Satellite (and cable) death spiral

[tarheelhockey]

You can buy legal streaming subscriptions which are a fraction of cable

No, I cannot. The only streaming subscriptions which carry Hurricanes games locally would require a cable subscription. The rest are blacked out.

This hasn't been the case for years.

again hasn't been the case for years

It's all true, right now.

Just yesterday we lost the option to use Sling or Dish to receive the FOX Sports networks.

and become a criminal instead of looking for an alternative like hulu, sling ps vue or buying the channel or CREATING A NEW ALTERNATIVE yourself.

but you choose to whine and steal

These are all ways you can legally pay for and watch Fox Sports without cable or stealing
https://www.foxsports.com/watch/instant-access

Oh no, I'm a criminal

From that link:
DirecTV - Essentially a cable operator which uses the same exploitive contract structure.
Fubo - Blacks out local games.
Hulu - Blacks out local games.
PS Vue - Blacks out local games.
YouTube TV - Blacks out local games.
Sling - Not even contracted to FS network anymore... but when it was, it blacked out local games.

Believe me, I've tried. I had cable for years and made a concerted effort to transition to an above-board provider which would give me the one thing I was actually looking for. When it became apparent that no such provider existed, it was a very easy and logical decision to move on to the providers which were giving me what I wanted, at an unbeatable price, in a manner that is reasonably convenient.

As soon as the cable company and/or networks start catching up with the market, I'll be right here willing to spend all the money I'm currently saving.

 

[SavageSteve]

No, I cannot. The only streaming subscriptions which carry Hurricanes games locally would require a cable subscription. The rest are blacked out.



It's all true, right now.

Just yesterday we lost the option to use Sling or Dish to receive the FOX Sports networks.



Oh no, I'm a criminal

From that link:
DirecTV - Essentially a cable operator which uses the same exploitive contract structure.
Fubo - Blacks out local games.
Hulu - Blacks out local games.
PS Vue - Blacks out local games.
YouTube TV - Blacks out local games.
Sling - Not even contracted to FS network anymore... but when it was, it blacked out local games.

Believe me, I've tried. I had cable for years and made a concerted effort to transition to an above-board provider which would give me the one thing I was actually looking for. When it became apparent that no such provider existed, it was a very easy and logical decision to move on to the providers which were giving me what I wanted, at an unbeatable price, in a manner that is reasonably convenient.

As soon as the cable company and/or networks start catching up with the market, I'll be right here willing to spend all the money I'm currently saving.

That's weird b/c in Nashville I can get all of the Preds games on Fox Sports Tennessee via Fox Sports Go (FOX Sports live games and streaming video) with my 'DirecTV Now' login credentials; but they do not show up in the DirecTV Now app where they stream the regional feed for the Southeast. However, when I trialed YouTube TV, they were on the Fox Sports South channel in the YT TV app. The key to streaming sports is knowing which apps external to the source provides what content you care about based on the main provider.

During college football season, the ESPN app on Apple TV is amazing, as I can stream three games at once and just swap audio to focus on whichever one has an active play as I see fit. The biggest issue I have is that 'DirecTV Now' no longer has ESPN3 access, that gives me Middle Tennessee State games in the fall...

 

[cptjeff]

That's weird b/c in Nashville I can get all of the Preds games on Fox Sports Tennessee via Fox Sports Go (FOX Sports live games and streaming video) with my 'DirecTV Now' login credentials; b

So in order to use the streaming service, you need a cable subscription. Try getting rid of the DirectTV subscription and then seeing if you can login to Fox Sports Go.

Also, Fox Sports Go is not blacked out because it knows that you have the cable/sat subscription that allows you to view it locally. You cannot subscribe to Fox Sports Go as a standalone product. You MUST buy a cable or satellite subscription for it to work.

 

[Hooby Dooby Doo]

No, I cannot. The only streaming subscriptions which carry Hurricanes games locally would require a cable subscription. The rest are blacked out.



It's all true, right now.

Just yesterday we lost the option to use Sling or Dish to receive the FOX Sports networks.



Oh no, I'm a criminal

From that link:
DirecTV - Essentially a cable operator which uses the same exploitive contract structure.
Fubo - Blacks out local games.
Hulu - Blacks out local games.
PS Vue - Blacks out local games.
YouTube TV - Blacks out local games.
Sling - Not even contracted to FS network anymore... but when it was, it blacked out local games.

Believe me, I've tried. I had cable for years and made a concerted effort to transition to an above-board provider which would give me the one thing I was actually looking for. When it became apparent that no such provider existed, it was a very easy and logical decision to move on to the providers which were giving me what I wanted, at an unbeatable price, in a manner that is reasonably convenient.

As soon as the cable company and/or networks start catching up with the market, I'll be right here willing to spend all the money I'm currently saving.

How are all of those streaming providers blacking out local games? I was interested in Sling until they don't carry locals and I had read that the customer service is garbage.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Legality doesn’t equal morality. That one poster mentioned the Nestle water deal, legal deal but to me that deal is absolutely criminal to humanity.

I’d list a few examples where legality doesnt equal morality but I’m sure I don’t need to as there are some pretty easy ones that will probably pop into peoples minds.

Wages have not kept up with inflation so I doubt many people give a crap about paying for cable or not.

And I think I can count on one hand how many times I’ve watched an illegal stream.

 

[NCRanger]

No, I cannot. The only streaming subscriptions which carry Hurricanes games locally would require a cable subscription. The rest are blacked out.

100% true. The Fox streaming app requires credentials proving you are a cable/satellite subscriber.

Just yesterday we lost the option to use Sling or Dish to receive the FOX Sports networks.

Why anyone is a Dish customer is beyond me. I wouldn't be shocked if all sports get eliminated from that "service" in the near future.

Oh no, I'm a criminal

The bigger issue than the end user being a "criminal" is the provider who's "stealing" the signal for distribution. I wouldn't have a real issue using the "service", but I wouldn't be relying on a pirated signal for things I really wanted to watch over the long haul. Eventually someone is going to shut it down.

But why do pirated signals exist? The cable monopoly. Which is actually a problem that was created by government when cable TV was allowed to exist in the United States. Each municipality "contracted" for a "franchise", so that one town/city was EXCLUSIVELY "serviced" by ONE cable company. It's gotten somewhat better in now that satellite "competes" with cable, but they're all subject to the same "blackout/protection" rules for sports.

(Nothing pisses me off more than paying for Center Ice and Extra Innings, and being FORCED to listen to Forslund/Tracy for a Hurricanes/Rangers game, or the idiots who broadcast the Orioles/Nationals/Braves/Reds when those teams are playing the Yankees or Cubs.)

From that link:
DirecTV - Essentially a cable operator which uses the same exploitive contract structure.
Fubo - Blacks out local games.
Hulu - Blacks out local games.
PS Vue - Blacks out local games.
YouTube TV - Blacks out local games.
Sling - Not even contracted to FS network anymore... but when it was, it blacked out local games.

DirecTV is the ONLY service that COULD provide what MOST consumers want on a LEGAL basis, but due to rules and costs, they can't.

Believe me, I've tried. I had cable for years and made a concerted effort to transition to an above-board provider which would give me the one thing I was actually looking for. When it became apparent that no such provider existed, it was a very easy and logical decision to move on to the providers which were giving me what I wanted, at an unbeatable price, in a manner that is reasonably convenient.

As soon as the cable company and/or networks start catching up with the market, I'll be right here willing to spend all the money I'm currently saving.

Completely understand, don't completely agree, but completely understand.

To me, it's similar to the guys selling band t-shirts outside a concert venue. The band doesn't own those shirts, and those guys are pirating the band's logo, etc., and making money off someone else's content.

I don't fault the buyer. The buyer is looking for the cheapest cost of what's being provided.

 

[codswallop]

The only reason I still have cable is for the video quality and DVR. And I know with a little research and a relatively minor investment, I can get the upgrades I'm looking for on those fronts.
Netfilx, Prime Video, other similar services; those aren't issues. But I also use a streaming service where I need those upgrades, and if I get them cable goes bye-bye (TV part, not the internet part).

I'm very well aware this streaming service more than walks the thin line of legality, at least as those laws go right now. Probably another reason why I haven't cut the cord yet; not convinced of the stability of this particular platform. But the monthly fee is so minor I'm not really worried the slight extra cost for now.

If I believe this platform has any stability, I'll ditch the cable very quickly. I can get damn near any sporting event, movie, show I can think of (and not just in the US). It's not strictly legal or particularly moral but I'm willing to forego that internal conflict after so many years/decades of being financially violated and the tremendous savings I can get in the future.

Everyone has their tipping point on such issues. Mine is at hand and not really concerned if others think I'm an immoral ass.

 

[SavageSteve]

You're likely right about this -- and note that the first push is coming from AT&T, which is less vested in the capital aspects of cable than the traditional carriers. The companies that didn't make this kind of move early are the ones that are in real trouble right now. Laying a bazillion yards of cable and doubling down on box-based technology tethered them to a business model which can ONLY make sense if they force their customers into costly, long-term bundled contracts. That's fine if you're a monopoly with all the leverage, not so much if people can stream competing services directly to their devices without any capital investment at all.

I expect AT&T will be one of the companies to come out on top of all this, if only because they were vested in the wireless/digital environment in the first place, and came into the media game with more forward-thinking products like UVerse and the DirectTV partnership. As an AT&T customer I'm fine with that, because that company has always behaved like they needed to compete for their customers... unlike the Comcasts and Time Warners of the world.



I think you're right about that. I'm currently trying to figure out if it's possible to get around this issue with Sling or Hulu, which offer local stations. What's not completely clear to me is whether those stations are forced to black out local games.

Well AT&T has started rolling out AT&T TV kind of like I was suggesting... AT&T TV: Live TV, DVR, On Demand, Apps & Voice Control No idea of cost.

 

[Grudy0]

But why do pirated signals exist? The cable monopoly. Which is actually a problem that was created by government when cable TV was allowed to exist in the United States. Each municipality "contracted" for a "franchise", so that one town/city was EXCLUSIVELY "serviced" by ONE cable company. It's gotten somewhat better in now that satellite "competes" with cable, but they're all subject to the same "blackout/protection" rules for sports.

I used to post on a board that discussed TV rights...

The problem has nothing to do with "the cable monopoly", but everything to do with the contracts that a given League, its respective teams and the broadcasting outlets have signed. Therefore the "blackout/protection" rules for sports weren't created by some rulemaking, nebulous entity but by the leagues and teams themselves. For example:

(Nothing pisses me off more than paying for Center Ice and Extra Innings, and being FORCED to listen to Forslund/Tracy for a Hurricanes/Rangers game, or the idiots who broadcast the Orioles/Nationals/Braves/Reds when those teams are playing the Yankees or Cubs.)

It might upset you, but its because of the way the rights are divvied up...

Center Ice is an out-of-market package. As you are in Carolina, Hurricanes games are in-market, and therefore won't help when the Rangers play the Canes. The NHL and the teams set it up that way. And it's basically the same for the Yankees and Cubs when playing teams that are defined as within your market as MLB setup in-market territories.

So the anger can be directed at the league and the teams for agreeing to in-market broadcast territories.

And don't get me started on streaming. There's nothing to say that a "Fox Sports Carolina" could easily provide streams for purchase in-market, bypassing MVPD's. They just haven't gotten to that point yet.

 

[robertocarlos]

Legality doesn’t equal morality. That one poster mentioned the Nestle water deal, legal deal but to me that deal is absolutely criminal to humanity.

I’d list a few examples where legality doesnt equal morality but I’m sure I don’t need to as there are some pretty easy ones that will probably pop into peoples minds.

Wages have not kept up with inflation so I doubt many people give a crap about paying for cable or not.

And I think I can count on one hand how many times I’ve watched an illegal stream.

Good points. I also have watched very few streams. When I cancel the cable next week I will not watch hockey at all unless it's on the CBC free to air.

 

[SavageSteve]

I used to post on a board that discussed TV rights...

The problem has nothing to do with "the cable monopoly", but everything to do with the contracts that a given League, its respective teams and the broadcasting outlets have signed. Therefore the "blackout/protection" rules for sports weren't created by some rulemaking, nebulous entity but by the leagues and teams themselves. For example:


It might upset you, but its because of the way the rights are divvied up...

Center Ice is an out-of-market package. As you are in Carolina, Hurricanes games are in-market, and therefore won't help when the Rangers play the Canes. The NHL and the teams set it up that way. And it's basically the same for the Yankees and Cubs when playing teams that are defined as within your market as MLB setup in-market territories.

So the anger can be directed at the league and the teams for agreeing to in-market broadcast territories.

And don't get me started on streaming. There's nothing to say that a "Fox Sports Carolina" could easily provide streams for purchase in-market, bypassing MVPD's. They just haven't gotten to that point yet.

However, you can use a VPN service to change the location of your IP address to bypass these restrictions like say configuring a DNS on your Apple TV, which shifts your location on your device without violating any laws other than maybe your terms of service with the provider of the media. Millions of people abroad use this to access the US version of Netflix or even in the US to watch the BBC iPlayer. It's a hassle and can slow down your connection; but is an option if cost is a huge concern.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

If I seriously thought that the water company was interfering with my ability to buy it at a reasonable price, you're god damned right I'd find a way around the system. Are you joking? Who in their right mind would go thirsty because of an "ethical obligation" to a corrupt utility company?

The main reason we don't deal with exploitation in utilities is that they're tightly regulated, unlike entertainment companies.

It kinda feels to me like somebody left a 20 gallon jug of water on my doorstep. I mean, I'm thirsty right, and I know I could get in my truck and drive a few blocks and buy that water at the store and haul it back home. I can afford to. But man, there's all the free water I could ask for just sitting there... and a new jug appears like magic whenever I want it...

Or to stretch the analogy a little further - imagine if I had been previously paying Culligan $50 a jug faithfully every week for the last 25 years, plus a variety of random charges - $7 jug depost, $4.50 for water handling fees, $3.15 jug labeling surchage, $4.95 for cleanliness testing, etc, and any time I tried to call them for any question or change to the delivery schedule or anything I had to stay on hold for an hour or get redirected 5 times, and invariably have the order completely screwed up regardless...

Only to find that there's free plentiful magic water available instead... I mean, I'm a little bit of a masochist, practically neo-luddite, and even played a lawful good Paladin once upon a time, but... I suppose you can also tell me I'm not legally supposed to touch that free magic jug of water sitting on my doorstep (although nobody is ever going to know, care, or enforce that arbitrary decree)... and... ok... it's still kind of a no-brainer even for me...

 

[tarheelhockey]

It kinda feels to me like somebody left a 20 gallon jug of water on my doorstep. I mean, I'm thirsty right, and I know I could get in my truck and drive a few blocks and buy that water at the store and haul it back home. I can afford to. But man, there's all the free water I could ask for just sitting there... and a new jug appears like magic whenever I want it...

Or to stretch the analogy a little further - imagine if I had been previously paying Culligan $50 a jug faithfully every week for the last 25 years, plus a variety of random charges - $7 jug depost, $4.50 for water handling fees, $3.15 jug labeling surchage, $4.95 for cleanliness testing, etc, and any time I tried to call them for any question or change to the delivery schedule or anything I had to stay on hold for an hour or get redirected 5 times, and invariably have the order completely screwed up regardless...

Only to find that there's free plentiful magic water available instead... I mean, I'm a little bit of a masochist, practically neo-luddite, and even played a lawful good Paladin once upon a time, but... I suppose you can also tell me I'm not legally supposed to touch that free magic jug of water sitting on my doorstep (although nobody is ever going to know, care, or enforce that arbitrary decree)... and... ok... it's still kind of a no-brainer even for me...

And to fully extend the metaphor -- you only wanted an individual bottle of water in the first place. It was the water company's choice to deliberately offer ONLY a $50 jug, knowing that there was no other game in town and eventually you'd crack.

 

[David Dennison]

However, you can use a VPN service to change the location of your IP address to bypass these restrictions like say configuring a DNS on your Apple TV, which shifts your location on your device without violating any laws other than maybe your terms of service with the provider of the media. Millions of people abroad use this to access the US version of Netflix or even in the US to watch the BBC iPlayer. It's a hassle and can slow down your connection; but is an option if cost is a huge concern.

Yeah and I get the sense that the NHL doesn't really care to actively enforce the blackouts if you are subscribed to Gamecenter, or does the bare minimum enforcement prescribed by the cable company they sell the TV rights to. The cost of a year of Gamecenter dwarfs whatever they might get for a customer on a cable package.

Kind of like some ISPs and illegally downloading movies/music, they don't want to lose the customer because some third party doesn't like what the customer is downloading..

 

[SwaggySpungo]

Yes, the NHL Centre Ice (on cable) or NHL Live (online streaming) is specifically for out-of-market games (eg Leaf fan living in Quebec). For playoffs, you'd have to get Sportsnet (cable or online). You'd get a subset of the games that are still available over-the-air for free on CBC and a few games on CityTV. You don't need a cable subscription anymore, but the alternatives aren't cheap.

You get every single playoff game on Centre Ice online (as far as I’m aware). No need for cable.

 

[cutchemist42]

LOL , really?

How much gasoline, electricity, water, and natural gas do you steal?

When was the last time you stole medical treatment or health insurance?

Those entities are almost always legally considered natural monopolies and are regulated as such though.

 

[LadyStanley]

Battle Over Broadcast Television

NBR on big 4 networks suing non-profit locast which streams OTA stations in select markets "for free".

You can only stream your local stations based on your geography, similar to what you'd get via antenna.

 

[NCRanger]

Battle Over Broadcast Television

NBR on big 4 networks suing non-profit locast which streams OTA stations in select markets "for free".

You can only stream your local stations based on your geography, similar to what you'd get via antenna.

That makes absolutely no sense. What if technology allowed for a digital antenna to be put into a phone? The networks DO broadcast OTA, right? Why would they complain about this?

 

[LadyStanley]

That makes absolutely no sense. What if technology allowed for a digital antenna to be put into a phone? The networks DO broadcast OTA, right? Why would they complain about this?

They're claiming they require fee for "rebroadcasting" signal.

There was a suit against for profit company that alleged copyright infringement who was streaming local stations mentioned in quoted clip.

 

[SavageSteve]

They're claiming they require fee for "rebroadcasting" signal.

There was a suit against for profit company that alleged copyright infringement who was streaming local stations mentioned in quoted clip.

Major Broadcasters Sue TV Streaming Nonprofit Locast

“Locast is simply Aereo 2.0, a business built on illegally using broadcaster content,” the lawsuit reads in part. “While it pretends to be a public service without any commercial purpose, Locast’s marketing and deep connections to AT&T and Dish make clear that it exists to serve its pay-TV patrons.”

Basically in all of the carriage agreements to rebroadcast locals and RSN's, AT&T and Dish have been backing this company and have been working to add the Locast app to their equipment to bypass the need to have locals on national feeds. Otherwise Locast is a non-profit; but it is being argued that they serve as a non-profit that serves a for-profit entity to bypass paying for carrying locals on their service.

 

[Grudy0]

That makes absolutely no sense. What if technology allowed for a digital antenna to be put into a phone? The networks DO broadcast OTA, right? Why would they complain about this?

They're claiming they require fee for "rebroadcasting" signal.

There was a suit against for profit company that alleged copyright infringement who was streaming local stations mentioned in quoted clip.

It's never about technology - it's always about rights.

Copyrights.

 

[Warden of the North]

Once im able to easily watch all Leafs games + playoffs Im done with traditional TV.

 

[jasonleaffan]

Once im able to easily watch all Leafs games + playoffs Im done with traditional TV.

You already can, just have to know where to look or ask.

 

[Warden of the North]

You already can, just have to know where to look or ask.

Legally?

Explain

 

[AD Skinner]

Money can be exchanged for goods and services