NHL Center Ice

[diver]

Received letter about class action lawsuit. I have had center ice for years except last year I dropped it. It was hard to watch the games. Ready to pick it back up this year. If I call Direct TV will it be in their records of my past subscriptions and will I receive this year free or discounted?

[Iron Crotch]

Received letter about class action lawsuit. I have had center ice for years except last year I dropped it. It was hard to watch the games. Ready to pick it back up this year. If I call Direct TV will it be in their records of my past subscriptions and will I receive this year free or discounted?

 

It applies to anyone who bought CenterIce or GameCenterLive between 2008 and 2015.  If you received a notice, they have a record of you (I think).

 

I think they're offering a discount this year (12.5%? for those with Comcast or DirecTV).

[Drunkard]

It should be. Just tell them you got the letter as a past subscriber so you are entitled to the discount. I got an email directly from Directv about it.

[SwampD]

I don't get this lawsuit. I can see every game except when there is a game on NHL network, but, I don't pay for that so why would I. What's the issue?

[MattPie]

I don't get this lawsuit. I can see every game except when there is a game on NHL network, but, I don't pay for that so why would I. What's the issue?

 

For Center Ice, I'd tend to agree with you since you already have cable/sat. Gamecenter is stretching the truth more as at least 10% (and more like 20% for the Sabres this year) of a team's games aren't available until 2 days later.

[JJFIVEOH]

I've got GameCenter and I thought the lawsuit stipulated that they couldn't charge the full amount if you only subscribed to watch one single team. The way I understood it is that customers will pay a smaller fee just to watch one team, while others pay the same amount they've always paid if they want to get all of the games. What I don't understand is why they tell us which years this applies to because nobody gets an extra discount, or a refund. I'm probably incorrect and that's why it doesn't make any sense to me.

[shrader]

I was a multiple year subscriber through Comcast but now am on DirectTV.  I didn't receive any letter since the only thing tied into Comcast was an email address I never actually used.  I wonder how they'll handle me for this one.  I assume I just talk to customer service and they'll wind up working it out.

[ubkev]

Is CI free for the first 3 weeks of the season? I feel like I read that here. If so, should I call after that point, or before? I cancelled my center ice package last year, because I wasn't paying any money to see that team play any games. This year I'm ready to go.

[IKnowPhysics]

I don't get this lawsuit. I can see every game except when there is a game on NHL network, but, I don't pay for that so why would I. What's the issue?

 

The lawsuit argued that the league and broadcasters were bundling.  As a GameCenter or Center Ice customer, you couldn't pay to watch only one team, you were forced to pay to receive the whole league at a higher rate.  It also argued that the NHL and broadcasters purposefully blacked out games out-of-market (for instance, you can get the MSG channel lots of places, like California, but it won't show you the Sabres/Rangers/Islanders/Devils games there without GameCenter or Center Ice).  This was to force the purchase of GameCenter or Center Ice.  The NHL and broadcasters settled out of court.  This writeup sumarizes.

 

In reality, as this opinion states, the plaintiffs didn't ask for very much in the settlement, and it was an easy decision for the NHL settle.  The NHL must offer a single team version of GameCenter for at least 20% cheaper than full CenterIce.  They will also offer all packages discounted about 17% for 2015-16 only.  The league will make a single team version of Center Ice available, but won't mandate that the providers carry it.

 

Important: local blackouts will still apply (ie, you can't watch Sabres games in the Sabres market on GameCenter or Center Ice).  So it doesn't make sense to purchase a single-team option if you live in-market, only really for out-of-market viewers.

 

If you enjoy reading law documents, the settlement is here.

[SwampD]

The lawsuit argued that the league and broadcasters were bundling.  As a GameCenter or Center Ice customer, you couldn't pay to watch only one team, you were forced to pay to receive the whole league at a higher rate.  It also argued that the NHL and broadcasters purposefully blacked out games out-of-market (for instance, you can get the MSG channel lots of places, like California, but it won't show you the Sabres/Rangers/Islanders/Devils games there without GameCenter or Center Ice).  This was to force the purchase of GameCenter or Center Ice.  The NHL and broadcasters settled out of court.  This writeup sumarizes.

 

In reality, as this opinion states, the plaintiffs didn't ask for very much in the settlement, and it was an easy decision for the NHL settle.  The NHL must offer a single team version of GameCenter for at least 20% cheaper than full CenterIce.  They will also offer all packages discounted about 17% for 2015-16 only.  The league will make a single team version of Center Ice available, but won't mandate that the providers carry it.

 

Important: local blackouts will still apply (ie, you can't watch Sabres games in the Sabres market on GameCenter or Center Ice).  So it doesn't make sense to purchase a single-team option if you live in-market, only really for out-of-market viewers.

 

If you enjoy reading law documents, the settlement is here.

I know all that (well, kinda). I still don't get it. Does any other league offer ala carte and do people really complain about fifty bucks? For what you get for that extra money, it's totally worth it.

 

I'll still buy the whole package. The 20% discount will be nice, but whatever, I'll still buy it after the five years are up and they raise the price a $100. It'll still be worth it.

 

I know I said it in another thread, but I'll say it again, I really need to start complaining more.

Edited July 13, 2015 by SwampD

[shrader]

I know all that (well, kinda). I still don't get it. Does any other league offer ala carte and do people really complain about fifty bucks? For what you get for that extra money, it's totally worth it.

 

I'll still buy the whole package. The 20% discount will be nice, but whatever, I'll still buy it after the five years are up and they raise the price a $100. It'll still be worth it.

 

I know I said it in another thread, but I'll say it again, I really need to start complaining more.

 

I always wondered how the complaint even stood a chance in court.  How can we require a business to sell a specific product.  If you really like yellow skittles but none of the other ones, should they be forced to sell you only the 7 or 8 that are in a bag for a lower price?  I see that they settled and it didn't actually come down to being forced to sell a specific product, but the whole thing seemed a bit strange to me.

[SwampD]

I always wondered how the complaint even stood a chance in court.  How can we require a business to sell a specific product.  If you really like yellow skittles but none of the other ones, should they be forced to sell you only the 7 or 8 that are in a bag for a lower price?  I see that they settled and it didn't actually come down to being forced to sell a specific product, but the whole thing seemed a bit strange to me.

Totally agree. It's weird.

[IKnowPhysics]

At the heart of these issues lies the question of whether major professional sports leagues are breaking monopoly laws.  The Economist, back in 1998, examines this question.  Pro leagues argue they compete against other forms of entertainment, but this is debatable based on very subjective terms- are other forms of entertainment entertaining to a hockey fan?  But whether or not that's true, you can't easily create legitimate competition for the NHL in the form of an alternative professional hockey league.  And this monopoly for a major professional sport league is reinforced not only by government subsidies (for arenas, tax breaks, and other infrastructure), it's reinforced by media and distribution exclusivity deals, which account for an enormous amount of revenue and the players' collective bargaining agreements, which limit players' ability to play in other leagues.  So to keep a reign on the monopolies of the pro sports industry, government regulations are imposed.  This lawsuit is the result of those regulations, aimed at preventing the violation of commerce and consumer protection laws.

 

I know all that (well, kinda). I still don't get it. Does any other league offer ala carte and do people really complain about fifty bucks? For what you get for that extra money, it's totally worth it.

 

I'll still buy the whole package. The 20% discount will be nice, but whatever, I'll still buy it after the five years are up and they raise the price a $100. It'll still be worth it.

 

I know I said it in another thread, but I'll say it again, I really need to start complaining more.

 

I always wondered how the complaint even stood a chance in court.  How can we require a business to sell a specific product.  If you really like yellow skittles but none of the other ones, should they be forced to sell you only the 7 or 8 that are in a bag for a lower price?  I see that they settled and it didn't actually come down to being forced to sell a specific product, but the whole thing seemed a bit strange to me.

 

You're both thinking practically, which is good.  But theoretically, if the laws aren't upheld or if the leagues' behavior goes unchallenged in the court of law, the leagues could really start screwing fans and governments alike in frighteningly creative ways. And the costs can be real: the NHL squeezing out an extra $50 per subscriber adds up fassst.  The NHL is able to maximize profits because little to no competition for pro hockey exists.

 

The Skittles argument is cute, but the Skittles monopoly is protected by their patents and intellectual property- no one else can make Skittles, at least until the patent expires, and then generic Skittles may start appearing and competing in the marketplace.  Intellectual property laws don't really protect the NHL from competition in a meaningful way (they really only protect the NHL brands and logos, etc).  The challenges faced by a would-be NHL competitor league is almost purely due to the lack of existing competition.  The NHL has a monopolized its way to a stranglehold on pro hockey, often times codified in contracts or agreements with other entities.  In other words, the NHL is the only league because the NHL has made itself the only league.  And because of this monopoly, the NHL may try to wield power which breaks other consumer laws (like bundling as a result of its exclusive broadcast rights agreements).

 

You'd better believe that this lawsuit was being watched very closely by the other major leagues.

[shrader]

I've never viewed hockey as the industry, but professional sports as a whole.  So the NHL does not have a monopoly and their main competitor is bounceyball.  Obviously I'm no lawyer though.  I'm assuming that's not how it works in the eyes of the law.

 

edit: and from that point of view, skittles competitor is not a knock off, but instead starburst or M&Ms.

Edited July 13, 2015 by shrader

[IKnowPhysics]

I've never viewed hockey as the industry, but professional sports as a whole.  So the NHL does not have a monopoly and their main competitor is bounceyball.  Obviously I'm no lawyer though.  I'm assuming that's not how it works in the eyes of the law.

 

edit: and from that point of view, skittles competitor is not a knock off, but instead starburst or M&Ms.

 

And that's the viewpoint major league sportsball lawyers would fight until their dying breath to uphold in court.  None of them are monopolies if the monopolies are all technically in competition with each other.  But this makes the subjective assumption that the product I'm buying from the NHL I could instead buy from the NBA.

Edited July 13, 2015 by IKnowPhysics

[IKnowPhysics]

You'd better believe that this lawsuit was being watched very closely by the other major leagues.

 And yep, here it is.  DirecTV (the NFL and all 32 teams are also named) is being sued in a class action lawsuit about NFL Sunday Ticket bundling.

 

Once the NHL suit was settled, the NBA quickly made single team options available.

Edited July 13, 2015 by IKnowPhysics

[SwampD]

 And yep, here it is.  DirecTV (the NFL and all 32 teams are also named) is being sued in a class action lawsuit about NFL Sunday Ticket bundling.

 

Once the NHL suit was settled, the NBA quickly made single team options available.

If it just wasn't so dern inexpensive, though,... unlike the Sunday Ticket. I don't know why, but I just see this effecting me adversely in the future because of a bunch of whiny cheapskates.

[IKnowPhysics]

Sunday Ticket's a great example of how this can get out of control quickly with no competition and no regulation.  For DirecTV, it's $252 (ugh!) for Sunday Ticket, which is $18 per game if you're only watching the 14 regular season Bills games that aren't on ESPN or NFL Network.  If you watch every single game league wide (averaging 14 games per team not nationally broadcast), that's $1.12 a game, which means that a single-team viewing option, it could be argued, should cost as little as about $16 per season.  I'd probably pay four to six times that amount to guarantee that I see hot, sticky Bills action all season long, evening knowing that some games on CBS and Fox (in addition to ESPN and NFLN) will make it to my market without Sunday Ticket.

 

Wishfully thinking, if the NFL, which doesn't pay taxes, weren't operating like a monopoly, we could order team coverage a la carte, and see some significant savings.  And always keep in mind that we're paying for television coverage of a sport that features 11 minutes of game action and 63 minutes of paid commercials per game.  Again, only watching the 14 Bills games, that's $1.63 per minute of game action, which is more than most phone sex lines.

[Doohicksie]

I'd rather spend that $18 per game at a bar drinking beer. Oh wait.... I do.

[SarasotaSabre]

here's the CA lawsuit directly from the attorneys handling the case - looks like an automatic 17.5% discount before any haggling

 

https://www.hefflercases.com/cases/nhl/

 

with the SundayTicket/DTV lawsuit in parallel, looks it's time for me to make that call to Customer Retention.... :flirt:

[Mustache of God]

Last year I switched to hockeystreams after 3 or 4 years subscribing to GameCenter. I was sick of the blackouts (all the NBCSN games combined with that I live in NYC so any Rangers, Devils, and Islanders games were blanked as well). 

 

Never had a problem with any of the streams, all the games are in HD, no blackouts and you get to watch the playoffs.

[IKnowPhysics]

Release.

 

 

 

The deal awards MLBAM rights to distribute live out-of-market games, including through the NHL GameCenter LIVE and NHL Center Ice subscription services in the United States and certain international markets. MLBAM will operate NHL.com, including the League's seven native language sites, and Club websites. MLBAM will operate NHL apps and be available to develop apps for the Clubs. The NHL and MLBAM will partner on the design and development of new digital products and platforms. The NHL and its Clubs retain editorial control across all platforms. The Emmy-Award winning MLB Network will provide studio space and production resources for the NHL Network for distribution in the United States and certain international markets.

 

 

Key details of the partnership include:

• MLBAM receives exclusive rights to distribute live, out-of-market NHL telecasts in the United States and certain international markets, including via the NHL GameCenter LIVE subscription service.

• MLBAM receives exclusive rights to distribute live, out-of-market telecasts via the NHL Center Ice subscription service in the United States to cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasters.

• MLBAM receives exclusive rights to operate the NHL Network as an agent for the NHL. The NHL Network's daily on-air operations will be based out of MLB Network's headquarters in Secaucus, N.J.

MLBAM expects to fully launch its NHL presence in January 2016. Prior digital partner NeuLion will assist the League and MLBAM through the transition period.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Munchma Quchi

[wjag]

And yep, here it is.  DirecTV (the NFL and all 32 teams are also named) is being sued in a class action lawsuit about NFL Sunday Ticket bundling.

 

Once the NHL suit was settled, the NBA quickly made single team options available.

I don't care much for the one hockey team discount, but I'll be all for ala carte in football.

[IKnowPhysics]

I don't care much for the one hockey team discount, but I'll be all for ala carte in football.

 

Agreed.  There's enough national broadcasts of football teams I don't love to fulfill any desire to watch them.  I don't need all 32.

 

Hockey's... a little different.  I'd consider paying the difference if it's meager.

[ubkev]

Wow, directv just totally called my bluff on canceling Sunday Ticket. "OK Mr. (ubkev), we'll get that right off your bill for ya. Have a great day."

 

 

Thank God I had a lovely Internet chat with them about what I'm paying $20/month for a protection plan, that led to an even lovelier phone call that ended up taking my bill from $203.99/ to $93.99/month with Sunday Ticket and showtime included.

 

Hope I have that kind of luck with Center Ice.