Sportsnet: Sportsnet NOW

[Anthrax442]

Anyone dealt with RedRhino? They claim they have all sports and it's all licensed?

 

[Pookie]

1. I don't but if I did, I wouldn't be as morally conflicted as you. Feel free to pm me and I'll send you a long diatribe of how much money I've paid to companies that base their entire profit model on monopolistic tactics, strong arm tactics and lobbying.

I can consult the Michael Moore books on my shelf for the challenges with corporations

But morality is about a personal choice. There are many industries like the telecom in Canada but just because I don't agree with the set up doesn't mean I can (and should) go around stealing dairy, beef, gas,electricity, airline tickets, etc

2. I watch sports and the odd movie and that's it. My wife and son get literally 90% of their entertainment from Netflix. That's $25/month for Sportsnet Now if it wasn't so trash, $9.95/month for Netflix until the tax the media companies lobbied for comes into effect and it would be $20/month for HBO or TMN if our wonderful cable companies weren't blocking direct subscriptions like you can get in the US. That's about $55/month. I currently pay about $120/month for cable.

You need another row in your excel spreadsheet. What do you pay for Internet and data per month to be able to access these streaming services?

Add $80/month to your $55/Netflix and steams.

Now, you could argue that you'd have Internet anyways but if you weren't watching video you wouldn't need that level of data.

3. Small business creates the vast majority of jobs in this country, not big companies. There would actually be more jobs and better service if it weren't for the monopolistic tactics of companies like Rogers and Bell. I'm 47 by the way, this issue is intergenerational.

That may be the case.

But if both went under, I doubt we'd see 75,000 high paying small businesses pop up in response. Probably some of those 75,000 are customers of those small businesses you reference.

And we'd watch as the economy goes through a bit of a downward cycle.

It's all connected. Henry Ford knew you needed to pay workers a decent wage in order that they could afford the product he was making.

 

[Epictetus]

SNworld cost $19.99 on its own, why would it would be included in a deal that gives you ALL SN channels for $25 p/m?.

I was just merely pointing out that you don't get ALL SN Channels with SN now, since Sportsnet World is not included.

You cant watch the EPL Saturday mornings on it? that is ridiculous, so they are actually paying to show different content so you cant watch the EPL that right there is enough not to go with it.

You can't watch the EPL, and I am also willing to bet you cannot watch the NFL since I don't believe they have the rights to broadcast it online. I've also never seen TFC games on there even though the games are on Sportsnet.

PS I hate SNWorld shows some EPL games, TSN will show 2,3,4 different games on their 5 channels but SN shows 1 game on all its channels and maybe one on SN1 if you are lucky

Well, TSN is a separate entity, so I have no problem with them showing some games, and Sportsnet showing some games as well. It's just annoying how Sportsnet has so many channels, but sometimes chooses to put live programming on SNWorld and then put re-runs of Sportsnet Connected on all their channels. So because they sometimes put games on SN World, they don't have enough games on SNWorld to justify $19.99, but make it that the sometimes allows for people without the channel to miss games.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

I can consult the Michael Moore books on my shelf for the challenges with corporations

But morality is about a personal choice. There are many industries like the telecom in Canada but just because I don't agree with the set up doesn't mean I can (and should) go around stealing dairy, beef, gas,electricity, airline tickets, etc



You need another row in your excel spreadsheet. What do you pay for Internet and data per month to be able to access these streaming services?

Add $80/month to your $55/Netflix and steams.

Now, you could argue that you'd have Internet anyways but if you weren't watching video you wouldn't need that level of data.



That may be the case.

But if both went under, I doubt we'd see 75,000 high paying small businesses pop up in response. Probably some of those 75,000 are customers of those small businesses you reference.

And we'd watch as the economy goes through a bit of a downward cycle.

It's all connected. Henry Ford knew you needed to pay workers a decent wage in order that they could afford the product he was making.

If you think I'm a Michael Moore fan, we aren't communicating properly. And again, small business creates the jobs in this country, not business stifling monopolistic companies like Bell and Rogers. If those companies mercifully went under, we wouldn't lose 75,000 jobs, we'd gain jobs. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I was just merely pointing out that you don't get ALL SN Channels with SN now, since Sportsnet World is not included.



You can't watch the EPL, and I am also willing to bet you cannot watch the NFL since I don't believe they have the rights to broadcast it online. I've also never seen TFC games on there even though the games are on Sportsnet.



Well, TSN is a separate entity, so I have no problem with them showing some games, and Sportsnet showing some games as well. It's just annoying how Sportsnet has so many channels, but sometimes chooses to put live programming on SNWorld and then put re-runs of Sportsnet Connected on all their channels. So because they sometimes put games on SN World, they don't have enough games on SNWorld to justify $19.99, but make it that the sometimes allows for people without the channel to miss games.

SN World is never utilized like that. SN1 or 360 are used for overflow. And they come with the SNNow sub.

SN World is a channel 99% of NA sports fans wouldn't require.

I know you said they sometimes do it but I don't recall 1 instance where they have and I follow all the major NA Pro sports and would remember having no way to watch something. Any delays/interruptions always end up interrupting the programming on SN1/360 not SN World.

 

[Jack Bauer]

If you think I'm a Michael Moore fan, we aren't communicating properly. And again, small business creates the jobs in this country, not business stifling monopolistic companies like Bell and Rogers. If those companies mercifully went under, we wouldn't lose 75,000 jobs, we'd gain jobs. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

There's no guarantee you'd gain anything either so cool the kool aid talk.

You lose those 75K nationwide and maybe regional carriers that are better managed only need 50K to pull off the same services across each region.

But you are right that you're not going to lose 75K jobs.

 

[Pookie]

If you think I'm a Michael Moore fan, we aren't communicating properly. And again, small business creates the jobs in this country, not business stifling monopolistic companies like Bell and Rogers. If those companies mercifully went under, we wouldn't lose 75,000 jobs, we'd gain jobs. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Well, I'll pay for Kool-aid.

Just because something is expensive doesn't justify stealing it.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Well, I'll pay for Kool-aid.

Just because something is expensive doesn't justify stealing it.

Again, I do pay for it and I don't steal it. But I would like you to consider that either one of these companies would throw you under the bus at a moment's notice if it meant $10 more profit. I have no moral dilemma if people are playing the same game these companies use as a business model. They're thieves under a different banner.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

There's no guarantee you'd gain anything either so cool the kool aid talk.

You lose those 75K nationwide and maybe regional carriers that are better managed only need 50K to pull off the same services across each region.

But you are right that you're not going to lose 75K jobs.

Isn't the idea of a large company that they actually are more efficient due to economies of scale, thus providing the same service with less employees? Isn't every major corporate merger immediately followed by massive layoffs to eliminate duplication of many roles? I'm standing by my assertion there would be net added jobs if megalithic companies were replaced by smaller companies. And there would be better competition and innovation which would benefit us all. In summary, I will dance a jig on their graves the day companies like Bell and Rogers go under.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Isn't the idea of a large company that they actually are more efficient due to economies of scale, thus providing the same service with less employees? Isn't every major corporate merger immediately followed by massive layoffs to eliminate duplication of many roles? I'm standing by my assertion there would be net added jobs if megalithic companies were replaced by smaller companies. And there would be better competition and innovation which would benefit us all. In summary, I will dance a jig on their graves the day companies like Bell and Rogers go under.

You have a better chance of American telco's getting the ability to infiltrate our system to provide competition then you ever do of our national carriers ever downsizing to become regional.

Look at Rogers profit margins and you will see that the chance of going under during our lifetimes is just not happening.

 

[Anthrax442]

You can get unlimited internet from Ttag for $40

 

[The CyNick]

Isn't the idea of a large company that they actually are more efficient due to economies of scale, thus providing the same service with less employees? Isn't every major corporate merger immediately followed by massive layoffs to eliminate duplication of many roles? I'm standing by my assertion there would be net added jobs if megalithic companies were replaced by smaller companies. And there would be better competition and innovation which would benefit us all. In summary, I will dance a jig on their graves the day companies like Bell and Rogers go under.

The less efficient smaller company would have to charge more to consumers to make up for the profit margin shortfall in your little scenario there. Walmart put most competitors out of business because the smaller shops were charging more for the same product. No reason to believe some small Telco that say only serviced The Beach would provide cheaper rates than Bell or Rogers.

You should do some digging on the amount of money these large companies invest in technology, I highly doubt some mom and pop shop would be able to compete in that world.

 

[The CyNick]

Actually, it's not at all. The big companies collude in pricing and hide behind the crtc to avoid competition from cheaper US rivals. That's anything but capitalism.

Do you have proof of this collusion or are you just a person taking nonsense on the internet? I have a feeling I know which category you fall into, but would love to be proven wrong. Otherwise your baseless claims should be removed from this thread by our qualified moderators.

 

[PuckMagi]

Do you have proof of this collusion or are you just a person taking nonsense on the internet? I have a feeling I know which category you fall into, but would love to be proven wrong. Otherwise your baseless claims should be removed from this thread by our qualified moderators.

Don't you ever wonder why AT&T, Verizon, etc. don't operate in Toronto?

 

[Sam Spade]

Regarding why we don't revolt, yeah, I don't get it either. Everything in Canada is such a gouge and so inferior compared to comparable products in the US, it's just amazing we keep taking it. I guess it's because we were founded by rule following loyalists and the US was founded by revolutionaries. That's not a joke by the way, I really do think there's a cultural background that makes us docile and compliant.

I love Canada and would move tomorrow if they would have me but this point is correct.

My two year commitment to Verizon Fios ends Sept. 1st, I called and simply implied that I would leave and the rep, not only upped my data speed but LOWERED my price by $5 per month for signing another two year contract.

Anyway this is a great thread, the reason I popped in was to respond to the OP's question.

Does Canada have PlayStationVue or SlingTV yet?

I cut the cord two years ago and went with Sling and watched the games thru streams. Now Sling and PSV are offering more and more regional sports channels. As a Caps fan they now have CSN-Mid Atlantic so I can go back to not stealing for $40 a month (data is $50 so I am still under $100).

Hopefully that is an option for you, if not now, then soon.

 

[Torontonian]

If you have sportsnet now, you can watch all the leafs game online (Thats how I do in my mancave) but you wont get any of the TSN games.. But you can just login on the TSN site to watch their games.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Do you have proof of this collusion or are you just a person taking nonsense on the internet? I have a feeling I know which category you fall into, but would love to be proven wrong. Otherwise your baseless claims should be removed from this thread by our qualified moderators.

You don't think it's collusion when the Big 3 carriers have similarly ridiculously priced TV/Cell/Internet packages while they are protected by the CRTC? The only time there is any pressure on them at all is when a startup like Wind/Fido/Koodo comes along and whoops! They get bought by the big three. Collusion doesn't necessarily mean the CEO of Rogers picks up the phone and calls the CEO of Bell to decide what the prices will be today.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

You have a better chance of American telco's getting the ability to infiltrate our system to provide competition then you ever do of our national carriers ever downsizing to become regional.

Look at Rogers profit margins and you will see that the chance of going under during our lifetimes is just not happening.

Oh I agree it will never change.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

The less efficient smaller company would have to charge more to consumers to make up for the profit margin shortfall in your little scenario there. Walmart put most competitors out of business because the smaller shops were charging more for the same product. No reason to believe some small Telco that say only serviced The Beach would provide cheaper rates than Bell or Rogers.

Funny, I own a small engineering company and the big companies charge double what I charge. You're also proved wrong by the likes of companies like Vmedia, Comwave, Wind that offer cheaper deals in their respective mediums and seem to do OK. Rogers, Bell, Telus, Cogeco charge what they charge because they can.

You should do some digging on the amount of money these large companies invest in technology, I highly doubt some mom and pop shop would be able to compete in that world.

Traditionally, that investment was in partnership with the government (i.e., heavily subsidized utilities) and these companies were given a monopoly in exchange for government oversight and price controls. Then, just like in our electricity system, the government deregulated and allowed these utilities to become profit centres. Bell is the perfect example of this. Their infrastructure was primarily built on the backs of the taxpayers which gives them an overwhelming advantage over a startup. That's why the CRTC forces them to give smaller companies access to their networks.

 

[The CyNick]

Funny, I own a small engineering company and the big companies charge double what I charge. You're also proved wrong by the likes of companies like Vmedia, Comwave, Wind that offer cheaper deals in their respective mediums and seem to do OK. Rogers, Bell, Telus, Cogeco charge what they charge because they can.



Traditionally, that investment was in partnership with the government (i.e., heavily subsidized utilities) and these companies were given a monopoly in exchange for government oversight and price controls. Then, just like in our electricity system, the government deregulated and allowed these utilities to become profit centres. Bell is the perfect example of this. Their infrastructure was primarily built on the backs of the taxpayers which gives them an overwhelming advantage over a startup. That's why the CRTC forces them to give smaller companies access to their networks.

Great, so you're either leaving money on the table, meaning you're not maximizing shareholder wealth, or your brand or service/product isn't up to snuff with your other competitors, which is why you charge less to stay alive. A small engineering company isn't the same as an industry that requires billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure every year.

You need to do more research on the telecom industry. Wind offers lower rates because they offer an inferior product.

 

[The CyNick]

Don't you ever wonder why AT&T, Verizon, etc. don't operate in Toronto?

Probably the same reason they don't operate in Canada in general. High cost and low return. It's expensive to maintain proper cable network in a country larger than the US and with a tenth of customer base.

 

[The CyNick]

You don't think it's collusion when the Big 3 carriers have similarly ridiculously priced TV/Cell/Internet packages while they are protected by the CRTC? The only time there is any pressure on them at all is when a startup like Wind/Fido/Koodo comes along and whoops! They get bought by the big three. Collusion doesn't necessarily mean the CEO of Rogers picks up the phone and calls the CEO of Bell to decide what the prices will be today.

I know for a FACT there is no collusion. Toothpaste costs roughly the same in major box retailers. There's no collusion. Most similar products carry similar price tags. It's just market forces.

 

[PuckMagi]

Probably the same reason they don't operate in Canada in general. High cost and low return. It's expensive to maintain proper cable network in a country larger than the US and with a tenth of customer base.

Incorrect. It is because our government regulations will not allow it.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...lift-canadian-telecom-protections-prof-argues

While Canada’s telecom market was partially liberalized in 2012 when the federal government opened the door to foreign ownership of Canadian cellphone service carriers that have less than 10 per cent of the Canadian market share, current regulations forbid foreign majority ownership of a major telecom company.

Removal of the foreign ownership restrictions would require an amendment to the Telecommunications Act.

The telecom ownership provisions are complicated further by the fact that Canada’s big three service providers, Bell, Telus and Rogers, are also intertwined with the country’s broadcasting networks, which have their own set of ownership and licensing restrictions.

Successive expert panels have over the years recommended ownership restrictions be lifted, but few actions have been taken amid concerns that a takeover of a Canadian telecom company by a U.S. or other international conglomerate would result in foreign interests controlling a Canadian broadcaster as well, potentially leading to a watering down of Canadian content.

Hejazi said the NAFTA talks present a perfect opportunity to lift the protections from foreign competition enjoyed by the trio.

“The telecom industry in Canada should not be protected. Full stop, end of story,” said Hejazi.

 

[Anthrax442]

Furthermore, all these weird channels that popped up in the past few years are all owned by Rogers/ Bell or Shaw. You have to have them as part of different packages and they are getting paid monthly subscription whether you like it or not.

 

[The CyNick]

Incorrect. It is because our government regulations will not allow it.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...lift-canadian-telecom-protections-prof-argues

While Canada’s telecom market was partially liberalized in 2012 when the federal government opened the door to foreign ownership of Canadian cellphone service carriers that have less than 10 per cent of the Canadian market share, current regulations forbid foreign majority ownership of a major telecom company.

Removal of the foreign ownership restrictions would require an amendment to the Telecommunications Act.

The telecom ownership provisions are complicated further by the fact that Canada’s big three service providers, Bell, Telus and Rogers, are also intertwined with the country’s broadcasting networks, which have their own set of ownership and licensing restrictions.

Successive expert panels have over the years recommended ownership restrictions be lifted, but few actions have been taken amid concerns that a takeover of a Canadian telecom company by a U.S. or other international conglomerate would result in foreign interests controlling a Canadian broadcaster as well, potentially leading to a watering down of Canadian content.

Hejazi said the NAFTA talks present a perfect opportunity to lift the protections from foreign competition enjoyed by the trio.

“The telecom industry in Canada should not be protected. Full stop, end of story,†said Hejazi.

You should try reading the rest of that article. The person you are quoting has no insight into the inner workings of the industry. Foreign investors could compete if they wanted to. They don't see enough benefit in coming in. Simple as that. And if government feels the people want to lift restrictions, they will do it. Or more accurately the public will demand it.