It's not the "blackouts" but perhaps I'm arguing semantics.
You can't purchase a package of all NHL games, as that offering has never existed. You can purchase services that will get you all games, and that comprises of purchasing the out-of-market games (NHL.tv, Center Ice) as well as a package that contains your in-market team(s), and that's the way it's always been.
I remember at one point it took a while for the streaming versions of the Regional Sports Networks (RSN's, such as the local NBCSN and Fox Sports channels) to have the ability to stream. There was an issue as the RSN's needed to contract not only with the teams but the NHL itself in order to provide permission to stream, as all of a sudden each of the Fox RSN's were able to start local streaming, and the local NBCSN RSN's came on board a little later. The issue I think that everyone has is that the local RSN won't allow streams without a provider credential, meaning you'd have to get cable or satellite in order to watch the streaming version. So in the case of local Hurricanes fans, Fox Sports Carolinas and Fox Sports Southeast aren't available for a la carte streaming purchase without subscribing to a "cable or satellite package". The question is whether or not the NHL has forced these RSN's to only stream to existing customers, and not create a new streaming market for services by providing the channel a la carte.
I do agree that in a sense it's a little more complicated than just cable companies
unilaterally screwing people over. My understanding is that the blackout policy begins with the league, which wants to force people into either buying a ticket or paying for media rights to its broadcast. To force the consumer's hand, the league negotiates blackouts as part of their exclusive contract with the regional TV network. In turn, the network works the logistics of that agreement into their exclusive contract with cable providers.
The issue that people are having is that this would all be
fine if the cable providers were providing an a la carte option for access to that channel. A lot of people would be absolutely 100% OK with paying $10-$20 a month for a single channel, or even a small package of channels, so that they could access that exclusive broadcast. There is a huge market for this.
But, knowing that they have entire sports fanbases up against a wall, cable companies refuse to offer that product. Instead, they take the sports product and roll it into a huge package of channels -- many of them useless QVC-style garbage -- and give the consumer no
option but to go that route. And they double down on that by structuring the bundles so that the consumer is given little option but to also use the cable company for internet access as well. As a result, the consumer who simply wanted to watch
one show is now using the cable company for virtually all of their digital media. And there's no way out of the trap, unless you're willing to either stop watching your favorite team... or to watch pirated content.
Needless to say, this arrangement
never favors the consumer. It is anti-competitive, artificially inflates sales for worthless content, and forces consumers to spend their money inefficiently for a low-quality product. The sheer market-inappropriateness of this model is being brought to the surface by cable companies getting absolutely
killed as soon as people had the option to directly stream other services, including pirated products but also including legitimate products which were both higher quality AND lower cost than a cable package. By all rights cable companies should be dead already... they're hanging on by squeezing their remaining customer base into a particularly exploitative model.
Which leads me to this little bit of legal news. It appears within this week a court has reinstated a class-action lawsuit regarding anti-trust violations of the Sherman Act between DirecTV and the NFL regarding the out-of-market package Sunday Ticket, with this synopsis from
courthousenews.com. Basically, the heart of this suit is that individual NFL teams do not contract to televise their own games locally, so there could be anti-trust violations as through restraint of trade. In other words, because the Dallas Cowboys (and every other NFL team) don't have their own TV contract and have elected not to have one in deference to the NFL's negotiation of all broadcast rights, the plaintiffs state it constitutes an anti-trust violation.
This suit will get interesting.
I have little faith in a positive outcome, but one can always hope. It's very clear that the entire system, from the sports league to the local franchise to the TV network to the cable company, all operates as a quasi-monopoly, which is what led us to this place.
