ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

But they don't...they pay for it. Saying 90% subscribe to FREE TV is not doing your argument any favors. I believe the % is somewhere less than 10% of the population use over the air tv...the rest...are paying for it..through the nose I may add..for something that is FREE.

They're not paying for the free channels, they're paying for the channels they wouldn't get otherwise. Are there people out there that have cable and only watch the free to air channels? Probably, but not many of them. Free to air is what, 4 channels? The lowest tier cable package has many more channels that are not otherwise available.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I know I wasn't proposing the NHL scrap Game Centre, moreso the concept of pairing it with a free offering isn't the worst idea ever suggested. Maybe the free offering limits a user to a specific amount of time watched a week in poorer quality?

Or even pay by team. Something like $50 but you can only watch Flames games or whoever you choose at the start of the year. Or be able to buy tokens and you can watch a game for X amount with different options and prices for amounts of games.

I just hate the idea of the quality getting lowered. Even if it was just for the free customers some of that would creep into the paid product because less people may pay to watch NHLCI/GC which means less money to put back into the product.

Hey I'm all for free, I'm sure I can find a way to blow that $200 elsewhere, but from a business stand point I don't think it makes sense. Why screw over the hardcore fans/customers just to please a few casual ones?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Why do people buy CDs when they can get the music for free?

Because you can't legally get the music for free. Even so, CD sales have been in steep decline.

People have pointed out flaws in your arguement and you call them morons and/or idiots.

I have done no such thing.

I know I wasn't proposing the NHL scrap Game Centre, moreso the concept of pairing it with a free offering isn't the worst idea ever suggested. Maybe the free offering limits a user to a specific amount of time watched a week in poorer quality?

Yeah, like people couldn't figure out how to get around those limits.

There is a way to capture more viewers while still maintaining or increasing revenue, one just has to be open minded a bit.

If there is, giving it away for free is definitely not the way to achieve that.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

But they don't...they pay for it. Saying 90% subscribe to FREE TV is not doing your argument any favors. I believe the % is somewhere less than 10% of the population use over the air tv...the rest...are paying for it..through the nose I may add..for something that is FREE.

Everyone in this country has the option not to buy cable. Or are you telling me you pay $50-100/month because of CBC's programming?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Poor choice of words. CBC anyone can access by just plugging the cable into the wall. Trust me I know from when I first moved to Calgary and it took Shaw 3 days to come hook me up.


And? How does that help the NHL recoup their cost in lost revenue? How does that help the NHL explain to Sportsnet that they are losing money because everyone is watching it free online?

1. Increased market for hockey. NHL is throwing away millions right now just to establish a market in a city like Phoenix.
2. More viewers = more advertisement revenue. NHL earns nothing right now from people watching illegal streams, instead they're squeezing as much money they can from people who are willing to pay for the stream. I bet that on a given night that there are more people watching the illegal streams than the game center and if they could get just a bit more advertising revenue due to the increased number of viewers, they could easily break even without even having to charge $200 per user.

Also, let me clarify that this would also help the local broadcasters since NHL is just essentially streaming their feed (even currently on game center). They just block out the advertisements at the moment but if they didn't, why would the local broadcasters complain? They're getting more viewers watching their channel, just not through the TV, but rather a computer monitor.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by valo403

They're not paying for the free channels, they're paying for the channels they wouldn't get otherwise. Are there people out there that have cable and only watch the free to air channels? Probably, but not many of them. Free to air is what, 4 channels? The lowest tier cable package has many more channels that are not otherwise available.

I wish you were right. Do me a favor...go into best buy and ask for an OTA receiver...guess where they bring you..yup you guessed it.... to Shaw and Bell. The staff probably will think you're up to no good when you explain FREE TV. Trust me...I've been there.

My point, if you look back, is that many of the popluar shows are FREE, yet people are paying. What frustrates me even more is when the basic cable package advertises, GLOBAL, CTV, CBC and CITYTV as value added channels....which they are not.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Everyone in this country has the option not to buy cable. Or are you telling me you pay $50-100/month because of CBC's programming?

I don't pay...I can't justify it. I pay per show..via Itunes and OTA Free TV.

Thats' my point though...really the way to (maybe) combat this is to have an ON Demand option for sports.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I agree. However, I doubt that the NHL would give away advertising space for free with the potential for a large amount of viewers on a free service.

I think you are drastically over estimating the revenue generating potential of such a venture, and that is where the flaw of your plan is.

If, like others have said, you could earn half a billion dollars from banners for an online stream, many businesses would be making money hand over fist on the internet. Ever wonder why the Wall Street Journal makes you pay for a subscription for unlimited content? I will give you a hint: it isn't because banners make them enough money...

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Actually, I do. Sorry.

The majority of popular TV shows are available for free over the air (in HD)..yet people still shell out $20-$30 per month for basic cable (without HD). I seriously have a hard time explaining to a lot of the working youth that free HD OTA actually does exist, and, in fact, is not illegal.

I get that no one should be able to stream games over the internet for free, but I also don't like the idea that these cable companies can sell to the consumer that basic cable is actually anything more than free tv with a few more shows added in.

The fact is, that in order for most to watch all of the sports ( all SN channels, TSN, TSN2, etc.) they would like, they're looking at upwards of $1000 to $1200 per year in cable fees...call me cheap...but I find that pretty expensive to watch sports.

I'm certainly no expert in media, but I agree with some, that the ability to view games on demand seems rather simple and obvious in order to combat this..but maybe I'm giving the illegal streamers to much credit...

I do think that we are probably a short time away from being able to view sports on demand (even local ones) over the internet for a fee, but I also find it no coincidence that Bell and Shaw are now putting caps on internet usage in order to combat this..maybe they see the writing on the wall.

OTA might be free to use, but takes time, money and effort to let you set up.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Because you can't legally get the music for free. Even so, CD sales have been in steep decline.

I have done no such thing.

Yeah, like people couldn't figure out how to get around those limits.

If there is, giving it away for free is definitely not the way to achieve that.

People are already getting around the GameCenter and playing illegal streams.
Nobody has yet to shoot down the Hulu-like GameCenter idea.

What do you not like about the following?

Free GameCenter
-Allow anyone to view 1000kbps stream of live games for free with advertisements. Obviously local broadercaster feed is unaltered so their commercials get played while having additional banner ads on the page for NHL revenue.

This will get rid of people using illegal streams since NHL providers better quality streams. Internet advertisement profit will go directly to NHL instead of illegal stream providers. NHL wins in this case since they are gaining advertisement revenue instead of nothing from users who would've just used illegal streams to watch the game.


GameCenter Plus
-Have a subscription fee (just like Hulu Plus) where you get additional functionalities such as being able to watch previous games, classic games, just the way it is right now.
-PVR features that free users won't have access to.
-Ability to watch streams at higher rate than 1000 kbps
-Pretty much what it currently is.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Nope, I'm not a foreign student nor am I implying you're going a clown college compared to you.
I'm just responding to your assumption that every student has $200 that they can throw away every weekend. You and your friend might have the luxury to go spend $200 at a bar on a weekend or something but don't assume all other students are the same way.

You assumed it was every weekend. That isn't what I meant. It might only be once a month. But it happens. Furthermore I said entertainment. That doesn't mean have to mean bars.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Rathji

OTA might be free to use, but takes time, money and effort to let you set up.

So does setting up a satellite dish...

Look, I don't disagree with you or anyone else about illegal streaing being rather, well illegal, but I truly believe these companies have many confused about what is free and what isn't.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think you are drastically over estimating the revenue generating potential of such a venture, and that is where the flaw of your plan is.

If, like others have said, you could earn half a billion dollars from banners for an online stream, many businesses would be making money hand over fist on the internet. Ever wonder why the Wall Street Journal makes you pay for a subscription for unlimited content? I will give you a hint: it isn't because banners make them enough money...

Your example of WSJ perfectly indicates the route I was personally taking with my arguement. Still maintaining a pay version while offering some free service of some sort would maximize viewership and increase overall revenue, if done properly.

Eliminating the pay version completely for only free versions based on advertising is ridiculous and a silly notion.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

1. Increased market for hockey. NHL is throwing away millions right now just to establish a market in a city like Phoenix.
2. More viewers = more advertisement revenue. NHL earns nothing right now from people watching illegal streams, instead they're squeezing as much money they can from people who are willing to pay for the stream. I bet that on a given night that there are more people watching the illegal streams than the game center and if they could get just a bit more advertising revenue due to the increased number of viewers, they could easily break even without even having to charge $200 per user.

Also, let me clarify that this would also help the local broadcasters since NHL is just essentially streaming their feed (even currently on game center). They just block out the advertisements at the moment but if they didn't, why would the local broadcasters complain? They're getting more viewers watching their channel, just not through the TV, but rather a computer monitor.

Because the additional people seeing those ads don't matter to them, but the people in their market who are watching free games in another market do.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Your example of WSJ perfectly indicates the route I was personally taking with my arguement. Still maintaining a pay version while offering some free service of some sort would maximize viewership and increase overall revenue, if done properly.

Eliminating the pay version completely for only free versions based on advertising is ridiculous and a silly notion.

Exactly...

Have these companies not seen the downfall of the music industry and paper industry to understand that you must get a system in place to capitalize on the technology before it's too late? The music industry, I believe has seen a pretty good recovery since iTunes and other paid online sources, but why let it get to the point where they are forced into it?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Because the additional people seeing those ads don't matter to them, but the people in their market who are watching free games in another market do.

Yeah? So why does it matter if the existing viewers watch the exact same show through a TV or a computer?

Also, given that this option will reduce illegal streams of their program, would they still be against it considering that this could lead to more legitimate viewers in their market.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Exactly...

Have these companies not seen the downfall of the music industry and paper industry to understand that you must get a system in place to capitalize on the technology before it's too late? The music industry, I believe has seen a pretty good recovery since iTunes and other paid online sources, but why let it get to the point where they are forced into it?

Also, even though the music industry is still going after illegal uploads of their music on YouTube, I think this could still be beneficial to them. I've discovered and bought songs that I would've never bought it the first place thanks to the illegal uploads on YouTube. If those uploads weren't there, I would've never heard some of the bands I listen to now.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Exactly...

Have these companies not seen the downfall of the music industry and paper industry to understand that you must get a system in place to capitalize on the technology before it's too late? The music industry, I believe has seen a pretty good recovery since iTunes and other paid online sources, but why let it get to the point where they are forced into it?

Considering the NHL has seen it's revenues continuously rise even during a economic slowdown I don't think they're going to be forced into offering their product online for free any time soon.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Also, even though the music industry is still going after illegal uploads of their music on YouTube, I think this could still be beneficial to them. I've discovered and bought songs that I would've never bought it the first place thanks to the illegal uploads on YouTube. If those uploads weren't there, I would've never heard some of the bands I listen to now.

Well..maybe..but I'm not really convinced of that either.

What I do find interesting is that the music industry has kind of left the TV world behind and has actually tried to stay ahead of the curve in terms of music videos (which are advertising). VEVO is free and Muchmusic is not..and, Muchmusic, has suffered because of it..but that doesn't mean that the music industry is necessarily suffering...

The problem is, as i see it, is the cable companies are living in an old business model, and, if they don't adapt, the NHL or NFL, or whoever, will eventually bypass them. Which may be why you are starting to see caps on the internet....just a guess.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Yeah? So why does it matter if the existing viewers watch the exact same show through a TV or a computer?

Also, given that this option will reduce illegal streams of their program, would they still be against it considering that this could lead to more legitimate viewers in their market.

Huh? You're not talking about a choice of platform, you're talking about enabling people in a market that currently would have one choice for free games being able to access every game. that draws eyes away from the local broadcast, thereby reducing the desirability of advertising on the telecast, which in turn pulls down ad rates. Is that so hard to grasp?