The NHL hates pirated video feeds, and they support SOPA as a way to get rid of them. Little do they realize, they have the power to eliminate them on their own.
Jan 19, 2012 - We've written about how awesome NHL GameCenter is, and really, it's true. The product is far and away the most convenient tool for watching hockey, with it's DVR features, $160 price for every single game, full game replays, mobile apps and HD video quality.
But there's just one problem: you can't watch in-market games. It's a product that doesn't benefit you if you're only interested in watching your local team play hockey, and that's unfortunate, considering most NHL fans likely live in or around the city in which their favorite team plays.
The only option, then, is to buy a ridiculously expensive cable or satellite television package, even if your only desire is to watch your favorite hockey team -- and maybe the random episode of Maury or Family Feud when you find yourself home from work in the middle of a Tuesday. You don't watch anything else but sports on that $40 to $50 or even $70 to $80 per month cable plan you have, but since you live near St. Louis and love the Blues, your options are pretty limited.
You can't buy just the one or two channels that show Blues games. You can't buy GameCenter or Center Ice, because you won't get Blues games due to the local blackout. You could buy GCL and use a proxy server, but the majority of people aren't tech savvy enough to handle that -- and understandably so.
Your only other true, legitimate option is to find an illegal game stream on the Internet. Or go to a bar, which we all know is not the ideal hockey viewing experience, since you're probably the one dude in the corner watching it by yourself.
It's not that you don't want to pay for the access to games. It's been proven that when provided with convenient, legal way of consuming a product, audiences will overwhelmingly choose that option. Look at iTunes or Netflix or even Spotify. Hell, look at the current subscriber count of NHL GameCenter Live. All of those people have the alternative of viewing an illegal stream, but choose to pay the league for access anyway.
Any sports fan in their right mind would choose to watch their team on a legal, league-provided Internet stream or service. The quality isn't even comparable, it's much more convenient, you don't feel like a cheap pirate, and the NHL gets the money they deserve for their product. Everybody wins.
It's understandable why the NHL supports the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, just as every major pro sports league does. Illegal streams of their games run rampant around the Internet, and they don't want that to happen. They're losing money that way. The only thing they don't realize is that they have the power to crack down on them; power that even the passage of SOPA wouldn't provide.
All they have to do is eliminate the Draconian blackout policies that have existed since before the Internet was a thing. We understand why local blackouts still exist on NHL GameCenter Live: local broadcasters have influence, and they want everybody watching them, not the NHL's Internet feed. But the league is in control here. It's ultimately their product and they get to decide how it's viewed.
If local blackouts are eliminated, there's no need for the NHL to support silly legislation like SOPA, because there will be no need for illegal streams. People consume pirated things because it's either their only option or it's a million times more convenient than doing things legally.
The NHL can give their fans a safe, legitimate, fairly priced way of watching games -- whether they're local games or out-of-market -- and by doing so, they'll all but eliminate illegal stream usage in North America. So why haven't they done it already?
Full disclosure: Vox Media, SB Nation and this writer officially oppose SOPA and it's counterpart, PIPA.
23 comments
Comments
Pretty much nailed it in this article. I turned to pirated streams when I was still living in Vancouver because the cost of getting every Canucks PLUS every other NHL game was:
Basic Cable or Satellite + Premium Cable or Specialty Sports package (to get Sportsnet and TSN) + NHL Centre Ice (to get other NHL games) = roughly $70-80/month before taxes
Considering I watch essentially nothing but sports (usually get TV shows I like on DVD) this was way too steep a price on a student budget. So I turned to online streams which, while sometimes crappy, generally work fine.
If the NHL works with consumers, instead of assuming that all viewers of pirated streams are criminal, they could make their sport even more accessible and enjoyable for its fans.
Contributor to Nucks Misconduct
Editor of Hockey in Society
by nucksandpucks on Jan 19, 2012 11:36 AM EST reply actions
I agree but there is 1 problem
Isn’t money from TV contracts the number one source of income for most teams in professional leagues? This past season, the Rangers in baseball got a contract that gives them 80M a year for 20 years, thats 3 Billion dollars (!). Eliminate the blackouts and this will decrease tremendously, not even a question. I don’t see how could replace that money.
And honestly I don’t think the people who uses streams is that big, though it must surely be increasing but I’d like to see some numbers.
by Clemenx00 on Jan 19, 2012 12:01 PM EST reply actions
it’s big enough for these greedy individuals to go out of their way and infringe on civil liberties in the name of the almighty dollar.
To them it’s big enough in terms of lost revenue. they are out of touch with the normal NHL fan. They believe we all have cash pouring out of our pockets.
"Start playing with some jam in here"
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jan 19, 2012 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't need to be that big
For people to infringe on civil liberties to go after you any more
by Hillbutton on Jan 20, 2012 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
The people that are watching illegal streams
have already stopped watching cable. You cant stop those people from leaving if they feel (rightfully so, IMO) buying a cable package is too expensive. This is just a way for the NHL to have an option for those that are leaving regardless, to watch a legal stream and to gain the revenue from them. In fact, from friends that I have spoken to, most are willing to pay a premium amount for in-market games so the cable companies can get a cut of the profits as well.
A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind.-Professor James Moriarty
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.- Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
by Blame-everyone-else on Jan 19, 2012 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
Also some of them are people from Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Finland, there cant get GCL as some company have bought the rights to show em in those countries
by Anders Jensen on Jan 19, 2012 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yep, I’ve got friends in Europe who stay up until 3 am to watch games and illegal online streams are their only option.
Jonathan Toews- "Oh Captain, My Captain"
by Hawks&Flyers on Jan 20, 2012 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
However, it's not that simple:
To play Devil’s advocate about it: This assumes something, that if the NHL offers home-market streams those who watch illegal streams, in whole or in part, will adopt the legal streaming method to improve the quality and not be stealing, while the cable TV folks stick with what they have.
However, let’s look at some further possibility. I personally pay for Comcast HD TV with DVR for one reason, my beloved Orange & Black. I pay prolly 70 extra dollars a month to see HD TV with the Flyers and record it at work. If you gave me the option to dump that, pay for GCL with local HD broadcasts, Comcast is out a customer because I’m canceling the next day.
The issue is I’m not sure how easily cable companies can truly track what we’re watching, and frightening as the thought of them knowing what I’m watching and when, if they can’t how can they effectively understand how many/how few they’d lose.
Sure, a fan of multiple teams, say Phillies/Flyers/Eagles might stick with Comcast because when you add all three sports, then the cost of a decent internet connection you’re not saving much. Though the connection might also be a sunk cost, so that’s another factor.
As such, the TV industry is going to hold onto those streams. The NHL may own the product, but it needs the TV exposure to grow currently.
It’s the same reason TV hasn’t yet, at least that I’m aware, moved toward custom channel packages. I’d have CSN, TCN, NBC and NBCSN in HD, and that’s about it. It’s all I’d need. So the TV industry would have potentially higher costs (tracking each channel rather than just assigned them to packages with a “Yes”/“No” per package) and lower revenue.
It’s not necessarily a bad idea, I just think what’s more likely is this:
GCL – Out of Market Cost – $X
GCL – In-Market Games by X/Y/Z channels – $Y cost (with the increase in cost going to the cable channel showing the in-market game)
The only issue is, you’ll have fans pitching a fit over who gets screwed in that realm. Flyers/Rangers/Pens/Caps fans might say “But we have 10 of our games each year on NBCVERSUSTHEWORLD, so they wouldn’t be blanked out anyway! Why are we paying some averaged out scheme! Unfair!”
There may also be the issue of stupid people whining about streaming. Does the average schmoe have the ability to realize that it wasn’t the “feed” that necessarily lagged out midway through Giroux’s performance of “Greatest Dangle Since Datsyuk”, maybe it was their spyware riddled virus-host having all it’s malware e-burping at once? No, they’ll whine and piss and moan. While this already likely occurs, with an increase in price and local feed, the local company may feel their rep is on the line as well.
I guess, in short, and I admit this rambled a bit as I took time mid way through to watch a Zero Punctuation vid or two, the idea has merit, but you need to accept (A) Higher costs with in market, (B) Commericals, © there are further limitations to work around.
by VorAbaddon on Jan 19, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Or follow the model of the two teams that already do it for $40 per season
by B_T on Jan 19, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
You’re right. At least with the NHL, though, it’s mostly the other sources, not TV (“only” $200 million a year)
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jan 19, 2012 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, you and your logic! That'll never work!
by sanford_and_son on Jan 19, 2012 1:19 PM EST reply actions
The worst part is that 2 teams are already wise to this solution, but everyone else is ignoring it
Toronto has Leafs TV Interactive, which nets in-market fans 51 games for $40. Vancouver has Canucks TV Game Centre Live, which gets their in-market fans 57 games for $40. Add in the games for each of these teams that are on CBC (which are all available online anywhere in Canada, for free from the CBC website) and an in-market Leafs fan only needs to make other arrangements to watch 7 games, while Canucks fans are left on their own for 10 games.
On the topic of the CBC streaming… one thing they’re doing could open up new markets for the league. They stream 2 games every Saturday with alternate play-by-play – in Punjabi. While it may not be their most successful business venture, it’s the kind of thing the league needs to look at if they want to grow the audience for the game. There has got to be at least a market or two in the US where producing an alternate Spanish feed online is worth the effort.
by B_T on Jan 19, 2012 2:28 PM EST reply actions
You couldn't do a Spanish feed because players would always be getting checked through the announcer's table
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Jan 19, 2012 9:03 PM EST up reply actions
Only the ones wearing masks
by B_T on Jan 19, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
this makes far too much sense to be considered by the NHL
For the better part of 2 decades, the NHL has been trying to grow its audience, and the results have been mixed at best. Rather than trying to build a fan base through dubious expansions or gimmicks (e.g., the shootout), internet TV provides an opportunity for the league to build its audience by, God forbid, making it easier to watch its product. Not to mention it has a chance to do something genuinely forward-thinking by embracing web TV, which is absolutely the wave of the future.
However, doing so would require the NHL to actually pay attention to consumer preferences, and to think outside the box in terms of its revenue model. Which means it most likely won’t happen.
P is for Latrobe.
by holiday park on Jan 19, 2012 6:31 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
rec'd
by Hillbutton on Jan 20, 2012 4:01 AM EST up reply actions
Even though I pay for cable, there have been plenty of times I’ve had to turn to bootleg streams, because I live in the home market.
I’ve worked nights and weekends, and it was my only way to watch the game on my office computer. I’ve been on trains and buses, nowhere near a TV, yet gamecenter would not be an option due to blackouts.
At the same time though, sports are the reason I pay for cable, pay for HD. And it’s not like Comcast would lose me as a customer if they allowed streaming. Comcast cable is still far superior to any DSL I’ve ever had, and most of Philly isn’t wired for FIOS. But I much prefer the Hulu model of tv viewing whenever I feel like it. I like the Netflix model of being able to watch it on multiple devices. Live sporting events are one of the biggest things propping up the dying 20th century multi-channel tv model. It’s time to find the next thing.
Flyers, Phillies, Union, Eagles, Phantoms, Wings.
by Pelti on Jan 20, 2012 10:42 PM EST reply actions
Amazingly Accurate Analysis
Good job Travis, this is sooo true. If GCL broadcast all the games I would buy it in a heart beat, just to get the Flyers and the Lightning games.
The problem is, I bought the GCL for a few days, and I learned something awful about the product. What the NHL considers “Local” games is over reaching. In NJ, the Devils and the Flyers and the Caps are considered local, because on Comcast it can be bought on some of the premium sports channels (which are not worth it).
In short, the definition of “local” games for black out is way too aggressive. The NHL needs to put ALL the games on GCL, no matter where you are watching.
by NickFotiu4HOF on Jan 20, 2012 10:57 PM EST reply actions
NHL GCL is worthless.
Travis – How do we elevate this issue to Gary Bettman?
Somebody has to bring the NHL GCL product up to the same standards and quality as MLB and the NFL. When you get the Baseball Package, you get every game, even if it is on ESPN or FOX or whatever somewhere else on cable. The broadcast of the regular season game is the FOX or ESPN broadcast, including commercials, so what is the issue? The NHL needs to take control and produce a quality product with all Televised Games, at that time I will surely purchase the product. Until then it is worthless.
How do we get this issue escalated and get people more aware of the terrible product, which could be improved with flip of the switch by the NHL? What is the next step?
by NickFotiu4HOF on Jan 21, 2012 8:47 AM EST reply actions
100% Agree
Being a Devils fan, I’m currently restricted to listening to the radio broadcast because of Time Warner’s fight with MSG (who carries all three NY/NJ teams). I rather would pony up the $40 so I can watch my Red and Black than Time Warner’s ridiculous prices.
ESPN, Mike Francesa, NY Post, NY Daily News, Fox Sports = Propaganda
Blue and Orange, Green and White, Red and Black
Twitter: @BlueChill1123
by BlueChill on Jan 21, 2012 9:17 AM EST reply actions
Very true. As a hockey fan living in Europe my only option was to watch illegal streams. That is up until this year when GCL was available. I signed up in an instant even though it cost about twice as much as those illegal streams.
Luckily I have no blackout issues but can understand how that must be extremely frustration for in market customers.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Jan 22, 2012 6:35 AM EST reply actions
too bad
screw sopa. I live in Kelowna BC and every Saturday forget watching hockey ( at least the good/entertaining teams) because CBC has hockey night in Canada (droll) and therefore they seem to supersede everyone. I mean I love the Jets, but cant watch them play the panthers last night due to “blackout restrictions”. So I went to a local sports pub that usually shows everything and has CBC. However BC region gets the Montreal- Toronto game, no luck for the Jets. As long as the powers that be price gauge us the grave and keep giving true fans blackout excuses, then bring on the streaming.
by alexmac77 on Jan 22, 2012 12:59 PM EST reply actions
The problem has already been mentioned.
Current local TV contracts. By contract the local rights are already given … and paid for. If the NHL wants to void those they are in for some major damage claims.
Ignoring existing contracts for a moment. Local TV rights are the single biggest revenue stream for many (most?) teams. Although most watching pirated streams are not subscribers, there are many subscribers that would also jump to watch streams. Even if they keep a subscription, less eyes watching means lower ad revenue for the provider = less money paid for contracts to the teams. So how does the NHL providing a stream replace the team revenue from selling the local rights? Like I said, this discussion totally ignors that those local rights have been already sold for up to 10 years and even more.
by 1paniolo on Jan 23, 2012 12:12 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed