Confirmed with Link: NHL signs 12-year TV, Internet deal with Rogers | 22 Habs Games on TVA/TVA Sport

[Compile]

There's nothing wrong with the format. Its the personnel that needs a refresh in some segments.

12 years is a long time. It will take a while but I'm sure that a lot of top talent will come over. Right now it's Mickey Mouse but it should get better.

Yup just like everything Rogers touchs and it gets better.
Like higher prices, controlling MLB, NHL, print/radio/tv media.

I personally look forward to having to pay more to watch hockey (if you don't expect this to happen, you don't understand business). Rogers posted a $1.8 billion net income in September (and it's increasing),they just bought have a sports franchise, and signed a deal worth 5.2 billion. Anything that Rogers operates will increase and they will most likely win a block of 700mhz spectrum this increasing prices even more.

If people don't see the real issue here, so help me god in a year or two when I see people complaining I will personally deliver them a cup of ****.

 

[Agnostic]

Why do you think Rogers struck a deal with the CBC (NHL forced it my ass). In 4 years time HNIC will be on sportsnet as Rogers amalagamates into their network. The CBC President is sugar coating their deal. It's bad, really bad. For 60 years the CBC has generated revenue from hockey but now everything will go to Rogers, this cutting their revenue by 50%.

Rogers is now a political party. Get ready for 4 times the Rogers commericals on CBC.

Should the CBC pay $5.2B to broadcast hockey?

The CBC can become relevant now that it's no longer a wh*ore to NHL hockey.

It can now embark on new well written Canadian projects, news, investigative journalism, things Canadians should want from a public broadcaster.

 

[Agnostic]

Yup just like everything Rogers touchs and it gets better.
Like higher prices, controlling MLB, NHL, print/radio/tv media.

I personally look forward to having to pay more to watch hockey (if you don't expect this to happen, you don't understand business). Rogers posted a $1.8 billion net income in September (and it's increasing),they just bought have a sports franchise, and signed a deal worth 5.2 billion. Anything that Rogers operates will increase and they will most likely win a block of 700mhz spectrum this increasing prices even more.

If people don't see the real issue here, so help me god in a year or two when I see people complaining I will personally deliver them a cup of ****.

Not getting a good Rogers signal? Why the hate?

You are ranting but beyond hating Rogers it's tough to tell what you are alerting the world to.

Vertical integration?
Media Supply chain?

Or maybe you'd like taxpayers to subsidize your NHL hockey habit.

This is going the way it should - a-la-carte programming is the way of the future and better options from our providers. The death of bad programming and the payment for good programming is where we are headed. I look forward to this and a reformed CBC vision.

 

[Compile]

Should the CBC pay $5.2B to broadcast hockey?

The CBC can become relevant now that it's no longer a wh*ore to NHL hockey.

It can now embark on new well written Canadian projects, news, investigative journalism, things Canadians should want from a public broadcaster.

Umm you do know that because of this the CBC has even less money now to create anything as since Jean Chretian the Canadian government has been reducing the amount of money the CBC gets from them.

Also I could careless for the CBC I just included them in my point for their sake.

My issue and the issue of every Canadian should lie with the fact that our tax dollars pay for a government agency that is controlled by the same companies that they regulate.

Are you fine with Rogers controlling hockey, mlb, UFC, print/tv/radio media? Are you fine that there is collusion in pricing (what the **** kind of competitor is there when they ALL have the same pricing)? Are you fine with the 3 companies saying there is a government issued fee contrary to what their regulating body has stated countless times?

Sorry I don't want to live in a society that allows telecom companies to control what I see, read or listen to. Sorry if I don't want to live in a society that gets nickel and dimes for everything (I thought lawyers were bad for charging someone for sending them a document to sign).
I guess you are ok with Rogers monopolizing media.

 

[Compile]

Not getting a good Rogers signal? Why the hate?

You are ranting but beyond hating Rogers it's tough to tell what you are alerting the world to.

Vertical integration?
Media Supply chain?

Or maybe you'd like taxpayers to subsidize your NHL hockey habit.

This is going the way it should - a-la-carte programming is the way of the future and better options from our providers. The death of bad programming and the payment for good programming is where we are headed. I look forward to this and a reformed CBC vision.

You do realize that Rogers owns the biggest newspapers in the country, and now have exclusive national rights to "Canada's game." Rogers has fought against a la carte programming (as it cuts into their profits hard). Don't think for a second a la carte will be any better as they will charge more per channel to make up the difference. The CRTC said no more 3 year contracts, they said fine and increased rates heavily.

Again I don't give a **** about the CBC and their left wing ******** or their horrible programming and production.
So I guess they were justified in their defensive advertising against the threat of Verizon coming to Canada? I guess they were justified in saying "Canadians should actually pay more for their services.
I guess you are fine with the impending increase and having to bend over.

I guess I'm anti-Canadian as well as majority of Canadians do absolutely nothing to create change.

 

[Nedved]

Should the CBC pay $5.2B to broadcast hockey?

The CBC can become relevant now that it's no longer a wh*ore to NHL hockey.

It can now embark on new well written Canadian projects, news, investigative journalism, things Canadians should want from a public broadcaster.

they have little money, and are taking a hit in funding. they're now a public-private corporation, and moving away from being public.

 

[Compile]

they have little money, and are taking a hit in funding. they're now a public-private corporation, and moving away from being public.

The government pretty much saw their books and how much revenue they were generating and decided it was time they used their revenue and less tax money.

Now with what has transpired they lose 50% of their income only for it to go to a private company instead. Not only will Rogers make money of ads on their own networks (print, radio, tv) but also from a PUBLIC company owned by the government of Canada. This basically says Rogers owns a public company for the next 4 years, but I'm wrong for seeing a major problem with it or with anything the telecoms do.

I forgot having ridiculous prices, controlling any form of media or connection to it, making statements that prices are to low yet complain when there is any threat of actual competition, colluding in prices, etc (the list goes on) is ok because it's time for a change (because what we had prior was dull, uninspiring etc).
Ya that's the real issue here, not the fact tax payers dollars are still going to the CBC yet are controlled by a private company...

 

[Agnostic]

You do realize that Rogers owns the biggest newspapers in the country, and now have exclusive national rights to "Canada's game." Rogers has fought against a la carte programming (as it cuts into their profits hard). Don't think for a second a la carte will be any better as they will charge more per channel to make up the difference. The CRTC said no more 3 year contracts, they said fine and increased rates heavily.

Again I don't give a **** about the CBC and their left wing ******** or their horrible programming and production.
So I guess they were justified in their defensive advertising against the threat of Verizon coming to Canada? I guess they were justified in saying "Canadians should actually pay more for their services.
I guess you are fine with the impending increase and having to bend over.

I guess I'm anti-Canadian as well as majority of Canadians do absolutely nothing to create change.

Explain to me the Rogers ownership positions in the top newspapers in this country. I don't seem to recall Torstar, Sun Media, National post or the French language papers being dominated by Rogers.

 

[Compile]

Explain to me the Rogers ownership positions in the top newspapers in this country. I don't seem to recall Torstar, Sun Media, National post or the French language papers being dominated by Rogers.

Rogers owns 70 different print media outlets. 2 of the biggest actually.
I had a typo I meant to say magazine not newspaper. Still doesn't change anything regarding this issue.

 

[RushDP]

In 2 years we won't even know or care which corporate name is behind the telecasts. Rogers didn't invest in hockey in the past because they had a small piece of the pie, now they will be the name brand in Canada. A recruiting blitz will no doubt bring talent to the network and production values will rise. Rogers will relish the poaching of big names from rivals, they have a chance to re-cast the NHL hockey product in Canada and pick and choose their people.

I for one am optimistic that a new formula awaits. There's already been talks about more in-depth player interviews , and I am tired of the Hot Stove and Coaches Corner. People speak today with fear like there is no room to improve hockey broadcasting in this country. I think change was overdue and I welcome it.

So your willing to go through 2 years of substandard broadcasting in the hopes that it will get better than what TSN is doing right now?
Monopolies don't work.
Carving up the broadcasting between all players for equal money and term was the way to go. Then there would have been competition. Now there is none. Look how well RDS improved when they gained exclusivity. Their broadcast never got better because they didn't have to. Sort of like Hydro's customer service.
You speak of improvement of broadcasting like it's a terrible product when in fact I think the bar is set so high by TSN that Rogers will blow for more than the 2 years you're satisfied waiting.

 

[Agnostic]

So your willing to go through 2 years of substandard broadcasting in the hopes that it will get better than what TSN is doing right now?
Monopolies don't work.
Carving up the broadcasting between all players for equal money and term was the way to go. Then there would have been competition. Now there is none. Look how well RDS improved when they gained exclusivity. Their broadcast never got better because they didn't have to. Sort of like Hydro's customer service.
You speak of improvement of broadcasting like it's a terrible product when in fact I think the bar is set so high by TSN that Rogers will blow for more than the 2 years you're satisfied waiting.

There has always been a monopoly , perhaps not by your definition. Have you ever had the freedom to choose to watch a Habs-Leafs game on CBC, Sportsnet, or TSN at your choice? No and you never will. CBC has had a monopoly on those games forever. Now it's Rogers turn.

You and I were not involved in the negotiations. If TSN was doing such a superior broadcast, and if David Shoalts sources are correct that the NHL was confident that TSN would match the $5.2B price tag, why go with Rogers as the sole-broadcaster. I think the answer to that is yet to come.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Rogers and other cable are facing a crunch from internet based media production and distribution that is rendering cable obsolete elsewhere in the world. As usual Canada is years behind but it's still coming.

Where the interesting maneuvering will be is what the "vertically integrated" media/telcom behemoths will do about this pressure from the internet, . Will they let ISP network investment slack and throttle streams in order to keep cable TV more attractive? This doesn't seem like a very good thing for Canada's status as a high tech nation. If they do go this route, will there pressure from the voter/consumer for an anti-trust style break up to the vertical structures? Force them to sell off their ISP business to free it from this inherent conflict of interest? Which parties in Canada will go to bat for them? One would assume the Conservatives, but even they took a swipe at big telcom with the Verizon brouhaha so it would seem big telcom doesn't have many friends in government beyond the crtc.

A lot of things in motion now, the internet is screaming into Canadian households, but controlled by the same telcom that wants to protect its old 90s style lucrative cable setups. Canadians don't live in a bubble, they see the differences between Canada & USA netflix,hulu,etc. They know about stuff like nhlgamecenter/hockeystreams which at about 15$ a month is the direct price of live hockey content. How will the current setup in Canada hold up for the next 12 years given these massive tech driven shifts going on?

 

[Agnostic]

Rogers and other cable are facing a crunch from internet based media production and distribution that is rendering cable obsolete elsewhere in the world. As usual Canada is years behind but it's still coming.

Where the interesting maneuvering will be is what the "vertically integrated" media/telcom behemoths will do about this pressure from the internet, . Will they let ISP network investment slack and throttle streams in order to keep cable TV more attractive? This doesn't seem like a very good thing for Canada's status as a high tech nation. If they do go this route, will there pressure from the voter/consumer for an anti-trust style break up to the vertical structures? Force them to sell off their ISP business to free it from this inherent conflict of interest? Which parties in Canada will go to bat for them? One would assume the Conservatives, but even they took a swipe at big telcom with the Verizon brouhaha so it would seem big telcom doesn't have many friends in government beyond the crtc.

A lot of things in motion now, the internet is screaming into Canadian households, but controlled by the same telcom that wants to protect its old 90s style lucrative cable setups. Canadians don't live in a bubble, they see the differences between Canada & USA netflix,hulu,etc. They know about stuff like nhlgamecenter/hockeystreams which at about 15$ a month is the direct price of live hockey content. How will the current setup in Canada hold up for the next 12 years given these massive tech driven shifts going on?

Some will laugh but the CRTC is also in a fight to keep relevant and I think they will have a role to play. They've already slapped ISP's for bandwidth throttling , and with channel unbundling legislation and the death of 3 year mobile contracts there is a sign that consumer interests are being considered.

On Demand a-la-carte streaming into IP enabled devices is the future, cable terminals will be phased out leaving consumer end-point devices talking over usage-based links to content providers. It won't be whether Rogers or Bell make money it will be who will win and lose in the content delivery. Most people don't need 500 channels each and every month but they should be able to direct their consumption of content in any way they want. If in the end 400 of those 500 channels disappear, but Hulu and Netflix thrive then the market has spoken.