NFL calls interference on the CRTC

Published on 02-13-2012 09:39 AM

9 Comments

This was to interesting to pass up:An article I had read over at Telecom Trends is speaking of the CRTC and it's ruling on how Bell can't be an exclusive provider to NFL content only to Bell clients.

The NFL responded by saying:
As you know, NFLI engaged in a competitive bidding process for its mobility rights in Canada that included several wireless providers in the market. We offered a package of rights focused on exclusive content for live games along with a variety of non-exclusive rights. It was our belief that this model, which is one we have used often in countries throughout the world, in the best model for offering this set of rights in Canada. Bell was the winning bidder for these rights, and we continue to believe in the desirability of this model. Therefore, at this time, NFLI has no interest in amending the Mobility Agreement. NFLI fully expects Bell to honor its obligations under the Mobility Agreement throughout the full remainder of the term.

I would like to emphasize the bold comments.I agree 100% with this statement and feel that if the NFL had a bid on who would carry it's content, and Bell won that bid by paying the most, then they should have access to that content exclusively to further their brand.

Is the NFL on BELL really that anti competitive in the market place that the CRTC has to throw a flag on this?
When you're considering a provider do you think that the NFL on BELL is the main draw for your business?

What are your thoughts?

_{This article was originally published in forum thread:

NFL calls interference on CRTC:
started by
Treatz} _{View original post}

Tags: crtc, exclusive content, interference, nfl

9 Comments

Steve Punter - 02-13-2012, 11:21 AM
- Reply
While I don't personally care a whit who watches football and who doesn't, the principle involved here is the same no matter what material it is.

What if all content was handled this way? The consumer would then be FORCED to get service from ALL of the providers just to ensure that they could see the content they wanted to see. For example, what if Bell got rights to run the NFL while Rogers go the rights to run the NHL? If you wanted to watch football AND hockey, does that mean you must subscribe to BOTH Bell and Rogers?

And what if this extended to cable/satellite TV? If half the shows you liked were ONLY available on Rogers cable, while the other half were ONLY available on Bell satellite, would you then be forced to sign up for BOTH services?

Most likely, such a ridiculous state of affairs would just INCREASE the amount of content piracy, as consumers, frustrated by the by the insane restrictions, would just resort to downloading content from the internet (though for live coverage like football, this might not be a big issue).

I say thumbs-up to CRTC for looking out for the consumer in this case, even though I don't watch football.

Treatz - 02-13-2012, 12:53 PM
- Reply
This has to deal with Football on mobile and only mobile.
your examples go off on a tangent and are already covered by the CRTC.

OTTAWA-GATINEAU, Dec. 12, 2011 /CNW/ - Today, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) found that Bell Mobility gave itself a significant competitive advantage by entering into exclusive agreements for the mobile rights to popular National Hockey League (NHL) and National Football League (NFL) content.

Again, this is an advantage for Bell.
you don't like the NFL, you have no desire to watch it on mobile, so this is a non issue enforcing why I feel that it's a non issue.

if someone likes the NFL and really wants to watch it on their phone then they can choose Bell.

Steve Punter - 02-13-2012, 06:47 PM
- Reply
While it is TECHNICALLY just an issue with football on mobile phones, the president set here goes well beyond it. Any attempt to look at this in isolation is a fool's errand at best, because the outcome of this decision has wide-reaching ramifications to all future entertainment delivery. After all, if it's okay for the NFL to sign exclusivity agreements, then it should also be okay for any other content provider to do likewise. And why does it have to end at mobile phones?

If the CRTC doesn't take a stand with the NFL and Bell Mobility, then it's going to have a hell of a time with future attempts to protect consumers from this sort of behavior.

Treatz - 02-13-2012, 07:24 PM
- Reply
so, with your logic, Rogers "extreme text messaging" a mobile product, should be available to all carriers, and not be a competitive advantage to Rogers?

I disagree.

ahho - 02-13-2012, 10:14 PM
- Reply
Treatz, I think you really don't understand. Extreme text messaging is something Rogers Created.

NFL is like the Winter Olympics. If I remember CTV has the exclusive deal to show the opening, but I can watch it on shaw, telus, bell or videotron or even online in their website. This NFL deal with Bell is like Winter Olympics opening is only available with bell and everyone else cannot get it. NFL is something that a channel can buy it exclusively and cable providers are free to get that channel without restrictions.

Treatz - 02-13-2012, 10:34 PM
- Reply
Not quite. Bell has exclusive NFL content on mobile.. mobile only
you can still watch the NFL on tv or any other medium. If you want to stream it to your iPad then you have to be a bell client.

why is bell allowed to play "whitney" or various other shows on bell smartphone and tablets only? they advertise their content as bell clients only, via mobile.

What if I wanted to watch "whitney" on my Telus line?

Why isn't the CRTC intervening there?

Howmander - 02-14-2012, 08:20 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by Treatz

Not quite. Bell has exclusive NFL content on mobile.. mobile only
you can still watch the NFL on tv or any other medium. If you want to stream it to your iPad then you have to be a bell client.

why is bell allowed to play "whitney" or various other shows on bell smartphone and tablets only? they advertise their content as bell clients only, via mobile.

What if I wanted to watch "whitney" on my Telus line?

Why isn't the CRTC intervening there?

The CRTC DID intervene: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...tion-crtc.html

Also, I know the specific show is unimportant as the point is still the same, but technically you CAN watch Whitney on non bell devices: It's listed as an available show on the CTV Television app on my iPad. Not to mention Rogers (CityTV app), Shaw (Global TV app) all have their TV apps available on the App store for anyone on any carrier to watch their content on whatever cell network/provider they want. (although technically, only two of those are available for iPhone, one of them is iPad only and I don't remember which) but the point is still the same, programming provided by one of the providers is available to all the other providers on their mobile device regardless of who owns the originating network and who owns the receiving mobile device. It's available for everybody.

Now, while I think all the content should be available for everyone (because Bell Media and Rogers still have another app each that is exclusively for their own customers which I don't think should be) in this particular instance, a business deal was made to provide exclusive content to Bell as a carrier of a sports event, so when THAT happens, yes, I think it should be allowed because legal agreements were made and it's one (essentially) private company making a deal with another company. In other instances, like when Rogers or Telus is broadcasting their own channels or content, or have purchased shows to broadcast on their networks, then that should be available for everyone (just like my previous CTV, CityTV and Global examples)

Treatz - 02-14-2012, 09:41 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by Howmander

The CRTC DID intervene: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...tion-crtc.html

Also, I know the specific show is unimportant as the point is still the same, but technically you CAN watch Whitney on non bell devices: It's listed as an available show on the CTV Television app on my iPad. Not to mention Rogers (CityTV app), Shaw (Global TV app) all have their TV apps available on the App store for anyone on any carrier to watch their content on whatever cell network/provider they want. (although technically, only two of those are available for iPhone, one of them is iPad only and I don't remember which) but the point is still the same, programming provided by one of the providers is available to all the other providers on their mobile device regardless of who owns the originating network and who owns the receiving mobile device. It's available for everybody.

Now, while I think all the content should be available for everyone (because Bell Media and Rogers still have another app each that is exclusively for their own customers which I don't think should be) in this particular instance, a business deal was made to provide exclusive content to Bell as a carrier of a sports event, so when THAT happens, yes, I think it should be allowed because legal agreements were made and it's one (essentially) private company making a deal with another company. In other instances, like when Rogers or Telus is broadcasting their own channels or content, or have purchased shows to broadcast on their networks, then that should be available for everyone (just like my previous CTV, CityTV and Global examples)

Interesting, I didn't know that thanks for the info. The commercials make it seem like a bell exclusive and i'm to lazy to download the app (usenet FTW )
I still believe, if Bell wants to exclusively carry the NFL on mobile, which isn't regulated by the CRTC then all the power to them.