Oh, well we better all watch on delay for your sake.
Time to move Weevs!
I'd prefer for them to change the legislation so that I wasn't forced to pay Telstra and NEWS corp for the privilege of watching sport.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Free-to-air TV may get first dibs on sport
- Thread starter Pklz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I'd prefer for them to change the legislation so that I wasn't forced to pay Telstra and NEWS corp for the privilege of watching sport.
Still fuming that they skipped a whole session of the 2005 ashes to show news on the london bombings. OK, it was big news, but no news came out of the whole 2 hour broadcastSBS should get first dibs as they're actually prepared to p!ss off their regular programs for sport ( see the ashes coverage for eg)
The current legislation that attempts to ensure certain events are shown on FTA TV has held back the evolution of Pay-TV and multi channeling on FTA. The government should remove all restrictions but demand that each AFL & NRL amongst other events game be shown live throughout Australia with the exception of the home city (max 1hr delay).
Perth and Adelaide AFL supporters are being dudded under the existing arrangement which allows local games to be shown both on FTA and Pay-TV but can not enable them to watch an alternative game on a secondary channel is laughable.
I am not a fan of NRL but a Storm fan in Melbourne can not watch a Channel 9 Friday or Sunday game until well past midnight. Surely the game could be shown on "GO" or onsold to Foxtel.
Anti-siphoning legislation was put in place to protect iconic events being shown exclusively on Pay-TV. However fans throughout Australia continue to lose out as FTA networks place ratings interest infront of customer service as their main programming priority.
Perth and Adelaide AFL supporters are being dudded under the existing arrangement which allows local games to be shown both on FTA and Pay-TV but can not enable them to watch an alternative game on a secondary channel is laughable.
I am not a fan of NRL but a Storm fan in Melbourne can not watch a Channel 9 Friday or Sunday game until well past midnight. Surely the game could be shown on "GO" or onsold to Foxtel.
Anti-siphoning legislation was put in place to protect iconic events being shown exclusively on Pay-TV. However fans throughout Australia continue to lose out as FTA networks place ratings interest infront of customer service as their main programming priority.
Before Fox started showing footy you couldn't see every game every weekend, channel 7 only showed 4 or 5 games, so you're not getting any less by not paying.
Because they only had 1 channel that they had to put all their programming on. Times have moved on since then. I used to be able to watch domestic cricket and all sorts of things too.
TedDougChris
🏆 🦍
- Mar 10, 2007
- 52,545
- 98,136
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Charlton Athletic, Roys FFC
Er, no.
The three major commercial networks have demonstrated many times they have no interest in showing live sport. Let alone live, uninterrupted sport...
This will only make it worse..... It will remove any pressure from Pay TV on the commercial networks to improve the timing and quality of their sports coverage....
Because they have been forced to show everything on the 1 channel. Force Fox to show all their content on 1 single channel and watch how much live sport they drop.
Durham Hawks
All Australian
- Aug 16, 2009
- 937
- 8
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
how is that relevant? the concerns of the viewer here is that there is going to be less live sport. you're arguing semantics about digital channels etc.
all the viewer wants is live sport. pay network names the price, we decide if we pay it. give us the option.
What on earth are you talking about? How is it not relevant, it is the core of the entire issue.
There is going to be much more live sport. I suggest you do some research on the topic.
I don't object to paying for the footy. It's paying for the shopping channel, the lifestyle channel.... that I object to.
If they put out a package, which allowed me to choose which channels I received - $20 for the first 5 channels, then $3 for each channel after that - I'd sign up in a flash. The only freebie I'd be expecting would be the installation - but only because it comes standard with every other package they've ever offered.
Of course it's relevant. Until recently, they've had one channel to work with - shoving the sport in amongst all of their regular programming. Now they have 3 channels to work with, triple the airtime to fill. They now have far more flexibility than they've ever had before, meaning that they are now able to show the sport LIVE on FTA wher previously it was inevitably delayed.
It is my understanding that the Bombers vs Saints game was only shown on Foxtel last Sunday. Fortunately I was at the game - I don't have Foxtel.
Durham Hawks
All Australian
- Aug 16, 2009
- 937
- 8
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
i guarantee you the digital channels are irrelevant to major sports, ie ones on the anti siphoning list.
there is no financial incentive for channel 7 to deflect away from better homes and gardens on a friday night by showing live football on a second channel.
similarly, there is no incentive to show live sunday football that will not run into its 6pm news.
there is no financial incentive for channel 7 to deflect away from better homes and gardens on a friday night by showing live football on a second channel.
similarly, there is no incentive to show live sunday football that will not run into its 6pm news.
It will be interesting to see how much they actually show to compete against better homes and gardens...my argument would be SFA
And in HD (something channel 7 seem to be unable or unwilling to do), looked stunning, and was a great game to boot
skipjack
Norm Smith Medallist
Do you really think FTA stations will show sport live on their extra channels, thereby actually competing against themselves? Would Channel 7 pay big bucks to show the footy live on a Friday night which may take some viewers away from it's regualar programming?
Maybe. It's just worth thinking about.
It has been a bold move by OneHD but I am not sure whether it will last.
Maybe. It's just worth thinking about.
It has been a bold move by OneHD but I am not sure whether it will last.
skipjack
Norm Smith Medallist
Foxtel effectively "owns" the twighlight Sunday game I think.
Not at all, if they can have a show that appeals to a different demographic on their sub-channels they will absolutely go for it. That is 9's strategy with GO!
Once one FTA station goes for multichannelling they all have to, otherwise they are giving up market share.
Once they can start getting a crack at some of the better sporting events I think they will perform much better.
I’d be all in favour of giving the FTA’s first option on sports on the list, allowing them to show it on the sub-channels, but forcing them to use it or lose it.
Think that would be the best outcome for the public.
DoggieStyle07
Debutant
- Apr 11, 2007
- 134
- 146
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Cost you pay to have sport on 5 dedicated channels 24 hrs a day on Foxtel (inc. 2 x 24hr HD channels):
- $2.50 per day
Cost you pay to watch sport on FTA:
- delayed coverage / 11.59 start times
- commercials at every concievable location during an event (sometimes even delaying the event further)
- no guarantees that entire event will be shown
- lack of respect from execs who only care about bottom line profitablilty of a sports event
- average production standards / commentary on most events
- limited HD coverage (except ONE)
Free To Air television is 'free' in name only, every second of what you watch must be paid for by somebody somewhere and executives will sell out at any oppourtunity to make an extra buck.
- $2.50 per day
Cost you pay to watch sport on FTA:
- delayed coverage / 11.59 start times
- commercials at every concievable location during an event (sometimes even delaying the event further)
- no guarantees that entire event will be shown
- lack of respect from execs who only care about bottom line profitablilty of a sports event
- average production standards / commentary on most events
- limited HD coverage (except ONE)
Free To Air television is 'free' in name only, every second of what you watch must be paid for by somebody somewhere and executives will sell out at any oppourtunity to make an extra buck.
The whole point of this is too allow FTA to use their digital channels so that they will show sport live.
Still fuming that they skipped a whole session of the 2005 ashes to show news on the london bombings. OK, it was big news, but no news came out of the whole 2 hour broadcast
I would say if that happened again tomorrow they would keep the cricket on SBS TWO or SBS HD and have the news on SBS ONE. They couldn't do that back in the dark ages of technology (2005).
Yes there is. In WA for example a large percentage of people do not watch Friday night Football because of the 3 hour delay. These people will now watch it live on the digital channel instead of listening to it on the ABC therefore Seven increase their ratings for Footy while keeping the elderly happy by showing Dr Harry on their main channel.
I think it will suceed. They are increasing their ratings each week and have shown with the F1 that if you show it live, people will watch. F1 is their highest rating show each week it is on.
They do actually - and the ratings they get from the secondary channels still count towards their total viewer number and demographics, which are what count with the advertisers.
Ch Nein have been very clever with the way they have programmed their viewing on Go! They programme things so that they target different demographics on their two channels. Take Monday nights for example - the main channel features such ball-shrivelling horrors as "The Farmer Wants a Wife" and "Drop Dead Diva", things which no self-respecting man would have any desire to suffer through. On Go! they schedule "Dog the Bounty Hunter", "Neighbours at War" and "Bad Lads Army" - complete rubbish the lot of it, but all intended to appeal to men, while the women watch the main channel.
You'd expect them to do something similar with their live sports presentations. Ch7 can continue to show Dr Harry & Better Homes than Yours on the main channel, appealing to the females, whilst showing the footy on the secondary channel - appealing to the blokes.
Note also that the analogue networks will be progressively switched off from 2010 onwards (starting in Mildura). From that time on, everyone will have access to the digital channels - or they won't be watching television. At present, around 45% of all households have a digital TV or set-top box. That figure is expected to rise rapidly as the switch off date approaches. Once everyone has access to the digital-only channels, the differentiation between "primary" and "secondary" will dissipate.
I think people have got the wrong idea re the new free to air channels - I'm sure I've read somewhere in the past that a deal has been done by the free to air stations to start Freeview. That deal has ABC getting kids programs on their new channel, channel 10 getting sport on ONE, channel 9 getting reality shows/comedy on GO and channel 7 gets all the lifestyle shows - I'm not sure about SBS.
So the only additional place for footy would be on ONE or the other channels HD channels but they probably wouldn't show something on HD against their normal channel.
So the only additional place for footy would be on ONE or the other channels HD channels but they probably wouldn't show something on HD against their normal channel.
They talked about a sharing arrangement but it never happened.
They will be more than happy to run sport against their primary channels.
They will be more than happy to run sport against their primary channels.
Similar threads
