster for TFC and the raptors.

If I were Rogers, and i was hell-bent on owning another sports property, I'd just go directly to the NHL and bid for a second GTA team.

Pookie
11-28-2011, 08:01 AM
Well actually my understanding is if you get NHL center ice and the full sports package you'll actually get a full 82.

As much as I'd like to hope they wouldn't, I'd bet leaf fans would subscribe to this channel. But it would be an unmitigated disaster for TFC and the raptors.

If I were Rogers, and i was hell-bent on owning another sports property, I'd just go directly to the NHL and bid for a second GTA team.

Actually, Center Ice subscribers are still affected by local blackouts.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26371

brad
11-28-2011, 09:18 AM
Problem with MLSE going online is mainly the bandwidth caps most ISP's have. It's going to be a problem for a lot of folks, especially if you have a Netflix account in your household. There is always the option to move to an independent and go cap free, but if the big boys lose enough business to them you can bet they will squeeze them, and they have the power and money to do so. I also don't think the average, non-tech savvy person is going to know enough to move away from the big providers.

There is also another big risk. Quality of service at the ISP level. This shouldn't be an issue, but it is is. Here is a perfect example. Rogers just massively oversold their bandwidth in a back to school promo, and as a result ended up heavily throttling users in the evenings. A lot of people in Toronto and all over Southern Ontario just went through a period from beginning of September to around end of October where every evening (starting around 4:00pm until midnight I think) bandwidth was throttled to the point where you couldn't even stream a low def youtube video. The issue was at the backbone level so other ISP like Teksavvy that are independents on Rogers backbone were also affected.

Imagine the disaster for this channel if it was online, and that happened again at the start of the Leafs season...

ensco
11-28-2011, 09:33 AM
^oh, and guess who leads the planet in throttling?

http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers-carriers/rogers-throttles-internet-more-than-any-company-on-the-planet/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/10/25/technology-rogers-throttling-net-neutrality.html

As/when streaming over the net becomes more than a niche offering, the ISPs are all going to change their pricing model to look just like the cable/satellite content metering model, it's just a question of time. So the mother of all battles over this is coming to the CRTC one day soon.

Who do you think has more influence on the regulators, Rogers/Bell or MLSE?

Beach_Red
11-28-2011, 09:41 AM
^ You can call it "influence," some call it, "regulatory capture." ;)

ensco
11-28-2011, 09:45 AM
^ You can call it "influence," some call it, "regulatory capture." ;)

Regulatory Capture is awful. Absolutely one of the worst things in the world we live in. Poisoning everything. Pretty much the single biggest cause of the financial crisis. Youtube gets to be worth X billion because they can rebroadcast people's hard work for free. Huffington Post sells for $300 million aggregating the unpaid work of thousands. It's criminal. Creative talent is getting screwed left, right and center by tech entrepreneurs and telco companies because of it.

ginkster88
11-28-2011, 09:48 AM
Actually, Center Ice subscribers are still affected by local blackouts.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26371

Yes they are.

In fact, no Leaf games are available on Centre Ice:

"If you are located in a team’s television territory, you will see all locally televised games on the local carrier. You will not be able to see these games in NHL CENTRE ICE."

To watch all 82 games where I live, I need CBC, TSN, TSN2, SNO, SN1 and Leafs TV. There is no basic package that includes all six of those channels; in fact, with more providers you would need to pay for the most expensive package if you wanted to watch every Leafs game.

ginkster88
11-28-2011, 09:49 AM
Regulatory Capture is awful. Absolutely one of the worst things in the world we live in. Poisoning everything. Pretty much the single biggest cause of the financial crisis. Youtube gets to be worth X billion because they can rebroadcast people's hard work for free. Huffington Post sells for $300 million aggregating the unpaid work of thousands. It's criminal. Creative talent is getting screwed left, right and center by tech entrepreneurs and telco companies because of it.

In many instance with both of these examples, the creator is taking advantage of technology they could never invent or manage on their own to extend their reach and establish their reputation.

ensco
11-28-2011, 10:04 AM
In many instance with both of these examples, the creator is taking advantage of technology they could never invent or manage on their own to extend their reach and establish their reputation.

I am a business person, but I hate this argument. Sure it happens, but it happens in a minuscule percentage of cases.

The real point is that digital piracy is an economic phenomenom that could have been stopped, but wasn't. The "free web" and the turning a blind eye to digital piracy has eroded the standards and business practices of culture industries everywhere. For every person you cite who became famous on youtube, there are today 1,000 (or 10,000 or 100,000) who used to be paid a small amount for their work, and now work for free.

Digital music has destroyed the music business for most musicians. Big tech companies hire 1000s of lobbyists around the world to break down and undermine copyright law. These are pretty much facts, sorry.

ginkster88
11-28-2011, 10:14 AM
I am a business person, but I hate this argument. Sure it happens, but it happens in a minuscule percentage of cases.

The real point is that digital piracy is an economic phenomenom that could have been stopped, but wasn't. The "free web" and the turning a blind eye to digital piracy has eroded the standards and business practices of culture industries everywhere. For every person you cite who became famous on youtube, there are today 1,000 (or 10,000 or 100,000) who used to be paid a small amount for their work, and now work for free.

Digital music has destroyed the music business for most musicians. Big tech companies hire 1000s of lobbyists around the world to break down and undermine copyright law. These are pretty much facts, sorry.

Recent rulings have shown that piracy does little to erode sales of some media, and in some cases actually increases sales.

The RIAA and MPAA among others have hundreds of millions invested in the lobbying game as well, resulting in SOPA and E-PARASITE in the USA. Those are also facts, sorry about that.

The Huffington Post and other large, profitable, infrastructure sites like the Sports Blog Network rely on content contribution from writers who willfully submit material, knowing they won't get paid. They do this because they could not achieve similar reach on their own.

ensco
11-28-2011, 10:19 AM
^I think you meant "studies" not "rulings". All these studies are biased, on both sides. It's a war out there.

We'll agree to disagree. Everyone has to decide what makes sense to them based on their own sense of right and wrong, and what's actually going on.

ginkster88
11-28-2011, 10:23 AM
I am a business person, but I hate this argument. Sure it happens, but it happens in a minuscule percentage of cases.

The real point is that digital piracy is an economic phenomenom that could have been stopped, but wasn't. The "free web" and the turning a blind eye to digital piracy has eroded the standards and business practices of culture industries everywhere. For every person you cite who became famous on youtube, there are today 1,000 (or 10,000 or 100,000) who used to be paid a small amount for their work, and now work for free.

Digital music has destroyed the music business for most musicians. Big tech companies hire 1000s of lobbyists around the world to break down and undermine copyright law. These are pretty much facts, sorry.

To be clear, I do see your side on this. I just know that it is not black and white and that there is a bigger picture.

Gabe Newel of Valve gave a very insightful interview last week, about how his company has reduced piracy of its software to negligible levels: http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1213357p1.html

His point is that in most cases, piracy is about service, not price. I know this to be true. I have often lamented the fact that I cannot even pay Rogers to give me live Blue Jays games online, and that is just one example. For normal TV I donate to a piracy site that I will not disclose here, because I can watch all the shows I want on my laptop on my schedule, commercial free. Give me a legal option with as few barriers as I have now and I would gladly pay for it; I'd even tolerate commercials.

The problem is, no company wants to let me do that.

ginkster88
11-28-2011, 10:25 AM
^I think you meant "studies" not "rulings". All these studies are biased, on both sides. It's a war out there.

We'll agree to disagree. Everyone has to decide what makes sense to them based on their own sense of right and wrong, and what's actually going on.

No, I meant "rulings":

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/156831/illegal-downloads-may-not-be-destroying-the-music-industry-after-all/

Beach_Red
11-28-2011, 10:30 AM
Recent rulings have shown that piracy does little to erode sales of some media, and in some cases actually increases sales.

The RIAA and MPAA among others have hundreds of millions invested in the lobbying game as well, resulting in SOPA and E-PARASITE in the USA. Those are also facts, sorry about that.

The Huffington Post and other large, profitable, infrastructure sites like the Sports Blog Network rely on content contribution from writers who willfully submit material, knowing they won't get paid. They do this because they could not achieve similar reach on their own.

"Reach" may or may not have value to the creator but it definitely has value to the providor. This is a longer-term issue that like Ensco says, could have been handled better. The problem with regulatory capture is that the fight is between the providors and they make the rules - neither the creators nor the consumers really have any say (unless they go outside the rules).

Live sports are actually a pretty good way to see the more immediate implications because they lose so much value once the game has been played.

ensco
11-28-2011, 10:31 AM
No, I meant "rulings":

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/156831/illegal-downloads-may-not-be-destroying-the-music-industry-after-all/

That's the opinion of the judge supporting his ruling, not the ruling itself, no?