Foxtel have 48hrs to do a deal for 4 games a week!!!

[Portia]

Do you really think the FTA channels are overly keen on multichanneling ???

I think they now love the idea of multichanneling.

While its true that they would be competing with themselves for ratings, that is still a better position for a content provider than having to compete with someone else. At least when they compete with themselves they get ratings/$$$ either way, and the combined total may be higher than single channel.

If they had their way, then there would be no Foxtel...but to go further, the ideal solution for Channel Nine is for there to be no TV other than Channel Nine. Multichanneling exists in Foxtel, so as it exists, you have to compete with it.

 

[arrowman]

Do you really think the FTA channels are overly keen on multichanneling ???

They would essentially go head to head with themnselves and then due to the lower ratings they would get less advertising revenue.

I honestly think that the 9,10 and 7 dont have much interest in multichannelling as it has the potiential to lower down their audiences. 7, 9 and 10 like things just as they are now. I can assure you of that.

9 like things just the way they are now because they have an interest in Foxtel. 7 and 10, 7 (Kerry Stoke) in particular, lobbied against the restrictions on multi-channelling.

The FTA networks have every interest in multi-channelling, it is a major competitive disadvantage for them (vs Pay TV) to not be able to offer it and the facts are that the FTA networks WANT multi-channelling.

A network that multi-channels, say, a movie and a sporting event, is not "going head to head with itself and losing revenue", it is able to pick up extra audience in the same time slot. I'm not saying it's a magic pudding, but as I said above, you need to remember that at any given time there's a lot of TVs not in use because "there's nothing on".

Anyway, why don't we just open up the market for multi-channelling and let the market forces determine what happens? This is, after all, the catch cry of the Pay TV lobby. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

 

[Portia]

DId they have "assurances" [that the current regulations would remain in force], or did they act on the assumption that the current regulations would remain in force?

To the best of my knowledge they had assurances, though I doubt they assumed the current regulations would remain in force forever. Any government regulation is a decision that could change at any time, thats why lobbyists exist.

 

[arrowman]

To the best of my knowledge they had assurances, though I doubt they assumed the current regulations would remain in force forever. Any government regulation is a decision that could change at any time, thats why lobbyists exist.

It would appear that the changes are coming, and may accelerate. And not before time. It is a ridiculous situation that we in Australia have adopted a new technology and then restricted its use.

 

[Portia]

I guess the counterargument is that without the assurances, Foxtel may not have adopted this technology as soon as it did, and thus the FTAs would not have felt compelled to do the same.

The FTAs had it all pretty good before Pay TV. Now audiences have been spoiled and want options.

 

[arrowman]

I guess the counterargument is that without the assurances, Foxtel may not have adopted this technology as soon as it did, and thus the FTAs would not have felt compelled to do the same.

I think you overrate the importance of "Foxtel Digital"; it is essentially the same pig with the lipstick of greater interactivity - something that will appeal to some, but not all, and something that with current technology at least FTA TV cannot fully emulate. In short - Foxtel "Digital" (Foxtel was always "digital", it's not a wholy new thing, that's just marketing-speak to try and align it with the advent of digital FTA) should provide the same competitive advantage for Foxtel regardless of what happens with multi-channelling on FTA.

The FTAs had it all pretty good before Pay TV. Now audiences have been spoiled and want options.

The other side of that coin is that Pay TV had it pretty good before digital FTA, and now the audiences can (could, if the regulations were relaxed) get most of what they want on FTA where they had to pay for it before.

If every FTA network could run, say, two channels, we'd have 5 more channels than we do now. I'd say for most people 10 channels would be enough, it could make a huge hole in Foxtel's subscriber base.

 

[UpForGrabs]

No, completely pathetic "point" actually - as grayham has explained.

Well, since 'Grayham' explained it so nicely, then it must be pathetic.

My point was that the argument was made that you shouldn't have to pay for sport, but feel that it's ok to use technology to broadcast the game which many people don't have access to without having to spend money to buy the necessary equipment. Who cares if it's content or hardware - the AFL or the TV stations would be restricting content to a minority, forcing the majority to spend money to buy technology they didn't need prior to the change.

Who cares if it costs 'only' $70 to buy a set-top box?? The same people would be making the same argument if set-top boxes cost $400 (and Fox cost less) because they're so pig-headed they don't like the idea of something different happening to the way they're used to it happening. They still probably fill their cars up with Super because Unleaded's for all the hippies.

 

[maroon and blue]

I can't believe the selfishness of people who post in favor of pay TV. Their are many people in this country who cannot afford basic living expenses let alone the luxury of Foxtel. Why should they be prevented from watching the people's game?

 

[Portia]

The other side of that coin is that Pay TV had it pretty good before digital FTA, and now the audiences can (could, if the regulations were relaxed) get most of what they want on FTA where they had to pay for it before.

As far as live events and original programming from the FTAs, you bet, they'd get everything they want. I reckon you'd still get (for example) Scrubs episodes two seasons late and at 10:30pm though.

The attraction of live events is that everyone wants to watch them at the same time, so you get big ratings. You can even justify having live events up against each other, because the TV viewership is larger.

But niche programming? You have to pay good money for that stuff, and the ratings are abysmal. Where Foxtel make money from people paying for a whole bunch of channels, FTAs only make money based on what is specifically watched.

If every FTA network could run, say, two channels, we'd have 5 more channels than we do now. I'd say for most people 10 channels would be enough, it could make a huge hole in Foxtel's subscriber base.

Absolutely.

The real issue of removing multichanneling restrictions is that it quite certainly will make Foxtel unviable. Is that a great thing?

As an aside, how about the possibility of letting Foxtel gain a FTA license and multichannel themselves, instead of artificially restricting that market too?

 

[footyfreak]

I can't believe the selfishness of people who post in favor of pay TV. Their are many people in this country who cannot afford basic living expenses let alone the luxury of Foxtel. Why should they be prevented from watching the people's game?

because watching football on TV is not a right it's a privilege. Don't ever forget that. Just coz it's been free (as far you don't pay a subscription but everyone does pay through advertising) for 40 years doesn't make it a right.

 

[arrowman]

Well, since 'Grayham' explained it so nicely, then it must be pathetic.

Apart from the opening words "stupid argument" he did explain it "nicely". Are you going to use those opening words as an excuse to avoid the point?

My point was that the argument was made that you shouldn't have to pay for sport, but feel that it's ok to use technology to broadcast the game which many people don't have access to without having to spend money to buy the necessary equipment.

Um, you mean, like a - television set?

Who cares if it's content or hardware - the AFL or the TV stations would be restricting content to a minority, forcing the majority to spend money to buy technology they didn't need prior to the change.

The introduction of digital TV was not an initiative of the AFL or the TV networks, it was a government initiative. And it is not "restricting content to a minority" - within the next few years it will be the only way to watch FTA TV, just as CDs have replaced vinyl and DVDs have pretty much replaced videotape.

Do you consider the fact that the AFL now publishes games for sale only on DVD, and not on VHS tape, some sort of terrible "restricting content to a minority"?

Do try and keep up.

Who cares if it costs 'only' $70 to buy a set-top box??

Set top boxes (or integrated digital tuners) will become a requirement within the next few years. People have a choice, before then, about what new technology they will buy. By the time it becomes a requirement, most people will need/want to replace their old TVs anyway, it will have been close to 10 years since digital FTA TV was first proposed. Maybe some people will feel aggrieved that they have to replace a 10 year old TV that they were planning on keeping for another 5 years but shrug, that's life. It's hardly the basis for an argument that this is a terrible thing that is comparable to making people pay $600 a year just so they can watch football.

The same people would be making the same argument if set-top boxes cost $400 (and Fox cost less) because they're so pig-headed they don't like the idea of something different happening to the way they're used to it happening.

Or we might not. But hey, if making things up helps you think you're making a valid argument, then go right ahead.

They still probably fill their cars up with Super because Unleaded's for all the hippies.

Ridiculous and inaccurate hyperbole and baseless assumption just diminishes the credibility of your argument, you know.

It's very funny the way you characterise the proponents of digital TV and multi-channelling as being "out of date" and "don't like the idea of something different happening to the way they're used to it happening" when that is exactly what is happening to the old Pay TV model and its adherents.

 

[UpForGrabs]

I can't believe the selfishness of people who post in favor of pay TV. Their are many people in this country who cannot afford basic living expenses let alone the luxury of Foxtel. Why should they be prevented from watching the people's game?

Tell that to the FTA stations who'll choose to broadcast games in the early hours of the morning because Elvis movies get more viewers on weekend afternoons.

 

[maroon and blue]

I would prefer you to get up in your pyjamas and watch the game than prevent tens of thousands not seeing it at all. Once again, selfish .

 

[sackrash]

Its not selfish, it realistic. Besides which, last time i checked, AFL, like any other profesional sport in teh world, is a business, not a people's game..

 

[Portia]

I would prefer you to get up in your pyjamas and watch the game than prevent tens of thousands not seeing it at all.

Yeah, uh, you do realise that the difference between a live game on Foxtel, and a 2am Sunday night delayed game on Nine would easily be tens of thousands, right?

 

[UpForGrabs]

a whole heap of stuff

I'll try to reply here and not resort to the belittling tacts implied previously by others or personal attacks, rather to try and keep this to a reasonable debate, something I have very little chance of doing, but will try anyway.

In my original post I was not talking about digital television as a whole, rather digital multicasting, which until the analog -> digital changeover will be just as disadvantageous as Pay TV to those who have yet to buy a new television set or a set-top box. Either way, those people have to pay to watch the footy - it doesn't matter if they would eventually have to pay money, they would still be disadvantaged by it.

As I've said before - I don't really care where the games are broadcast, FTA, Fox or FTA w/ digital multicasting - I've got the ability to watch all of them at home - what I want is the ability to watch all games either as they are happening or as close to as they are happening as possible, and Foxtel having the capability to telecast 2, 3 or 4 games a weekend greatly increases my chances of doing so.

Maybe some people will feel aggrieved that they have to replace a 10 year old TV that they were planning on keeping for another 5 years but shrug, that's life

Maybe some people feel aggreived that they may have to get pay tv or go to a pub to watch a game they think they should have the right to watch for free in their own home but shrug, that's life...

 

[grayham]

9 like things just the way they are now because they have an interest in Foxtel. 7 and 10, 7 (Kerry Stoke) in particular, lobbied against the restrictions on multi-channelling.

The FTA networks have every interest in multi-channelling, it is a major competitive disadvantage for them (vs Pay TV) to not be able to offer it and the facts are that the FTA networks WANT multi-channelling.

A network that multi-channels, say, a movie and a sporting event, is not "going head to head with itself and losing revenue", it is able to pick up extra audience in the same time slot. I'm not saying it's a magic pudding, but as I said above, you need to remember that at any given time there's a lot of TVs not in use because "there's nothing on".

Anyway, why don't we just open up the market for multi-channelling and let the market forces determine what happens? This is, after all, the catch cry of the Pay TV lobby. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Totally agree. The blocking of free multichannelling to protect pay TV is a classic case of the government penalising the consumer for the benefit of big-business.

Digital FTA can deliver the same diversity of programming as pay-TV, without the extra cost burden on the average consumer.

The restrictions on digital FTA make the anti-sphyoning list problems appear trivial. In fact lifting digital restrictions should be brought in with a "use it or lose it" rule, giving the FTA networks enough bandwidth to "use it".

 

[arrowman]

The real issue of removing multichanneling restrictions is that it quite certainly will make Foxtel unviable. Is that a great thing?

I think it's a "meh" thing. If the playing field was truly level (no multi-channelling restrictions, no anti-siphoning laws) and Foxtel failed, then that is the way the cards have fallen.
don't like the idea of something different happening to the way they're used to it happeningAs an aside, how about the possibility of letting Foxtel gain a FTA license and multichannel themselves, instead of artificially restricting that market too?[/QUOTE]Well first off we have to be realistic, the television spectrum is not and never will be a totally free market, the government controls how many licences there are and who they may be sold to. And that is IMHO not a totally bad thing, the television spectrum is a finite resource and it needs to be managed on behalf of all Australians. So yes, there is an "artifical restriction" on that market but IMHO it is not one that can readily be removed.

So the questions would be
1. Should the government allow for one or more additional FTA licences? IMHO, yes.
2. Should Foxtel be allowed to buy one of those licences? IMHO, no - unless it replaced their Pay TV operation. Any more than you would let Kerry Stokes or James Packer buy one of them, and for the same reasons.

 

[arrowman]

because watching football on TV is not a right it's a privilege. Don't ever forget that. Just coz it's been free (as far you don't pay a subscription but everyone does pay through advertising) for 40 years doesn't make it a right.

That's right. And watching "every game live, if I'm prepared to pay for it" isn't a right either. The final decision on what games get shown live by who and in what markets, will be made by a combination of business drivers, economics and the desires of the AFL to market its product and make it as readily available as reasonably possible to its supporters.

IMHO we are very close to the balance of those things now, the major gap being coverage in places such as NSW and Qld. As I have said before, I think that if they could get FTA coverage close to live in those markets, the AFL would be happy, and happy to accept a reduced price for those rights.

 

[Portia]

I think it's a "meh" thing. If the playing field was truly level (no multi-channelling restrictions, no anti-siphoning laws) and Foxtel failed, then that is the way the cards have fallen.

Sure, thats the way the cards have fallen, but my question is if that was a good thing or not?

Like I said, FTAs will not support niche television in viewable timeslots. They can't because their business model doesn't accomodate it. The Pay-TV model does, as do the ABC and SBS models. Neither of ABC or SBS have the sort of budgets you'd want though, for obvious reasons.

So the questions would be
1. Should the government allow for one or more additional FTA licences? IMHO, yes.
2. Should Foxtel be allowed to buy one of those licences? IMHO, no - unless it replaced their Pay TV operation. Any more than you would let Kerry Stokes or James Packer buy one of them, and for the same reasons.

What reasons can you think of that couldn't also apply to FTA multichanneling?

 

[arrowman]

I'll try to reply here and not resort to the belittling tacts implied previously by others or personal attacks, rather to try and keep this to a reasonable debate, something I have very little chance of doing, but will try anyway.

"I will use the occasional snide remarks in arrowman's post asd an excuse for not responding directly."

I will ask again:
Do you consider the fact that the AFL now publishes games for sale only on DVD, and not on VHS tape, some sort of terrible "restricting content to a minority"?

In my original post I was not talking about digital television as a whole, rather digital multicasting, which until the analog -> digital changeover will be just as disadvantageous as Pay TV to those who have yet to buy a new television set or a set-top box. Either way, those people have to pay to watch the footy - it doesn't matter if they would eventually have to pay money, they would still be disadvantaged by it.

You cannot separate "digital television as a whole" from multicasting and pretend that having to buy a set top box is some sort of major cost burden that could otherwise be avoided if only it wasn't for the (hypothetical) footy. Delayed for a few years, perhaps, but not avoided altogether. And nothing like the cost burden of pay TV.

OK - yes, if the government relaxed the regulations on multicasting tomorrow, and all the footy was going to be on 7/10 from 2007, with some games on the second digital channel, then people would have to buy a set top box right now if they wanted to watch the games that weren't on the primary channel. Possibly 3-4 games a week - guess what, the same number of games that would be on Foxtel!

No, I have absolutely no problem with proposing that people be required to buy a $70 set top box, as a one off purchase that they are going to have to make some time in the near future anyway, to watch 3-4 extra games of footy a week, as an alternative to paying $500-600 a year to Foxtel for the same result. No problem at all with that, and your trying to pretend that these are somehow close to the same thing is ridiculous.

As I've said before - I don't really care where the games are broadcast, FTA, Fox or FTA w/ digital multicasting - I've got the ability to watch all of them at home - what I want is the ability to watch all games either as they are happening or as close to as they are happening as possible, and Foxtel having the capability to telecast 2, 3 or 4 games a weekend greatly increases my chances of doing so.

That is your personal preference. Cool. You need to get over the fact that you are in a minority - if you weren't, Foxtel would have a much higher subscriber base.

Maybe some people feel aggreived that they may have to get pay tv or go to a pub to watch a game they think they should have the right to watch for free in their own home but shrug, that's life...

See above. Not the same thing.

If someone complains to me that they can't afford Foxtel, I sympathise. If they were to complain to me that they were missing all the footy because of a $70 box - meh. As I said before, trying to pretend that these are the same thing is ridiculous.

 

[grayham]

I think it's a "meh" thing. If the playing field was truly level (no multi-channelling restrictions, no anti-siphoning laws) and Foxtel failed, then that is the way the cards have fallen.
don't like the idea of something different happening to the way they're used to it happeningAs an aside, how about the possibility of letting Foxtel gain a FTA license and multichannel themselves, instead of artificially restricting that market too? Well first off we have to be realistic, the television spectrum is not and never will be a totally free market, the government controls how many licences there are and who they may be sold to. And that is IMHO not a totally bad thing, the television spectrum is a finite resource and it needs to be managed on behalf of all Australians. So yes, there is an "artifical restriction" on that market but IMHO it is not one that can readily be removed.

So the questions would be
1. Should the government allow for one or more additional FTA licences? IMHO, yes.
2. Should Foxtel be allowed to buy one of those licences? IMHO, no - unless it replaced their Pay TV operation. Any more than you would let Kerry Stokes or James Packer buy one of them, and for the same reasons.

Pay-Tv came about in the early days (in US) because FTA couldnt physically broadcast enough channels. Pay TV's delivery requires expensive satelites or cable instalations. Hence the pay model was introduced to make it viable.

Now that FTA can broadcast enough channels, is there any real need for pay TV ?

Surely a model Australia should be adopting is free digital multichannelling with 20 channels to cover most mainstream stuff, then internet video on demand for repeats and special-interest stuff. Obscure stuff will probably warrant a fee.

 

[MarkT]

I would personally prefer all games on FTA. I would personally prefer all major sport on FTA. I can see why so many would also prefer that. Why so many people think they have a RIGHT to FTA sport is what gets me. Not that it is surprising on this forum. People think they have a right to the best players for being crap. I am sure there are people who would miss out due to pay TV getting footy etc. I am sure that isn’t a heck of a lot of people relatively speaking and I am sure a good number of them have more to worry about than watching footy. Anti siphoning and anti multi channelling are both just commercial interest driven. The irony is how many “wannabe socialists as long as it isn’t my taxes” argue so passionately for those commercial interests to retain their protection. Open up the licences, open up the potential platforms and let the AFL etc sell whatever they want to who ever they want.

In the end you’d probably eliminate pay TV anyway if they had real competition. Why can’t we have unlimited commercial FTA TV stations? It isn’t the 1950’s any more.

 

[arrowman]

Sure, thats the way the cards have fallen, but my question is if that was a good thing or not?

My preference is for sport on FTA TV and I'd rather see it delayed (within reason) and free, than live and pay for it. I'd also like to be able to watch EPL and the Australian team without having to pay for Foxtel. Therefore I would dance on Foxtel's grave if it shut down.

But I don't put that forward as some sort of general argument.

(It's like people on BigFooty saying "I think soccer's boring, therefore it is no threat to the AFL". Projecting your personal preferences as though everyone else thinks, or should think, the same way.)

All I can say is - if the market were deregulated to a reasonable point, and that meant Foxtel failed, then - meh. And in response to those who say "welcome to the real world, pay TV is the way of the future, stop being a tightass and get out of your cave" I say - be careful what you wish for, because a truly (almost) free market for TV in Australia, under the current technology, would actually almost certainly mean the death of your marvellous free market rules Foxtel.

Like I said, FTAs will not support niche television in viewable timeslots. They can't because their business model doesn't accomodate it. The Pay-TV model does, as do the ABC and SBS models. Neither of ABC or SBS have the sort of budgets you'd want though, for obvious reasons.

I can deal with that. Via my VCR I have access to 840 hours of television a week - most of it crap, but hey, I have a life and by the time I've lived that life and watched the footy - I don't see the loss of "niche television in viewable timeslots" as such a terrible thing.

Yes, I'd like Channel effing 9 to stop stuffing around with the Sopranos etc, but - well, I don't really see that Foxtel offers such a marvellous array of "niche" television that its loss would be so devastating.

What reasons can you think of that couldn't also apply to FTA multichanneling?

I'm not sure what you mean by that - I was talking about additional FTA TV licences, and assuming they would be allowed to multichannel.

 

[arrowman]

Pay-Tv came about in the early days (in US) because FTA couldnt physically broadcast enough channels. Pay TV's delivery requires expensive satelites or cable instalations. Hence the pay model was introduced to make it viable.

Now that FTA can broadcast enough channels, is there any real need for pay TV ?

Surely a model Australia should be adopting is free digital multichannelling with 20 channels to cover most mainstream stuff, then internet video on demand for repeats and special-interest stuff. Obscure stuff will probably warrant a fee.

Exactly. Contrary to the Foxtel PR, Foxtel is actually an outdated and increasingly superseded delivery model.