MLB to end local area blackouts of games? Time for the NHL to come out of the Stone Age.

[Ezekial]

Have to wait til they cut the new TV deal.

 

[GrantLemons]

You clearly like stealing better than paying the price of the product.

If you don't like the prices of the NHL, you can pay for the NFL, MLB, NBA or overseas soccer leagues to watch instead.

You might be out of your depth in this discussion because you keep bringing up cord-cutting and cable subscriptions. I have already stated you don't need a cable subscription to watch NHL hockey legally in Canada. Cord-cutting refers to no longer subscribing to cable or satellite. The cord is the cord from your tv provider to your tv.

And what if someone just wants to watch The Mandalorian and not the rest of the Disney+ programming? Should he be complaining that he should be able to watch it a la carte or else justify stealing it?

An $8/month sub vs. a $30/month sub is a substantial difference.

Sure, I'm out of my depth here. You're absolutely right. I don't want to pay the price of the product as it's offered to me by Bell/Rogers. I feel like the price of subscribing to their service to legally watch my favourite team's games is too much.

It doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it doesn't mean there shouldn't be a la carte options available to end users.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm a Yankee fan. My wife is a Cubs fan. We buy MLB Extra Innings, and have absolutely no issue with paying for it.

It absolutely infuriates us that for 19 Yankee games, we're forced to watch them on the Orioles channel.

And for 31 Cubs games, can't watch the Cubs broadcasters.

Just seems ridiculous, because the "local ads" during those 50 games have absolutely nothing to do with Charlotte.

My parents just moved here last September and my dad is a big Mets fan. So he ran into the thing with the Mets, rather than the Cubs. I understand the Braves thing, like I said. To a small degree, I get the Orioles thing (closest AL team) and maybe even the Nationals thing. But the Reds? What the hell is that?

 

[Masked]

The monopoly exists in the NHL's exclusive agreement with cable providers to be the sole channel through which a person can access NHL hockey. I can't think of a single comparable to that in the grocery model. It would be like if you could only buy olive oil at one store because the olive farmers contract exclusively with that store. "Well there are other oils..." I don't care, I want olive oil. I don't want to pay $500 a gallon for it, purely to feed a price-fixing scheme.

What happens in this dynamic is that the black market assumes the role of creating market efficiencies. The cable companies exploited their position in order to corner the market, then promptly engaged in anti-competitive practices (ex: holding Canes broadcasts hostage so that I'm forced to buy QVC). Well, now they're competing against a black market that offers the product for free. Guess what's gonna happen as a result? The cable industry is going to hemhorrage money until they go back to behaving competitively, just as their counterparts in the music industry did 20 years ago.

At the end of the day, this process will happen as a matter of due economic course. It's no more of a moral dilemma than bootlegging during Prohibition.

A monopoly is not an agreement Anyone who has taken a half-decent economics course would know that.

As for the grocery store analogy, I can only buy Jamie Oliver branded products at Sobeys-owned stores. Your olive oil analogy fails because the NHL is not the only hockey you can watch nor is it the only major league sport you can watch.

Your black market analogy works about as well as saying that luxury watch makers like Rolex are going to have to lower their prices because the black market is producing nearly identical watches for much cheaper.

Equating not wanting to pay the market rate for a product to buying a product that has been criminalized is silly. One is disagreeing with a stupid law while the other is being cheap.

 

[Hynh]

You don't like the prices so you're going to steal? I don't see how the NHL catering to people who like to steal is going to help the NHL. Do grocery stores offer special bundles/prices for shoplifters?

Even if the NHL offered a Senators only package, there's a good chance you would say it was too expensive and you'd continue to steal.

Piracy isn't stealing and never will be no matter how hard you pretend it is.

 

[NCRanger]

My parents just moved here last September and my dad is a big Mets fan. So he ran into the thing with the Mets, rather than the Cubs. I understand the Braves thing, like I said. To a small degree, I get the Orioles thing (closest AL team) and maybe even the Nationals thing. But the Reds? What the hell is that?

It has to do with Fox Sports and the boundaries for the Fox Sports South subchannels. It's totally wacky and I would have to take a page and a half to explain it.

The Orioles and Nationals are because of MASN, and technically, North Carolina is in MASN's regional "footprint". However, that "footprint" is supposed to stop on a NW to SE line from Greensboro to Fayetteville to the state line. DirecTV doesn't see it that way, so MASN is a secondary local RSN in Charlotte.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A monopoly is not an agreement Anyone who has taken a half-decent economics course would know that.

I understand that it's not textbook monopoly, but an exclusive agreement wherein a product can only be purchased through a single provider is, effectively, a monopoly on that product.

As for the grocery store analogy, I can only buy Jamie Oliver branded products at Sobeys-owned stores. Your olive oil analogy fails because the NHL is not the only hockey you can watch nor is it the only major league sport you can watch.

The NHL is the only product of its kind. Comparing it to juniors or whatever is nonsense for reasons that I shouldn't have to waste time explaining.

Your black market analogy works about as well as saying that luxury watch makers like Rolex are going to have to lower their prices because the black market is producing nearly identical watches for much cheaper.

That's such a poor parallel to any of this that it's not even coherent.

Equating not wanting to pay the market rate for a product to buying a product that has been criminalized is silly. One is disagreeing with a stupid law while the other is being cheap.

"Being cheap" is a value judgment.

This isn't about values, it's about the cold hard reality of how markets work. The cable companies deliberately cornered and exploited the market during a time when they had monopolistic access to the product and the delivery vehicle. That dynamic changed when household streaming entered the market. The cable companies, rather than adjusting to the new reality, have attempted to suppress that reality by making the market more and more inefficient in order to prop up their obsolete business model. The result, inevitably, is a new market efficiency that will now put them out of business if they don't adjust.

Sorry it offends your values, but it's a reality.

 

[Masked]

Piracy isn't stealing and never will be no matter how hard you pretend it is.

Definition of steal

(Entry 1 of 2)
intransitive verb
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3: to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully stole a car
b: to take away by force or unjust meansthey've stolen our liberty
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission steal a kiss

Definition of piracy
1: an act of robbery on the high seasalso : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

 

[Grudy0]

I need to correct something specific, but there's a whole bunch of corrections needed in this thread:

This isn't about values, it's about the cold hard reality of how markets work. The cable companies deliberately cornered and exploited the market during a time when they had monopolistic access to the product and the delivery vehicle. That dynamic changed when household streaming entered the market. The cable companies, rather than adjusting to the new reality, have attempted to suppress that reality by making the market more and more inefficient in order to prop up their obsolete business model. The result, inevitably, is a new market efficiency that will now put them out of business if they don't adjust.

Sorry it offends your values, but it's a reality.

I think too many people are spouting off without reading the article.

So while many may believe the above business process is how everything went down (and it's not), how is it that Fox Sports had to come to an agreement with the NHL in order to livestream back into the local market or how Comcast had to come to an agreement with the NHL in order to livestream back to the local market?

It's not the cablers nor the satellite companies (the traditional MVPD's) that are holding up livestreaming sports locally.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I need to correct something specific, but there's a whole bunch of corrections needed in this thread:
I think too many people are spouting off without reading the article.

So while many may believe the above business process is how everything went down (and it's not), how is it that Fox Sports had to come to an agreement with the NHL in order to livestream back into the local market or how Comcast had to come to an agreement with the NHL in order to livestream back to the local market?

It's not the cablers nor the satellite companies (the traditional MVPD's) that are holding up livestreaming sports locally.

Nobody's saying Fox can't livestream to the local market.

The issue is that you can't GET Fox without a cable subscription. Not even on their digital streaming platform. If I want to watch Fox Sports GO, I have to log in through a cable provider.

Does the cable operator give me the option to pay for ONLY that one channel so I can log in and access the product? No. They make me buy dozens, literally dozens of channels that I have absolutely no need or desire to buy, spending thousands of dollars a year on a product that objectively is worth maybe $100. That's the crux of the issue here.

I'm sure Fox would be perfectly happy to take my $100 and cut the cable company out of that picture, but doing so would invite crippling retaliation so they won't do it.

 

[Lt Dan]

Definition of steal

(Entry 1 of 2)
intransitive verb
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3: to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully stole a car
b: to take away by force or unjust meansthey've stolen our liberty
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission steal a kiss

Definition of piracy
1: an act of robbery on the high seasalso : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

You are correct It's still stealing

One is getting something for free without paying for it while also breaking the law.

Piracy isn't stealing and never will be no matter how hard you pretend it is.

Shame on you Hynh

 

[David Dennison]

Is gamecenter + VPN still viable for in market games? I did that a few years back but I have heard more recently that they are cracking down on VPN usage.

 

[La Grosse Tendresse]

People will be disappointed when they realize that without a bunch of people who have no interest in their sport subsidizing it through cable packages, the a la carte price will be crazy if only fans buy it.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Instead of getting all pedantic how about some facts:

Blackouts of sports events and TV shows: rights to air a program | CRTC

the CRTC doesn’t care, the Canadian government has no regulations on this.

The NHL user agreement is very vague also and while they can put in rules about direct interactions with their own programs they can’t make rules about the rest of your Activity like running a VPN or DNS scrambler for security reasons. I pay for nhl tv but some mystery reason it’s not picking up my location properly, oops.

the actual jurisprudence on streaming is mixed btw, it doesn’t fall under a lot of theft laws because you’re not taking any actual possession of it (so downloading into your hard drive is)

 

[KevFu]

I'm a Yankee fan. My wife is a Cubs fan. We buy MLB Extra Innings, and have absolutely no issue with paying for it.

It absolutely infuriates us that for 19 Yankee games, we're forced to watch them on the Orioles channel.

And for 31 Cubs games, can't watch the Cubs broadcasters.

Just seems ridiculous, because the "local ads" during those 50 games have absolutely nothing to do with Charlotte.

If you have a Smart TV or a Gaming System, you should get MLBTV instead of Extra Innings. The MLB Premium plan is $170 and gives you HOME/AWAY feeds for every game (except National TV exclusives). You can watch on a laptop, smart phone, or the app on most Smart TVs or an app on XBox/PS4.

 

[Grudy0]

The issue is that you can't GET Fox without a cable subscription. Not even on their digital streaming platform. If I want to watch Fox Sports GO, I have to log in through a cable provider.

Does the cable operator give me the option to pay for ONLY that one channel so I can log in and access the product? No. They make me buy dozens, literally dozens of channels that I have absolutely no need or desire to buy, spending thousands of dollars a year on a product that objectively is worth maybe $100. That's the crux of the issue here.

I'm sure Fox would be perfectly happy to take my $100 and cut the cable company out of that picture, but doing so would invite crippling retaliation so they won't do it.

And it's still not understood...

If "you can't get Fox without a cable subscription", yet Fox needs to get an agreement with the NHL in order to livestream games into a local market, then it's not Fox that's holding up the streaming rights.

Here: Fox came to an agreement with the NHL, and all of a sudden the 12 teams where they have local rights agreements can be streamed in-market via other platforms - it wasn't one team at a time, the NHL controlled the in-market streaming rights.

The article that was linked specifically discusses that MLB is handing back the rights for in-market streaming to the clubs. Which means that the clubs don't have the rights for in-market streaming.

CONVERSELY:

Fox may be happy to take your $100 and cut the cable company out. However, for the best example in the world right now, Dish no longer carries any local Fox Sports regional sports networks. The reason is simple - Fox Sports wants those networks in the lowest base tiering package, and Dish does not want to comply with the request. So the problem is not that the MVPD won't give you the option to pay for only that one channel so you can log in and access the product, it's that Fox Sports Net wants to force their channel to be carried along with dozens, literally dozens of channels that you have absolutely no need or desire to buy. Understand that Dish is saying to Fox Sports that they can contract with Dish for the one channel on an a la carte basis, and Fox is literally saying no - bundle it with your lowest tier of programming.

This is the example of pointing fingers at the wrong entity. If there's anyone to blame, it's the NHL.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here: Fox came to an agreement with the NHL, and all of a sudden the 12 teams where they have local rights agreements can be streamed in-market via other platforms - it wasn't one team at a time, the NHL controlled the in-market streaming rights.

No, they cannot. Carolina is one of those markets and I am telling you, a cable subscription is required to access the content. If there was a way to get around it, that’s exactly what I would be doing right now. But it is required.

 

[Hynh]

Definition of steal

(Entry 1 of 2)
intransitive verb
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3: to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully stole a car
b: to take away by force or unjust meansthey've stolen our liberty
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission steal a kiss

Definition of piracy
1: an act of robbery on the high seasalso : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

I never said piracy is morally or legally right. Conflating taking a DVD from a store with sending a Super Mario Bros. ROM from one phone to another over bluetooth is needlessly deferential to the corporations that rewrote the laws to their own benefit while destroying the public domain.

For what it's worth, I'm an idiot that has SN Now and NHL Live or Gamecenter or whatever they're calling the out of market package these days. I would prove it but that might be piracy.

 

[Svechhammer]

If you have a Smart TV or a Gaming System, you should get MLBTV instead of Extra Innings. The MLB Premium plan is $170 and gives you HOME/AWAY feeds for every game (except National TV exclusives). You can watch on a laptop, smart phone, or the app on most Smart TVs or an app on XBox/PS4.

I had it last year.

I still got slapped with blackouts for Nationals and Orioles games in Raleigh despite not having those channels to watch.

 

[NCRanger]

I had it last year.

I still got slapped with blackouts for Nationals and Orioles games in Raleigh despite not having those channels to watch.

Yes. He doesn't know what he's talking about. If you buy Extra Innings through DirecTV, you get MLBtv as part of the deal. The blackouts are the same.

 

[Svechhammer]

Yes. He doesn't know what he's talking about. If you buy Extra Innings through DirecTV, you get MLBtv as part of the deal. The blackouts are the same.

Yeah I bought Extra Innings through Spectrum and it came with MLB.TV as well. I could not stream or watch any games involving the Orioles or Nationals last year due to "local" blackout rules, despite those teams being multiple states away with no local broadcast available.

as an aside... that service did not play well with my Chromecast. An issue popped up about halfway through the season where it would just constantly buffer to the point of making the games unwatchable.

 

[NCRanger]

If you have a Smart TV or a Gaming System, you should get MLBTV instead of Extra Innings. The MLB Premium plan is $170 and gives you HOME/AWAY feeds for every game (except National TV exclusives). You can watch on a laptop, smart phone, or the app on most Smart TVs or an app on XBox/PS4.

The DirecTV "version" of Extra Innings is the same "version" of MLBtv. DirecTV has the bandwidth for all home/away broadcasts. MLBtv has the same blackout restrictions as Extra Innings does.

Plus, as an Extra Innings subscriber, I get MLBtv thrown in. I have absolutely no reason to use it as I will not stream a game unless I'm on wi-fi.

 

[Tawnos]

No, they cannot. Carolina is one of those markets and I am telling you, a cable subscription is required to access the content. If there was a way to get around it, that’s exactly what I would be doing right now. But it is required.

I have been able to watch Hurricanes games with a VPN and NHL.tv, but I'm also only doing that for 4-5 games per year when they play the Rangers... not every game.

 

[KevFu]

My bad, I misinterpreted what you're saying. I thought you were saying Extra Innings wasn't offering you both teams feeds as an option for all Out of Market games.

You meant when your team visits your market, you're stuck watching the local broadcast which isn't as fun. Yeah, that happens to all of us out of market.

But that policy, while annoying, at least makes sense: "In our market, you have to watch OUR feed."

What does not make sense is being blacked out for a game even though the market does not have access to the "local" channel.

For example, Dayton Ohio. 45 minutes from CIN. CIN, CLE, DET blacked out on MLBTV/EI.
There's no Fox Sports Detroit on TV and Fox Sports Ohio divides the state so you get CIN or CLE depending on where you live, not both.

I'm a Mets fan. DET at NYM was blacked out. (I'm supposed to drive to Detroit and watch a road game on cable?)
NYM at CIN "getaway day" game. NYM feed blacked out. That's normal. Except there WAS NO LOCAL BROADCAST for the day game.

The rules need to protect local feeds, but blacking out games you cannot get locally is just plain wrong.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I have been able to watch Hurricanes games with a VPN and NHL.tv, but I'm also only doing that for 4-5 games per year when they play the Rangers... not every game.

Well yeah, you’re using a VPN By the definitions getting thrown around in here, you’re stealing.