ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Makes you wonder why they charge for anything in this world. Doesn't Wal-Mart know if they gave me all my groceries for free they would maximize their profits?

Comparing Wal-Mart to online streaming is totally different.

If I had to name one industry that successfully adapted to technology, it would be newspaper companies. Why do they post the same newspaper articles online and let you access them for free? Why aren't they out of business? How are they paying all their employees?
They gain plenty of revenue from advertisements and can afford to post articles for free online.

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

This is beyond moronic. Seriously.

You really think people will pay for a product that they can legally get for free?

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.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

CBC doesn't have any local TV deals with the NHL. Nor does the CBC generate revenue from subscriber fees. Notice that TSN doesn't put their broadcasts on their website.

Also notice that when CBC puts up the stream with advertisements, they profit since people will watch the higher quality stream rather than a low quality illegal stream where as when the game is on TSN, they don't earn a single cent from users watching the illegal stream of their show, instead all the online advertising revenue goes to the site that hosts these illegal streams.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Ark2

CI is not the same as free online streaming. Sure, it would be replacing GC, but if it is financially viable, then you do it. If not, they you scrap the idea. How is that moronic?

Believing that people will continue to pay for something that is available for free is moronic.

What glaring flaws have been pointed out? Does anyone here know any specific numbers? How much GC brings in? What if, just for argument's sake, it's losing money? Is it a "moronic idea" then? Is it a glaring flaw to want to replace it with something else? You talk about having a semblance of intelligence but I don't see a shred of it coming from you here.

Keep defending your idiotic thoughts behind no one knowing specific numbers. People have pointed out the issues it would cause Gamecenter and the league's lucrative regional broadcast deals.

But now you think if Gamecenter is losing money it's better to replace it with a product that is free? Yes, that is a moronic idea.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

If I had to name one industry that successfully adapted to technology, it would be newspaper companies. Why do they post the same newspaper articles online and let you access them for free? Why aren't they out of business? How are they paying all their employees?
They gain plenty of revenue from advertisements and can afford to post articles for free online.

Have you not noticed that the newspaper industry is in rapid decline?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Every Saturday CBC offers free streaming of Hockey Night in Canada and it does not get bogged down by all the freeloaders. In fact, the quality is a lot better than any illegal streams while being just as convenient to launch.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with 90% of the population watching it on FREE cable. I'm not shocked that CBC is giving a free service away for free, but they also see the advertising revenue from the game they are showing, not the NHL.

Again apples and oranges. Assuming the NHL has 2.5 million subscribers that is a half a billion dollars in revenue that would be lost by giving it away for free. Sure you have some advertising money but it will never amount to that. Plus now you have broadcasters like Sportsnet, TSN, CBC, NBC, Versus, all asking for a piece of that small advertising pie on their free product because now they are losing customers to this free viewing.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Also notice that when CBC puts up the stream with advertisements, they profit since people will watch the higher quality stream rather than a low quality illegal stream where as when the game is on TSN, they don't earn a single cent from users watching the illegal stream of their show, instead all the online advertising revenue goes to the site that hosts these illegal streams.

Does this statement have a point?

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I'm sure that has nothing to do with 90% of the population watching it on FREE cable.

Cable is NOT free.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Believing that people will continue to pay for something that is available for free is moronic.

Not at all, look at what they've done with Hulu. You can watch full content for free while you can also subscribe to Hulu Plus. I guess people who pays for Hulu Plus is just bunch of ######s and Hulu has no idea how to run a business.

NHL can do something similar to how they've done it with Hulu. Let users watch limited games and limited features. Let them watch NHL games at lower quality, only live. They can give higher quality streams to subscribing users, give them the PVR ability, also the ability to watch non-live games.

What do you see here that you don't like? Paying subscribers get additional features where as non-paying users can still benefit from limited product. Hulu got it figured out, NHL could try to implement something like this.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Does this statement have a point?

Yeah but first you gotta learn to accept opinions other than your own.

[Sled]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Have you not noticed that the newspaper industry is in rapid decline?

Allow me to clairfy this statement: the American newspaper industry is on the decline. The Canadian newspaper industry has seen an increase in it's readership over the last two years.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm not pretending anything. This is the sort of thing that you do your homework on, and, if it doesn't look like it will work, you scrap it (or at least table until potential problems can be better addressed).

Simply saying "subscription revenues gone" means absolutely nothing as you don't know anything about these revenues. What kind of profits do they produce? How likely are they to be reduced should free online streaming be provided? How much could such a potential loss be offset by free streaming? The point is, neither of us know the answers to these questions, so unequivocally calling this a "massive negative" makes absolutely no sense at this point.

You also say that local TV deals would be undermined. How? Local broadcasts aren't driven by CI subscriptions anyway. They are driven by advertising revenue directed at local viewer ship that doesn't need CI to watch these games in the first place. These ads wouldn't be circumvented by online streaming. People that watch online would still have to watch them and the added bonus would be that these ads would reach viewers that would not otherwise see them. If Fox Pittsburgh broadcasts the game, then just like in the case of CI, the NHL would broadcast this feed online and everyone in North America would be able to get this game for free, just as if they lived in Pittsburgh. How would this constitute a "massive negative"?

You don't have to do much homework to figure out that a free option all but kills a pay option. The vast majority of people don't pay for things when they can get the exact same product for free, that's called common sense.

As for the local deals, why would a local provider pony up to broadcast games when they know they won't have exclusive rights to free broadcasts in the region? It completely undermines the huge monopoly advantage they have in the marketplace. FSN Arizona isn't going to want to compete with every other game on a given night, they want to be the only option for people who haven't shelled out for CI/GC. You've taken away a major comeptitive advantage for the local broadcasters, you don't see this as a massive negative when it comes to negotiating fees? Adding additional viewers in other markets doesn't help at all either. Watch a game on any local station and tell me how many ads are national in nature. The focus is largely on local advertising. An ad for Belle tire doesn't become more valuable when seen by people outside of Michigan, Belle Tire doesn't care if people in Arizona see their ad, they don't exist there.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Believing that people will continue to pay for something that is available for free is moronic.

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

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Keep defending your idiotic thoughts behind no one knowing specific numbers. People have pointed out the issues it would cause Gamecenter and the league's lucrative regional broadcast deals.

But now you think if Gamecenter is losing money it's better to replace it with a product that is free? Yes, that is a moronic idea.

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

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?

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

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I'm sure that has nothing to do with 90% of the population watching it on FREE cable. I'm not shocked that CBC is giving a free service away for free, but they also see the advertising revenue from the game they are showing, not the NHL.

Again apples and oranges. Assuming the NHL has 2.5 million subscribers that is a half a billion dollars in revenue that would be lost by giving it away for free. Sure you have some advertising money but it will never amount to that. Plus now you have broadcasters like Sportsnet, TSN, CBC, NBC, Versus, all asking for a piece of that small advertising pie on their free product because now they are losing customers to this free viewing.

The stream they currently have on GameCenter isn't NHL's own feed. They pretty much take Sportsnet's feed and block out the advertisements.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Comparing Wal-Mart to online streaming is totally different.

If I had to name one industry that successfully adapted to technology, it would be newspaper companies. Why do they post the same newspaper articles online and let you access them for free? Why aren't they out of business? How are they paying all their employees?
They gain plenty of revenue from advertisements and can afford to post articles for free online.

Congratulations, you just referenced an industry that is dying due to the ability of people to access information for free.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Why aren't they out of business?

You're joking right?

[FlamesPuck12]

Alright newspaper was a bad example, but take the Hulu/Hulu Plus.
NHL could implement something like this and let me specifically say that services like Hulu and Netflix are not dying out.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Cable is NOT free.

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.

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

The stream they currently have on GameCenter isn't NHL's own feed. They pretty much take Sportsnet's feed and block out the advertisements.

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?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Deegee

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



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

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?

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

That's not a bad idea at all actually.

[MacFlame]

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.

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.



I believe you will find the stats in here....

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...o/cmri_rev.pdf