Noeller Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 gbill asked Drew Edwards about his streaming comment and Edwards said "Stadium in transition from women's world cup to cfl mode. lots of technical challenges to make it work."Glad to hear it's a WWC-related thing and not something to do with IGF, in general... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USABomberfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I read today that TSN can't even stream Friday's game because IGF doesn't have the infrastructure to support it. I call BS on this I read it on Twitter. Didn't mean it that way, I mean TSN is copping out on this and making up excuses to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." johnzo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted June 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 gbill asked Drew Edwards about his streaming comment and Edwards said "Stadium in transition from women's world cup to cfl mode. lots of technical challenges to make it work."Glad to hear it's a WWC-related thing and not something to do with IGF, in general... another reason to strongly dislike soccer. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxon Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I read today that TSN can't even stream Friday's game because IGF doesn't have the infrastructure to support it. I call BS on this I read it on Twitter. I think that was Drew Edwards saying that about the Ticats not being able to stream from IGF. I can tell you with certainty that IGF can live stream games. The Winnipeg Rifles stream all their home games with good quality on a limited budget. It's done on a pay preview basis to cover the costs. There maybe a "rights" issue for a CFL game, but there isn't a technical issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rids Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." The flaw with this is that the US networks are starting to put their shows under subscription through their websites. It is only a matter of time before that subscription format turns Netflix into the same monthly cost as getting cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." The flaw with this is that the US networks are starting to put their shows under subscription through their websites. It is only a matter of time before that subscription format turns Netflix into the same monthly cost as getting cable. And the horrible truth begins to dawn..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iHeart Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I guess they're not showing the game, it's more golf coverage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Khari Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Man getting hit in the balls it is ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Drew Edwards ✔ @scratchingpost #Ticats sitting six defensive starters vs. #Bombers: Lawrence, Hall, Laurent, Butler, Hickman, Reed. Can't afford more injuries. #CFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlanticRiderFan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame. The local TSN (i.e. TSN3 in Manitoba) is always in the basic cable, but the other ones aren't always depending on tv provider. I get what you're saying though. I don't understand the type who download everything and use illegal websites. Why risk it? It's cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame. I don't want to watch TV and I don't want cable. I want to watch CFL football and nothing else but happy to pay for that option. What's so stupid about that? Bigblue204 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taynted_Fayth Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 if you aint cheatin you aint tryin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USABomberfan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame. The local TSN (i.e. TSN3 in Manitoba) is always in the basic cable, but the other ones aren't always depending on tv provider. I get what you're saying though. I don't understand the type who download everything and use illegal websites. Why risk it? It's cheating. I don't think you guys understand what the man is saying at all. He's talking about buying a sports package online that covers the CFL for a monthly fee or something so that way he doesn't have to buy a whopping cable TV along with internet to see it. And yes such packages do exist. MLB TV is one such package, you don't need a Cable subscription to get it, you can get it purely over the internet, same with NHL Center Ice in the USA at least. In both you have the option to add those as part of your cable package, but you don't have to have one in order to get those, and even NBA TV has something similar. I don't know if up in Canada you can buy those online but you can in the USA. The NFL doesn't have that option in North America, but some people use VPNs so that it thinks they're coming from overseas and they'll use those to buy a Gamepass package, which technically isn't legal, but it's hard to tell when someone's using a VPN. But even if you do have to be overseas to do this, it still is their way of making it available to those who do not have the option to get direcTV. The CFL really could do the same thing for expats stationed across the Pacific. Also if you're in the USA, you actually can watch most CFL games without having Cable. ESPN3 which shows the games that TSN is broadcasting, is a pure online streaming format of ESPN, and all you need to get it is just an ISP that carries it, not a TV provider. Now if the game is being shown on ESPN1 or ESPN2 on TV, then yes you would need one, but most of the time you can get by without one. Bottom line though, there are plenty of services that use online streaming formats to bring content when you need it to a specific audience. And by the way I don't see Netflix going anywhere in terms of making their product less available to their current crowd, especially when competitors like Amazon Prime, iTunes, and others would immediately capitalize on a fumble like that. Bottom line, the music industry didn't just stick to radio airwaves to make their new content available, and just like going to the store to buy new CDs for every new song that comes out now is totally unnecessary, same thing can happen with the sports world. Bigblue204 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Frankly network TV should be free on the internet. Advertisers are buying our attention. Things like HBO and commercial free movie channels should be paid for obviously. One of the things that got me all pissed off was when local channels were being pissy that cable companies wern't paying them to carry their local channels. Basically asking their distributor to pay them to deliver their product. The radio is free and most channels have a listen live website. I think Network TV will eventually be the same. blitzmore, Bigblue204 and Blue-urns 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Bigblue204 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. Or get it for free. Bigblue204 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacquie Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 TSN isn't part of the basic cable package for Rogers (not surprising). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevetheClub Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. It is what it is now, but that's not how it always has to be. It is not even remotely unreasonable or "stupid" to advocate for a change in how content is delivered in an industry in which innovative ways to deliver content are always being explored. TV is always changing and the article reflects a very logical next step, one that is already happening in other sports. If what you're reading is "people want to be able to watch TV without paying for TV" then you're missing the point. What people want is a way to consume content that reflects current values and preferences, and is consistent with the technology available. Blue-urns, Bigblue204, blitzmore and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBird Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 There is a good article on 3downnation on the streaming of CFL games. http://3downnation.com/2015/06/15/online-streaming-a-must-to-attract-millennials/#comment-29975\ Here is one relevant comment on the above story that I agree with 100%. "Agreed, however, it will also help if the board of governors puts pressure on their broadcasting partner to make their product available to more than just the cable subscriber. There are many others, including people outside of Canada, that would pay a fee to stream CFL games. Bell, TSN and the CFL are missing out on a major revenue stream IMO. For now, I'll find free ways to watch. However, I would gladly pay for this service so I can get an HD quality stream to put up on my big screen. I won't pay for a cable subscription that gives me a package of channels I'm not interested in. A great example of this is netflix. Anyone can download movies and tv shows for free. However, netflix is a cheap enough option that means I don't have to spend the time and effort to download movies and tv. $70 / month for cable? no thanks. $9 / month for netflix? sure, I can live with that. $10-$20 / month for CFL? sign me up. Until a CFL subscription is available, that $10-$20 per month will stay in my pocket." This is a stupid post, TSN is part of the basic cable package everywhere is it not? This is just people whining about not wanting cable and that sort is entirely screwed up in their thought process. I want to watch TV but I refuse to pay the price to get tv channels so I can watch TV. Netflix won't last as it is forever, content owners are already looking at ways to have their services themselves. Netflix itself has even stated that it's goal long term is to become HBO faster than HBO can become Netflix. They are putting a lot of emphasis on their own original content rather than getting bent over trying to get other content providers to license them content. It's going to be cable packages on the internet rather than TV in the future and that's a damned shame. TSN is not part of the basic package. You have to pay extra to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue204 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 No I know what the post was saying, but the point remains the same. People want to be able to watch tv without paying for tv. I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. It's up to the "industry" to adjust. Not the consumers. Consumers consume...generally they will want it at the best price. And nothing beats free! So unless the industry adjusts and gives the consumer what they want, they'll continue to get it as best they can. (See music industry) In this case stream it online for free, rather than paying at least $70 a month for a bunch of crap they don't really want. This poster is a part of a growing population (myself included) who don't pay for cable because they already pay for internet, and everything is available online. Some for a smaller fee, others for free. The more you say, providers choose what we get. The older/more out of touch you sound. Cable is dying. Streaming is the future. Give us streams! Fatty Liver 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 According to the morningbigblue twitter stream, the Riders are saying they are streaming their game tomorrow night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now