O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > Vertical Integration - Round 3?

Vertical Integration - Round 3?

This is what it all boils down to. And you can thank the Government and CRTC for making it happen!

“We have what is probably the largest stable of content anywhere in the world,” he said. “We are a content owner in a big way, and we want our content distributed as widely as possible. It’s how we make money.”

CRTC will probably have to back down....for this year's Super Bowl broadcast only.

Its a multi year contract.CRTC can forbid them from showing anything thats tied to the contract but that would never happen and shouldn't but they should be writing the NFL and saying to rewrite it as there will be no more exclusive content allowed in this country

reply to freejazz_RdJ
What Happens during the Olympics? Could I watch the CTV feeds over Rogers network?

I think, It's a matter of Canadian sovereignty, could a content owner dictate what travels over Canadian air wave. Even-though this time it is over a cell phone.

Does the NFL prevent CTV from making its broadcast of Superbowl available to subscribers of Rogers cable TV service ? Shaw ? Videotron ? Colba ? smalltownCable Inc ?

If you view the mobile as a BDU, then the NFL has no business preventing CTV from making its content available on any mobile platform.

All this fuss over a service that so few can afford since watching a whole football game on a mobile would likely costs thousands i overage charges

reply to freejazz_RdJ
This is what kills me

reply to freejazz_RdJ
Humbly, it makes no never mind if the contract prohibits any Canadian wireless provider except BCE from gaining access to football broadcasts, or any other content for that matter.

B#ell negotiated the contract, likely in bad faith as is their MO. Let them live up to it. When, and every time, they breach the order call them on the carpet and fine them - and that fine should be any and all excess revenues flowing from that undue advantage.

This isn't a problem.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil
»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare

The problem is do you grandfather the current deals or you do make the new regs hard and fast.

Personally if I was Bell and the CRTC said that my current deal with the NFL was null and void(as to exclusivity) I would fight them tooth and nail.

Any future contracts however would be a different story.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

reply to freejazz_RdJ
It comes down to this...

- Programs produced by CTV cannot be exclusive to Bell Mobility subscribers.
- On the Quebec side, Quebecor cannot claim exclusivity of Star Académie for Vidéotron mobile subscribers only. Also noteworthy, Vidéotron's wireless service doesn't cover all of Quebec province, territories such as Abitibi or Gaspésie still relies on Robelus.

On the other hand, in 2011, Quebecor asked the CRTC to break the exclusivity contract between Montreal Canadiens to RDS, so their new sports channel, TVA Sports, could broadcast them. The CRTC said no.

Sports specialties were given a category C licence by the CRTC so they can be competitive, and when there's competition, exclusivity deals are a necessity. But it makes no sense for the CRTC to break exclusivity broadcast deals.

On the other hand, if CTV was an alone company, CTV would seek NFL broadcast rights against Global, and seek a mobile deal between Bhell, Rogers, Telus and Vidéotron to reach the maximum people they can, just like the distribution of the CTV feed over cable/satellite. Now they're part of Bhell, well, just change your cell provider to Bhell mobility if you want to watch their exclusive content.

So, yeah, vertical integration IS a problem.
--
Tell your children over dinner, "Due to the economy, we are going to have to let one of you go."

reply to freejazz_RdJ
The CRTC is right here (unless you really think people should have to buy, say, a Bell cell phone to get NFL and then also a Rogers one to get NHL for example) but they won't be able to keep this cat in the bag for long.

Letting the physical network operators like Bell and Rogers buy the content distributors like CTV and TSN was the fatal mistake (not to mention Bell/Rogers buying content producers like MLSE). They'll keep pushing until they get what they want out of those ventures which is exclusivity and poorer deals for customers (because if consumers are getting better deals, they are making less money).

reply to pnjunction

That isn't the point I'm making. It is that when shopping for a mobile provider, the fact that they have the NFL available for live streaming is almost certainly not on their list or at the bottom. The price for a baseline plan with voice data and text as well as the device selection, bundle discounts and coverage is vastly more important.

If the NFL exclusivity only caused competitors to lose say 500 sales, then the cost for "freeing" consumers from the tyranny of BCE's exclusivity has been exceptionally high and poor value for money. It cannot have been a big issue so far because there are so few mobile TV subscriptions (probaly less than 1 in 1000 mobile accounts).