On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:05 AM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is a bubble. It can't go on forever. Sports teams/leagues can >> either try to shift to a model that has some level of feasibility, or >> you can do your best impersonation of the music and movie industries. > > This gets back to what I said before, and what we've discussed with > regard to torrents. If there's not an easy, reasonable way to watch > what you want to legally, there are illegal ways to watch that are > sufficiently easy and reasonable.
I can give you my policy when it comes to these things: If an organization refuses to provide digital content in a certain manner, I have absolutely no objection with users doing what it takes to obtain that content. That being said, if they do, and you're just too damn cheap to get it, then you're stealing, and that's not cool. Yes, this can be parsed down to a certain level: I would have no problem using those links to watch a Cubs game that's airing on CSN in my house, but I would not do so to watch a Red Wings game (since I could buy the package on NHL Game Center). > I think PGage is right about how the current system works well for > leagues, cable channels, cable providers, and most consumers. I'm sure > the leagues recognize that they should come up with a better solution > for out-of-market fans, but they obviously put their television > partners' interest ahead of those fans. I can tell you that I agree with the first three groups in that first sentence. I completely disagree with the last one. The consumers this works for are groups that for whom mobile technology and the Internet were add-ons to their lives. You know... (hold on, I have to grab my 30-inch-wide paint brush) ...the Boomers and most Gen Xers. This is why the US professional sports leagues are in long-term trouble (and yes, I'm putting the NFL in that corner, even though they're more insulated than the other three) if they maintain the status quo. Forrester Research noted earlier this month that Gen Yers are the mobile generation (two in three are what they call "SuperConnecteds"), and Gen Zers (aka millenials) have grown up in that environment. And if they're going to continue to refuse to allow local broadcasts over the Internet, that's just another push against the generations for whom classic pro sports are a third-choice. The Boomers and Gen Xers get it. The Yers and Zers just know they can't watch a team on their mobile device, so they'll find something else to occupy their time (or will become non-rev sports fans, which in the eyes of the teams, is the same as a non-fan). >> Some cable company is going to finally push back to ESPN/Disney and >> tell them no (it won't be with a local sports channel). They're going >> to figure out how to tell a compelling story about it. And that's when >> things will become very interesting. > > It'll require a cable company that's more sympathetic than > ESPN/Disney. Finding one that's big enough to have any national impact > will be difficult. With someone like Comcast, it would be "a pox on > both their houses", since all we know is that we'll end up being the > losers. Agreed. I don't think it will be a national brand. It may even be a local operator. Two names that comes to mind as large enough to make a difference without having the "big cable company" label: Charter and Cox. YMMV. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
