Disgruntled fans sue NHL over broadcast access

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by one2gamble

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...ut-cable-cord/

It is bizarre, to me, how many people refuse to do it. For most folks, it is a fool's game to keep paying for TV. The rates continue to go up, while the quality of the programming (at least to me) becomes more and more generic/mediocre. I "cut the cord" 6 years ago this month. Given the current prices, I couldn't fit enough TV into my daily life to justify the expense of even the smallest TV packages from any provider. The only way I would come back at all is if I could negotiate a reasonable a la carte price for the few channels we would actually watch often enough. So far nobody has been willing to sell me the few I'd want, so I go without. I feel they are the ones losing out, not me, because I fill that time with other pursuits.

[Grudy0]

Originally Posted by one2gamble

DirectTV might be irritated but chances are if you are paying for streaming locally, you dont have DirectTV or Dish. This is the crux of the issue. If you dont get cable or sat to your home, there is no reason to black out the local feed.

Of course it is the crux of the issue, but...

Around 1960, the NFL was found to have violated anti-trust law by selling broadcast rights exclusively to CBS. So, in 1961, the Sports Broadcasting Act was signed into law, which allowed professional sports leagues to pool their rights for a national television contract.

However, each of the non-NFL professional teams still have the right for their local broadcast package. So, in the example, the New York Rangers have chosen to sell their local broadcast rights exclusively to MSG. And that means if you want Rangers games and live in the local broadcast area, you need to choose a method to get MSG. Complaining that the games are being shown via GameCenter somewhere else outside the local broadcast area is a bit farcical, as the Rangers get to choose how to sell their rights, just at the consumer is given a choice to pay any content distributor that receives MSG, or not bother to watch MSG.

Originally Posted by one2gamble

On top of that, if I am already paying either of those companies to watch, I should be able to watch the game in any manner I please.

It's a bit more difficult than that. You pay money to receive the game a certain way. You don't pay money to a company and expect a different method just because you paid the company. You can only receive what's offered from the company.

Originally Posted by one2gamble

Gamecenter, being an NHL product has some rationale but it does not seem like it is something that would be hard to overcome.

It's a bit harder than imagined. Imagine the scenario:

The NHL wants to include local broadcasts in GameCenter. The Rangers have given local broadcast exclusivity to MSG. If the NHL wants to include the MSG Rangers' feed in GameCenter, then the NHL needs to negotiate with MSG, and every other local rights holder for local rights coverage. This isn't like the issue with Center Ice and GameCenter, where the NHL already holds the non-local national rights to these games.

IMO, that is why this suit will fail. Absent the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, it would be illegal for the NHL to sell broadcast packages, which means only the teams have the right to sell broadcast packages. Without the NHL's negotiating authority given under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, both Center Ice and GameCenter as well as the NBC deal would no longer be valid.

The entire question hinges on the ability to define a team's local territory. Clearly teams are given a home territory to sell their local broadcast rights. I do not know the mechanics how those territories are drawn, but I do know that if someone within 20 miles of the Rangers' home ice is complaining they can't watch the Rangers on GameCenter, it's because local broadcast territories exist and that consumer cannot wrap their head around that fact.

[Big McLargehuge]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

At the same time, the NFL is the only professional sports league, in the US, that makes sure that every playoff game is on free over-the-air TV and all of your local team's games as well (subject to blackout rules for home games based on ticket sales). The rest don't even try to do that much.

Which is all well and good if you live in your team's market. The point of these packages is to appease out of market viewers. I don't care how many Denver Broncos games I get to watch for free each year, unless they're playing the Steelers I have zero interest in watching the Broncos.


They're also only able to do that because they're an event league...a once-a-week shot with the vast majority of games on the slowest television day of the week. An 82 game schedule on NBC wouldn't work for obvious reasons.

[tarheelhockey]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is bizarre, to me, how many people refuse to do it. For most folks, it is a fool's game to keep paying for TV. The rates continue to go up, while the quality of the programming (at least to me) becomes more and more generic/mediocre.

Actually I'd say the quality of programming right now is pretty far superior to what it was a decade ago.

NBC's Thursday night lineup a decade ago:
Friends
Inside Schwartz
Will & Grace
Just Shoot Me

NBC's Thursday night lineup now:
Community
30 Rock
The Office
Parks & Rec

[one2gamble]

Originally Posted by Grudy0

The NHL wants to include local broadcasts in GameCenter. The Rangers have given local broadcast exclusivity to MSG. If the NHL wants to include the MSG Rangers' feed in GameCenter, then the NHL needs to negotiate with MSG, and every other local rights holder for local rights coverage. This isn't like the issue with Center Ice and GameCenter, where the NHL already holds the non-local national rights to these games.

Im not seeing the problem with this

[Grudy0]

Originally Posted by Grudy0

The NHL wants to include local broadcasts in GameCenter. The Rangers have given local broadcast exclusivity to MSG. If the NHL wants to include the MSG Rangers' feed in GameCenter, then the NHL needs to negotiate with MSG, and every other local rights holder for local rights coverage. This isn't like the issue with Center Ice and GameCenter, where the NHL already holds the non-local national rights to these games.

Originally Posted by one2gamble

Im not seeing the problem with this

MSG (and every local rights holder) can pull a Nancy Reagan and just say "no". If you are MSG, Comcast or Root Sports (a subsidiary of DirecTV), would you simply allow your feed to be used locally so that subscribers can just cut the cord to their services?

[wildthing202]

Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge

Which is all well and good if you live in your team's market. The point of these packages is to appease out of market viewers. I don't care how many Denver Broncos games I get to watch for free each year, unless they're playing the Steelers I have zero interest in watching the Broncos.


They're also only able to do that because they're an event league...a once-a-week shot with the vast majority of games on the slowest television day of the week. An 82 game schedule on NBC wouldn't work for obvious reasons.

What makes it even worse is that what you're talking about is only on DirectTV so everyone else who doesn't have it doesn't even have that option. I can watch every MLB, NBA & NHL game on cable but the NFL, nope. If I want to see my team play when they're not on TV I have to resort to either drive 20+ miles to a place that might have the game on or watch a crappy stream. Thanks NFL.

[Tap on the Ankle]

Originally Posted by Dado

And add a ton of revenue from internet-only folks - a revenue stream they currently don't participate in at all, and could own a bigger piece of, relative to cable premies.

I don't know that we're at the tipping point, yet, but at a minimum I don't think we're far off.

This for sure. I live alone and any decent cable package just isn't worth the cost since I only use it for hockey, plus I can just buy a relatively cheap antenna and get at least the HNIC games for free (in HD too). I would gladly pay the NHL for access to high quality streams.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sports is one of the last things keeping the old TV distribution model alive and well. It's death will come, but not soon.

Exactly. The value of sports broadcasts has increased not because revenues have increased that much, but because cable companies can force local viewers to buy expensive cable packages in order watch the games they want to. It's one of the last reasons to still subscribe to a cable package, with most other content available digitally.

There's a reason that cable companies are buying up content left right and center. It's why Rogers and Bell are buying the Leafs, so they can make sure that their subscribers, and only their subscribers, have access to the content. It's also why HBO refuses to allow people to purchase Internet streams of their content.

At some point the courts (or legislatures) may decide that the marriage between content and distribution is bad for consumers. But that day hasn't arrived yet.

My guess is that the NHL would prefer to cancel all their streams of out of market games over providing a way for people to get around buying a cable subscription to watch local games.

[Krishna]

I agree with Big Mclargehuge that the rules need to be rewritten..

My freshman year of college, which was 2009-10, i was going to a school that was Rangers territory according to the NHL.. After confirming this with NHL Gamecenter live support, i boought the package. Immediate upon buying it, I found out that it was actually Flyers territory making my purchase useless..

Just get rid of the home market crap.