Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC Rules against Bell- Game Centre exclusive feeds

4K views 17 replies 11 participants last post by  hockeycoach 
#1 · (Edited)
EDIT: I moved my post from "NHL National Broadcast Rights in Canada Discussions" into the thread started by thenewdc to consolidate the info, since the ruling may have broader implications beyond GamePlus.

Bell is complaining to the CRTC about the Rogers GamePlus feature that's exclusive to their customers.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/bell-rogers-face-off-over-access-to-exclusive-nhl-content-1.2065387
The CRTC ruled in favour of innovation by dismissing a complaint which stated that Rogers Media was granting undue preference to its subscribers by providing them with exclusive content through its online service GamePlus.
To encourage innovative ways of presenting content and the creation of compelling content for digital media, including Internet and mobile video services, the CRTC allows companies to provide exclusive content to their subscribers, as long as it is not created mainly for traditional television.

The CRTC considers that the programming available on GamePlus is essentially produced for distribution on digital media. As such, it can be offered exclusively and does not constitute an undue preference in favour of Rogers subscribers. In the CRTC's view, Rogers is in compliance with the established rules.

GameCentre Live is a service operated by Rogers to which all Canadians can subscribe to in order to access National Hockey League games online. GamePlus is a complementary service to GameCentre Live, available online only, and offered exclusively to Rogers subscribers. GamePlus provides access to bonus content, such as replays not available on the traditional television broadcast, exclusive analysis and interviews, and different camera angles.
EDIT: Rogers also issued a press release: GamePlus stays exclusive to Rogers customers, as CRTC dismisses Bell complaint
 
#4 ·
Apparently in Canada, "innovation" is something that only happens behind exclusive walled gardens.

I guess the ability to make lots of money selling it isn't the kind of "innovation" that Canada does anymore, which probably explains why we've become laggards in so many areas.
 
#6 ·
Thanks for drawing this to our attention thenewdc.

As for the decision itself I find it bizarre. In other parts of the world the additional camera angles are available on TV by pressing the red button, so it certainly does not seem to be particularly innovative content that is being streamed. It is therefore more of a reflection of a poorly implemented digital TV system, than of innovative new media on the internet.

I think the CRTC are trying to split too many exclusivity hairs and getting lost in the fine detail. Nice work for lawyers!

However, since the CRTC decision is based upon the argument that
1. the app has unique streamed content
2. the additional camera angles content wasn't created "mainly" for traditional TV
would it not be more appropriate to move the thread from "Television Industry / Channels and Providers" to the web streaming area of the forum "Internet Television: Streaming Services including Netflix and Apple TV"?
 
#8 ·
I don't blame Bell for responding that way given that their own contrary arguments were rejected by the CRTC.
I think this decision ranks alongside Bell being penalised by the CRTC and singled out in the Superbowl simsub decision.

I am not a Bell fan, but I think they have suffered from 2 wrong CRTC decisions that will also be to the long term detriment of Canada, i.e. the Canadian people.
 
#9 ·
That was a bad decision in my opinion. The content should be available to all subscribers of the channels and programming in question. This opens up a Pandora's Box of "new features" that may or may not be essential to the original programming. Who is going to watch every broadcast and decide what complies with CRTC guidelines and what does not? The CRTC? I doubt it. People who are denied access certainly won't. People who have access won't care. It's another CRTC lose-lose decision for Canadians.
 
#12 ·
That the CRTC called this "innovation" shows the biggest problem with the industry in Canada right now. It's "innovative" to do something that others are already doing, put it on a phone, and then not sell it to large swaths of people?

The idea that the big players will only "innovate" if they can lock it down as an exclusive shows how deeply flawed vertical integration is for Canadians.
 
#15 ·
It seems in the TV realm we seem to think that we should be given access in every brand to the same features. That seems to make sense to a lot of you here who clearly don't like the CRTC's decision in favour of Rogers.

But let's translate this same concept to the automotive world. Would you also expect every car to offer to offer the same features? Of course you wouldn't. The extras on Rogers Gamecenter Live are features that Rogers owns/developed and have chosen to make available to Rogers customers only. It may be "unfair" but its all just a business decision which they hope will attract people to their brand and away from the competition.

Now my predictions for next season: Rogers will decide for PR reasons to make the extras available to all GCL customers either as an add-on to the basic NHL Gamecenter Live regardless of your internet source or will bump the price of the service to all subscribers to include the extras "for free".
 
#17 ·
Cars are a pretty poor analogy, since the infrastructure is public and common between brands. A better version would be if you had to drive on approved Ford roads and use Ford gas for your radio to work.

This wouldn't be a problem if vertical integration wasn't a thing. If Rogers had the NHL rights and no other interest in the market, they could go out and develop this and market it however they want. That's business. Of course, most businesses try to make money and if Rogers only business was the NHL, they'd want to sell the feature as widely as possible. There's a reason why you don't see Twitter saying "sorry, direct messages are Comcast exclusive."

That's not what this is. This is a dominant player using oligarch money to prop up another area of their business by throwing money at something and then refusing to sell it to most of the market.

The CRTC and government's real mistake was in allowing vertical integration to happen at all. It's given us a highly dysfunctional market where the players actively try to avoid selling their "innovations" (and I use that word very loosely, since this isn't particularly innovative) unless they can do it in a bundle of seventeen other, unrelated things.

But since that ship has sailed, the CRTC's job should be to ensure that Canadians don't need to consult a chart of which content is available where before buying a phone. Even worse is that the CRTC does that sometimes but not others. The policy here amounts to "if you did this on TV it would have to be offered, but if you do it on a phone it doesn't, because reasons". There is no technical justification for that, and no particularly sane policy reason either. They're trying to create some fuzzy line between the things as if the delivery system makes them unique, when the content is actually what matters.

The market is rapidly moving towards removing those kinds of distinctions, where people want the content on whatever device they happen to have and want to use at the time. The CRTC is woefully behind on that with policy like this.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top