ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Wireless technology, coming soon!

Yeah, but then everyone would be able to see the multiple tabs of porn that I have open

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

How much money have you spent on soccer merchandise and games since becoming a fan?

Again, becoming a fan and spending money on the league doesn't happen over night.
Like I said, if the World Cup is going to be hosted in NA, I would definitely try to go. Not to mention the additional ad revenue that CBC generated by having one more viewer for their program. Having one additional might not mean a thing but if you look at the bigger picture, I'm sure they gained more than 1 viewer this summer.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What is so hard to understand about the concept?
1. Get viewers watching the illegal streams on to the legit streams.
2. Attract new fans through these free streams which gives them availability and exposure of NHL games.

1. Doesn't grow the fan base. Not at all.

2. How? As I've pointed out over and over and over again but can't seem to drill into your head people are already exposed to games. Why will free streaming of every game convert them into hockey fans when all of the currently free games they can watch haven't? (I honestly can't beleive I've had to ask this question over 10 times)

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

1. Doesn't grow the fan base. Not at all.

2. How? As I've pointed out over and over and over again but can't seem to drill into your head people are already exposed to games. Why will free streaming of every game convert them into hockey fans when all of the currently free games they can watch haven't? (I honestly can't beleive I've had to ask this question over 10 times)

1. Yes it does, see CBC World Cup streaming for example.

2. If it's already free, they should just put it on the web and have another mean of accessing the game. If they're not gonna do it, illegal streamers will so people are just going to use their site.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Again, becoming a fan and spending money on the league doesn't happen over night.
Like I said, if the World Cup is going to be hosted in NA, I would definitely try to go. Not to mention the additional ad revenue that CBC generated by having one more viewer for their program. Having one additional might not mean a thing but if you look at the bigger picture, I'm sure they gained more than 1 viewer this summer.

Well let's bring the WC on over, this guy here will try to go!! I mean there was concern that nobody would go after the alst North American World Cup set multiple attendance records, but now that we've broken the market by offering what was already free to everyone for free we'll surely sell out every game. Thanks CBC, you've saved the WC!

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

For the third time, I'm talking about all of the television options available. I know you think that people don't watch tv and watch everythign online, but that's simply not true. There's a shift to increased online consumption, but it's still a very small overall percentage of the market that uses it exclusively.

We are talking about people that use the internet to watch television. I sincerely don't think that people who prefer to sit down in their living room and turn on their widescreen are going to be persuaded to give that up so that can watch it on their laptop. Case in point, illegal streaming is available for virtually every program in the world and yet, I doubt you have ever hooked up your laptop to your television to watch it this way. In my opinion, free online streaming would have very little impact on CI subscriptions because as they are now, because free online streaming already exists. At least this way, the NHL would get in on the action.

I think the real issue here is that for those of you that subscribe, you are so fixated on the idea that you would be paying so that people like me could watch for free. That's not the case.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well let's bring the WC on over, this guy here will try to go!! I mean there was concern that nobody would go after the alst North American World Cup set multiple attendance records, but now that we've broken the market by offering what was already free to everyone for free we'll surely sell out every game. Thanks CBC, you've saved the WC!

Yes, I'm sure the additional viewers WC and CBC gained will greatly hurt their business.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

1. Yes it does, see CBC World Cup streaming for example.

2. If it's already free, they should just put it on the web and have another mean of accessing the game. If they're not gonna do it, illegal streamers will so people are just going to use their site.

1. You have no idea that the CBC stream and what you are proposing are completely different things do you? That's actually kind of cute. You see the CBC stream was already free to the entire country, or rather the 99% of the country with a TV, so adding a free online streaming option doesn't cost them a thing. They are already broadcasting for free. See how that's different?

And if it did such a good job I assume you're watching EPL games on the regular right? I mean it grew the market by at least one.

2. That would work fine for the NBC national games, but the rest of the broadcasters are cable stations that rely upon subcriber fees paid by the cable companies for a good portion of their profits. Put all of the gmaes online and nobody needs cable, and guess what happens to those subscriber fees.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

We are talking about people that use the internet to watch television. I sincerely don't think that people who prefer to sit down in their living room and turn on their widescreen are going to be persuaded to give that up so that can watch it on their laptop. Case in point, illegal streaming is available for virtually every program in the world and yet, I doubt you have ever hooked up your laptop to your television to watch it this way. In my opinion, free online streaming would have very little impact on CI subscriptions because as they are now, because free online streaming already exists. At least this way, the NHL would get in on the action.

I think the real issue here is that for those of you that subscribe, you are so fixated on the idea that you would be paying so that people like me could watch for free. That's not the case.

I've already said this multiple times, I would cancel in a second if I could watch it via a high quality stream (which is apparently what we're going for according to FP12). My friends would all do the same. The reason for subscribing is to watch our teams games, not to PVR games and catch a game from 1983.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well let's bring the WC on over, this guy here will try to go!! I mean there was concern that nobody would go after the alst North American World Cup set multiple attendance records, but now that we've broken the market by offering what was already free to everyone for free we'll surely sell out every game. Thanks CBC, you've saved the WC!

Putting the games online meant that it was able to reach a greater audience. Advertisers buying up commercial spots were able to reach more viewers. Because of this, broadcasters were able to charge more money for air time. This increase in advertising revenue increases the value for CBC to broadcast the games, leading to a higher television deal for FIFA. Whether someone is going to jump on a plane and fly to Brazil in 2014 has nothing to do with the value of online streaming.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Yes, I'm sure the additional viewers WC and CBC gained will greatly hurt their business.

Exactly, they won't at all, but once again you miss the salient point, THEY WERE ALREADY BROADCASTING TO EVERYONE IN CANADA FOR FREE. They didn't lose anything, it was all positive for them.

Again, do you see how this is different than the NHL?

I have to think you're intentionally missing points now, I've met some dumb people in my life, but this is taking it to a new level.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

1. You have no idea that the CBC stream and what you are proposing are completely different things do you? That's actually kind of cute. You see the CBC stream was already free to the entire country, or rather the 99% of the country with a TV, so adding a free online streaming option doesn't cost them a thing. They are already broadcasting for free. See how that's different?

And if it did such a good job I assume you're watching EPL games on the regular right? I mean it grew the market by at least one.

2. That would work fine for the NBC national games, but the rest of the broadcasters are cable stations that rely upon subcriber fees paid by the cable companies for a good portion of their profits. Put all of the gmaes online and nobody needs cable, and guess what happens to those subscriber fees.

1. WC != EPL. Try again.
2. That's fine, as technology evolves, some companies are going to die out. Look at the cable companies trying force UBB to reduce competition from online services such as NetFlix.

I understand that older generations prefer to watch their TV shows and hockey games from their TV but less and less kids in the newer generations prefer TV over computer.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Putting the games online meant that it was able to reach a greater audience. Advertisers buying up commercial spots were able to reach more viewers. Because of this, broadcasters were able to charge more money for air time. This increase in advertising revenue increases the value for CBC to broadcast the games, leading to a higher television deal for FIFA. Whether someone is going to jump on a plane and fly to Brazil in 2014 has nothing to do with the value of online streaming.

I don't disagree with any of that, but the argument was that CBC's online broadcast grew the soccer fanbase.

And as I've noted repeatedly, the models for CBC's rights to broadcast the WC and the NHL's rights are not at all comparable.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

I've already said this multiple times, I would cancel in a second if I could watch it via a high quality stream (which is apparently what we're going for according to FP12). My friends would all do the same. The reason for subscribing is to watch our teams games, not to PVR games and catch a game from 1983.

Why don't you stream online and watch it on your TV now? The channels are there already. Sure, the quality isn't great for hockey, but any other non sport programing can be watched in perfect quality.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't disagree with any of that, but the argument was that CBC's online broadcast grew the soccer fanbase.

And as I've noted repeatedly, the models for CBC's rights to broadcast the WC and the NHL's rights are not at all comparable.

Obviously the models are different but the idea is the same. Get the game online to reach out to more people. There aren't any examples that I could give you that is exactly the same as NHL but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Companies are slowly starting to move towards offering their services on the internet. These are rather new and just because other companies aren't on board with the idea does not make the idea not feasible or impossible.

If the NHL does implement this, do you think everything including the agreements they have with broadcasters will remain the same? These are going to be restructured from the way it currently is.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Ark2

We are talking about people that use the internet to watch television. I sincerely don't think that people who prefer to sit down in their living room and turn on their widescreen are going to be persuaded to give that up so that can watch it on their laptop. Case in point, illegal streaming is available for virtually every program in the world and yet, I doubt you have ever hooked up your laptop to your television to watch it this way. In my opinion, free online streaming would have very little impact on CI subscriptions because as they are now, because free online streaming already exists. At least this way, the NHL would get in on the action.

I think the real issue here is that for those of you that subscribe, you are so fixated on the idea that you would be paying so that people like me could watch for free. That's not the case.

Just a technicality
Although it's not going to be in the same quality as on your computer, CTV is airing episodes of programs like Flashpoint from their web page, and it's really easy for me to switch my computer feed onto my big screen TV to watch the show (HDMI switch). Especially using the Hi-Def feed, it's almost like watching it live on TV. Also, with new video cards with TV out function, the process is even easier. My new flat screen even has a wireless function to network with the home/computer network.

I watched HNIC in the beginning of the season this way when I didn't have cable set up yet. So, it is possible and quite manageable for people to watch TV streaming from their computer to the TV

However, the illegal streaming sites are generally lower in quality than commerical sites like CBC or CTV

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Why don't you stream online and watch it on your TV now? The channels are there already. Sure, the quality isn't great for hockey, but any other non sport programing can be watched in perfect quality.

I watch quite a bit on hulu, particularly things that are on weeknights as I'm rarely home before 9, and utilize the free episodes that you can find on network sites.

Sports programming is very different though, largely becasue the fact that it's live matters. I hate PVRing a game, and I'm sure as hell not going to hunt around for my teams games and then have my feed drop out halfway through the third period (not to mention watching an out of market NFL game like I did this year and seeing my fantasy tracker update with scores from the same game 5 minutes before I saw them).

The debate isn't that watching online is no good, it's that replacing a revenue stream with the hope of a revenue stream is foolish.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Just a technicality
Although it's not going to be in the same quality as on your computer, CTV is airing episodes of programs like Flashpoint from their web page, and it's really easy for me to switch my computer feed onto my big screen TV to watch the show (HDMI switch). Especially using the Hi-Def feed, it's almost like watching it live on TV. Also, with new video cards with TV out function, the process is even easier. My new flat screen even has a wireless function to network with the home/computer network.

I watched HNIC in the beginning of the season this way when I didn't have cable set up yet. So, it is possible and quite manageable for people to watch TV streaming from their computer to the TV

However, the illegal streaming sites are generally lower in quality than commerical sites like CBC or CTV

Thanks. Since I don't do this myself, I'm not really aware of how easy/difficult it is. I mostly stopped watching television after my satellite (FTA) went down a couple of years ago.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

I watch quite a bit on hulu, particularly things that are on weeknights as I'm rarely home before 9, and utilize the free episodes that you can find on network sites.

Sports programming is very different though, largely becasue the fact that it's live matters. I hate PVRing a game, and I'm sure as hell not going to hunt around for my teams games and then have my feed drop out halfway through the third period (not to mention watching an out of market NFL game like I did this year and seeing my fantasy tracker update with scores from the same game 5 minutes before I saw them).

The debate isn't that watching online is no good, it's that replacing a revenue stream with the hope of a revenue stream is foolish.

Sports programming is different for YOU but you're painting everyone with the same brush. I'm sure there are people who hates PVRing a show, and want to watch it on the day it airs.

As for the debate, replacing stream with the hope of a revenue stream is foolish and I agree except that the debate is replacing pirating streams (no revenue) with limited free stream (some revenue). And only thing that we're debating is (Current Subscription Revenue + 0 revenue from piracy) > or < (New Subscription based GC Revenue + some revenue from free stream)

Edit: Obviously Current Subscription Revenue > New Subscription Revenue but you have to take into account for the ad-funded free stream revenue.

[Azure]

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 what I was thinking.

Offer something 'free'...but limited of course to entice people to buy the 'full' version.

As an example, GameCenter offering one free game per month per IP address would be a perfect example. People see how the system works, and perhaps they buy the package.

Heavy advertising across the internet helps too.