Cont'd - NHL makes 12-year/$5.2 billion Canadian TV deal w/ Sportsnet, CBC, TSN out

[Habsawce]

I find it hilarious how many people are complaining about price increases. How do any of you guys think teams pay their players? How else would the salary cap go up?

It's the fear of unjust rises in prices. Take a lot at education in Canada, the government of Ontario is in charge of education and do not have to adhere to regulatory maximums in inflation therefore the price of tuition has exponentially increased over the past 20 years many times over the inflation rate of the national marketplace. They're a monopoly over education, and while there are regulatory agencies in place to prevent private corporations and services liek Rogers from doing this these companies are also run at arm's length from government by former employees of the companies they're supposed to be regulating.

There is jsut so much conflict of interests here that myself, like many in here are worried about. It's not that we're being ignorant to the move Rogers and the NHL made, it makes sense for them but as Canadians it just doesn't add up.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I honestly don't have a problem from the Rogers viewpoint. They made a strategic and powerful business move here. This was good for them, and good for the NHL. I just have a problem with it from the viewpoint of the general public that is going to pay because of the ineptitude of our government to regulate corporations. People are begging for market saturation in telecommunications, and we hear a lot of rah rah from politics and we're working on it, but then a corporation is allowed to come in and corner an entire market like this and essentially effect the entire country digitally.

Even if you don't like hockey, or don't watch hockey there is a corporation that now has exclusive rights to the biggest money maker in Canada and can essentially dictate the market for all telecommunications because there is no saturation from outside sources. The competition is nadda, zilch, they have Bell et al at their mercy for programming going forward.

How can the government step in and stop Rogers from paying the NHL 10 times that of the current deal based on an unfair business practice when the current deal essentially has the same amount of games available and are limited to certain channels?

Dictating the nations telecommunication market is NOT up to Rogers or Bell. It's up to the CRTC.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

The alternate Sportsnet channels are not free with basic cable. I don't have them. I still have TSN, TSN2, and SN West though. I only watch HD so it's irrelevant anyway, but you need the sports package that gives you NHL Network and ESPN classic to get those alternate regional Sportsnets. Shaw only offers the standard def versions of those stations so I don't order them.

Really though, discussing standard def cable packages is archaic as we approach 2014. Most people who watch mainly sports programming have upgraded to HD by now. And when discussing HD, as far as I know, only TSN, TSN2, and SN West are included in the basic HD package. It might have changed by now, I'm not positive.

For Shaw in BC:http://www.shaw.ca/personal/television/channel-listings/

Sportsnet 1 HD and TSN2 HD both in HD Basic package. So, you get two TSN channels, two Sportsnet channels in the same HD tier. 360 is in their HD(sports plus) tier.

On Bell, TSN 2 HD, Sportsnet 1 HD, Sportsnet 360 HD, and all the Regional Sportsnets are on the same tier (Ontario).http://www.bell.ca/Fibe-TV/Fibe-Channels

On Rogers in Ontario: You get Sportsnet Ontario with basic cable, Sportsnet and TSN with the digital 'plus' package but only Sportsnet in HD, You get all the Sportsnets and TSN and TSN 2 in the extra sports, but only the Sportsnet channels in HD. In order to get the TSN's in HD, you need to shell out an extra $10.


So, in Shaw in BC: If you have TSN and TSN 2 in HD, you should also have Sportsnet Pacific, and Sportsnet 1 in HD as well. Sportsnet 360 HD is in another package. Seems fair.

On Bell in Ontario (and I assume in BC and wherever they are available), if you have TSN and TSN 2 HD, you should also have all the Sportsnets in HD.

On Rogers in Ontario (Rogers may vary more depending on area, don't know): You get all the Sportsnets in HD for $10 cheaper than the package that includes TSN and TSN2 in HD (which also includes all the Sportsnets).


And my current cable provider has all of them on the same HD tier (except for other region sports nets). TSN, TSN2, Sportsnet Ontario, Sportsnet 1, Sportsnet 360 are all included in their basic HD package.


So, your portrayal of the Sportsnet channels being their obscure premium channels compared to TSN2 doesn't hold much water.

Oh, and since it sounds as though you are from Alberta: Shaw Alberta:http://www.shaw.ca/personal/television/channel-listings/?lregion=AB&lcity=Calgary

Similar to BC. Should be noted the Sportsnet 360 is included in basic cable. HD situation is the same as BC. TSN, TSN2, Sportsnet West, Sportsnet 1 are all HD Basic. Sportsnet 360 is HD Sports (Plus).

 

[Habsawce]

How can the government step in and stop Rogers from paying the NHL 10 times that of the current deal based on an unfair business practice when the current deal essentially has the same amount of games available and are limited to certain channels?

Dictating the nations telecommunication market is NOT up to Rogers or Bell. It's up to the CRTC.

Because a deciding factor in the deal was allowing HNIC to continue running on CBC in which the revenue from a public entity is transferred to a private enterprise. Remove CBC from the picture and I have a lot less problem with it.

 

[Jack Bauer]

It's the fear of unjust rises in prices. Take a lot at education in Canada, the government of Ontario is in charge of education and do not have to adhere to regulatory maximums in inflation therefore the price of tuition has exponentially increased over the past 20 years many times over the inflation rate of the national marketplace. They're a monopoly over education, and while there are regulatory agencies in place to prevent private corporations and services liek Rogers from doing this these companies are also run at arm's length from government by former employees of the companies they're supposed to be regulating.

There is jsut so much conflict of interests here that myself, like many in here are worried about. It's not that we're being ignorant to the move Rogers and the NHL made, it makes sense for them but as Canadians it just doesn't add up.

Private education is also based on supply and demand.

There's not a university in North America that hasn't seen exponential tuition increase over the last 2 decades.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Because a deciding factor in the deal was allowing HNIC to continue running on CBC in which the revenue from a public entity is transferred to a private enterprise. Remove CBC from the picture and I have a lot less problem with it.

Do you realize how many tax paying dollars the CBC loses if they had to compete with the bid?

There's no revenue transferred from the CBC....it's Rogers revenue now. CBC benefits from the ability to advertise during the HNIC window.

Did you rather then CBC lose $100mil of our money to keep that $40 mil in revenue flowing to a public entity? There's 1 thing private enterprises can take on that public ones can not....exponential risk.

If this blows up CBC is out after 4 years and have spent $0. That more then protects the Canadian tax payer.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

It's the fear of unjust rises in prices. Take a lot at education in Canada, the government of Ontario is in charge of education and do not have to adhere to regulatory maximums in inflation therefore the price of tuition has exponentially increased over the past 20 years many times over the inflation rate of the national marketplace. They're a monopoly over education, and while there are regulatory agencies in place to prevent private corporations and services liek Rogers from doing this these companies are also run at arm's length from government by former employees of the companies they're supposed to be regulating.

There is jsut so much conflict of interests here that myself, like many in here are worried about. It's not that we're being ignorant to the move Rogers and the NHL made, it makes sense for them but as Canadians it just doesn't add up.

You seem to be rather mistaken on how Canadian Universities are operated and the causes for their tuition hikes. While Universities are publicly funded, they aren't controlled or run by the governments. (Colleges can be said to be though).

 

[Habsawce]

Do you realize how many tax paying dollars the CBC loses if they had to compete with the bid?

There's no revenue transferred from the CBC....it's Rogers revenue now. CBC benefits from the ability to advertise during the HNIC window.

Did you rather then CBC lose $100mil of our money to keep that $40 mil in revenue flowing to a public entity? There's 1 thing private enterprises can take on that public ones can not....exponential risk.

If this blows up CBC is out after 4 years and have spent $0. That more then protects the Canadian tax payer.

I'd rather HNIC not be on CBC at all, public service should not be in the business of making profits for private enterprise. That's absurd.

CBC is acting like a charity case and it's embarrassing. HNIC is nostalgia, nothing more and shouldn't be a puppet for promoting Rogers' monopoly over hockey in Canada.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think the clearest conclusion coming from this thread is that you need to find a new tv provider

I would LOVE to switch providers. But I can't. There's only one available to me. The beauty of monopolies at work.

i don't watch SD either but i think u are wrong. i will check.

I know HD Plus(tsn 2 not included because u get it free with Digital Basic) and Best Of HD are different(tsn 2
included).


EDIT: SN West/Ontario is included with Basic with Shaw(u need to be on the new packages to get this). The older(classic package) might not get it

This wouldn't surprise me if Shaw was giving better perks and packages to newer customers and not making the same deals available to existing customers. I've been with them for 6 years, so it was a while ago that I got my package. They're notorious for this sort of crap. Since I have no TV alternatives, really nothing I can do besides bend over and grab my ankles. I know first hand to joys of being subject to cable monopolies.

 

[theaub]

thanks. so, it is your understanding that the location of the game is what would decide who gets it? TO in Bos is nbc's, Bos in TO is SN's? i could see rogers leveraging more games in canadian cities on certain nights of the week then, no? moreover, would this not put pressure on the league for more canadian locations? (ie., QC and Hammer, not Seattle and Houston) ... i mean, if push came to shove between nbc and rogers, who is gary going to listen to? i would suggest that $5.2B speaks louder than $2B and if I were a fan in a struggling US market (notwithstanding whatever comes out in this messy wash of HRR, revenue sharing, but higher caps) I might be a bit worried.

simply put, is a team in phoenix worth more or less to the folks coughing up huge cash than one in quebec city?

Sportsnet will have their own broadcasts on Wednesday/Saturday/Sunday with their own broadcast teams regardless of location of game. Similar to the current TSN deal, the Wednesday night games will have at least one Canadian team, and obviously HNIC will feature multiple Canadian team games. The only new aspect of the deal is the Sunday night game, which will assumably feature at least one Canadian team. However, this shouldn't be much of an issue since if you go through the NHL schedule as is there is already usually one Canadian team playing every Sunday night, as the west coast teams play some Sunday night games.

I think what previous poster was referring to are the NBCSN broadcasts that are picked up a lot on Monday/Tuesday/Thursday, and Wednesday as well (I believe there will be the NBCSN simulcast on TSN2 tonight). Those would also fall under Sportsnet's jurisdiction under the new agreement, and as such they will be able to either show those on the regional channels or use them to promote Sportsnet One (would not be surprised at all if its the latter).

There aren't really any conflicts during the regular season when it comes to NBC/Canadian providers, because NBC has no interest in Canadian teams and HNIC isn't going to have all-American matchups. Previously, HNIC has pretty much been told to go away during the playoffs in favour of setting up NBC matchups; it will be interesting to see what this new deal does for that.

As well, I would agree 100% that the increased revenue from the contract as well as the dramatic increase in available coverage space means that more Canadian teams (helloooooo Markham please) is inevitable at this point.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Oh, and since it sounds as though you are from Alberta: Shaw Alberta:http://www.shaw.ca/personal/television/channel-listings/?lregion=AB&lcity=Calgary

If you read the fine print, those packages are only available at those prices for new customers. As an existing customer, Shaw has fee reign to continue screwing me over thanks to their monopoly. Admittedly, this is a separate issue.

So I can concede this, yes it appears that SN1 is more available than I suspected, appearing to be equally as available as TSN2 on HD platforms in my region. I have to pay extra for it, but new customers don't. Looks like Shaw isn't even willing to spit on it for their loyal customers, and really why bother when you have the market cornered.

 

[tbcwpg]

I would LOVE to switch providers. But I can't. There's only one available to me. The beauty of monopolies at work.



This wouldn't surprise me if Shaw was giving better perks and packages to newer customers and not making the same deals available to existing customers. I've been with them for 6 years, so it was a while ago that I got my package. They're notorious for this sort of crap. Since I have no TV alternatives, really nothing I can do besides bend over and grab my ankles. I know first hand to joys of being subject to cable monopolies.

They aren't perks and packages for new subscribers, any subscriber can switch from the old basic/classic system to the personal tv system.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

They aren't perks and packages for new subscribers, any subscriber can switch from the old basic/classic system to the personal tv system.

For an arm and a leg, yes. Brand new customers can get decent rates and bundles. Anybody wanting to switch things around after the fact will see their bill go up. But they'll get a Shaw home phone landline (that almost nobody has any use for in this day and age) along with it to "justify" the cost. A Shaw rep was at my door not long ago trying to sell me on the virtues of moving to a personal TV system. They were all too happy to set me up with a new HD box, take away 80 channels, and reduce my bill by a whopping $6 per month had I agreed to their "generous" offer. When I questioned them as to why new customers got faster internet and new HD boxes for a smaller monthly fee than I was currently paying there was a lot of hand-wringing, doublespeak, and subject changing.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I would LOVE to switch providers. But I can't. There's only one available to me. The beauty of monopolies at work.

Sorry but as long as you're in Canada you have at least one other option for your television.

I don't believe there's 1 area of the country under a monopoly for television broadcasting.

 

[Wetcoaster]

How can the government step in and stop Rogers from paying the NHL 10 times that of the current deal based on an unfair business practice when the current deal essentially has the same amount of games available and are limited to certain channels?

Dictating the nations telecommunication market is NOT up to Rogers or Bell. It's up to the CRTC.

How is it up to the CRTC?

 

[Jack Bauer]

How is it up to the CRTC?

They force competitors to play fair.

If they didn't we'd all be jumping to Rogers TV providers as Bell would not be able to have Rogers content at all meaning no NHL hockey other then on CBC for any Bell Satellite or FibreOp customers in Canada.

They have to offer the competition a similar rate that they essentially charge themselves for the same channel space.

Everyone loves to rip the CRTC but without them we'd have no competition at all and would be in an even worse situation. It's really not that hard to see when you realize the big players in terms of channels are also the big players in terms of providers.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Sorry but as long as you're in Canada you have at least one other option for your television.

I don't believe there's 1 area of the country under a monopoly for television broadcasting.

The only other cable company operating in Alberta is Telus, and they are small at the moment and not widely available. Between Shaw driving Videotron out of Alberta in the late 90's and Telus starting to provide cable in select areas a few years ago, Shaw had a total, unopposed monopoly.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

The only other cable company operating in Alberta is Telus, and they are small at the moment and not widely available. Between Shaw driving Videotron out of Alberta in the late 90's and Telus starting to provide cable in select areas a few years ago, Shaw had a total, unopposed monopoly.

Eastlink is also in Alberta, though not in all markets. And there's always satellite unless you live in an apartment that doesn't allow them.

 

[Hemlor]

Private education is also based on supply and demand.

There's not a university in North America that hasn't seen exponential tuition increase over the last 2 decades.

I would argue Quebec has not seen the increases that the rest of NA have seen

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Eastlink is also in Alberta, though not in all markets. And there's always satellite unless you live in an apartment that doesn't allow them.

Only available in rural Alberta, so maybe 5% of the population has access to it.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Eastlink is also in Alberta, though not in all markets. And there's always satellite unless you live in an apartment that doesn't allow them.

And if that's the case then you're limited your own options and while understandable you can't hold that against anyone.

 

[cheswick]

I would LOVE to switch providers. But I can't. There's only one available to me. The beauty of monopolies at work.



This wouldn't surprise me if Shaw was giving better perks and packages to newer customers and not making the same deals available to existing customers. I've been with them for 6 years, so it was a while ago that I got my package. They're notorious for this sort of crap. Since I have no TV alternatives, really nothing I can do besides bend over and grab my ankles. I know first hand to joys of being subject to cable monopolies.

Umm if there's more than one competitor it's not a monopoly.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I would argue Quebec has not seen the increases that the rest of NA have seen

Correct. Also a much much different system for funding as it's a different education system completely then the rest of us have.

 

[Hemlor]

Comrade Mark; that's the US motto, here it's like communism when it comes to TV, radio, internet....

except that we don't have the state regulating the cost, we leave that up (with some monitoring) to the 'market' to decide.

 

[Hemlor]

Correct. Also a much much different system for funding as it's a different education system completely then the rest of us have.

It is much more subsidized than other provinces.