Free-to-air TV may get first dibs on sport

[weevil]

Is this the whole C7 sports or something else?

Yup.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Does anyone remember the sport of Basketball? They used to have a league called the NBL. It was huge in the 90's. It was also on FTA. Then it went to Foxtel and was never seen again because no one could watch it anymore. Fox may have payed big money and may have shown games live, but it meant nothing as no one could watch the games and everyone lost interest. Now there is no more NBL as it used to be.

That is the danger when you let Fox get a monopoly over a sport. FTA is a must if you want to keep a sport alive and healthy.

Lol. Fox didn't pay big money. They got it on the cheap because they were the only ones willing to show it.

And it had ceased being relevant before it went to fox.

 

[weevil]

Isn't the Premier League only on pay tv in the UK? It's hardly gone down the tube

Yup totally different marketplace though and different economies of scale, population v land mass.

It’s much easier to have superfast broadband in small densely populated countries as well.

 

[that_dood]

Isn't the Premier League only on pay tv in the UK? It's hardly gone down the tube

Difference being is most people watch games at the pub in the UK so even though they might not have Pay TV, they still watch their team regularly.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

As a foxtel subscriber, this would be a terrible development.

Fastest way to ruin sporting coverage is to put it on FTA.

As opposed to having Dwayne Russell commentate games.

 

[fairdinkum]

Foxtel getting a monopoly on the footy might be good for the AFL in the short term due to the increased flow of money into their coffers, but it would kill the game in the longer term by limiting access to only those who have paytv at home - without exposure, interest in the game would wither & die eventually.

...

By granting paytv a monopoly, you're effectively eliminating access of the game to 80% of the viewers. The fanatics will follow - and pay a premium to do so. The general populace won't bother. Out of sight is out of mind. If you lose 80% of your viewers, then you lose interest in the game. If people lose interest in the game, then the game withers and dies.

That is surely something that should be considered and evaluated by those who are charged with growing our game (ie the AFL), and not those who have a litany of other considerations and biases to concern themselves with (ie the politicians in Canberra).

I am interested in your assumption that, if AFL were taken off the anti-syphoning list, Foxtel would wind up with every game, every round, exclusively. Why do you assume this?

 

[Crazy Joe Davola]

Yup totally different marketplace though and different economies of scale, population v land mass.

It’s much easier to have superfast broadband in small densely populated countries as well.

aren't we in the process of setting up a massive BB network?

Don't rural areas get a government break to get BB installed?

I was at a function on Friday where they talked about how kakadu now has super-fast broadband!

 

[weevil]

aren't we in the process of setting up a massive BB network?

Don't rural areas get a government break to get BB installed?

I was at a function on Friday where they talked about how kakadu now has super-fast broadband!

Yeah totally, and all of that may well make al of this stuff irrelevant in the end.

After being incredibly stable for so long the industry is going through a massive period of change. But the legislative framework is an overhang from a bygone era and is dragging everything down.

Hopefully the NBN will radically change the whole marketplace. Who knows.

 

[fairdinkum]

Mate, I am putting forward a view that has ben endorsed by both sides of government for the past 15 years. There have been countless reports and investigations into it by all sorts of parliamentary groups, consultants, stakeholders, annalists, think tanks, academics, etc. The massive majority of all of these groups agree with the basic principals that the market requires the sort of protections I am talking about. The only people who do not are Foxtel themselves.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that you are right and the majority of consultants/academics/etc have indeed argued for the AFL to be on the anti-syphoning list.

Your argument seems to run along the lines of 'It has been this way for so long, so why change it?'. The obvious problem with this sort of argument is that you can apply it to any existing laws/conventions and in doing so can stifle progress. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole, I'll make this point: it wasn't so long ago that the 'collective wisdom' of politicians, academics etc thought that only males who owned property should vote, as it had been that way for so long. One can see that the 'It has been this way for so long, why change it?' line of argument is very weak.

You are not doing this; you are putting forward a fringe set of ideas that would massively favour a single stakeholder who could then effectively lock out the rest of the market.

1) Minimising unnecessary government intervention in the market is not a 'fringe set of ideas' in any way, shape or form.

2) There is more than 'a single stakeholder' who would be 'favored' by a change to the current anti-syphoning legislation.

*The AFL could in theory extract a better return for their broadcast rights.

--which could have positive flow-on effects for every club in the competition, as well as grass-roots football, among other things.

*Paytv operators would less restricted in attempting to procure content.

*Consumers (you and me) could potentially see more live sport.

I’ve always rated you as a poster. However, I don’t think you have a very strong understanding of all of the issues here, and I think you have jumped to conclusions based on this.

Ditto.

There are plenty of issues with the media legislation as it stands. Handing the entire thing lock stock and barrel over to Telstra is not the solution to these problems. That is what removing the Anti-Siphoning laws would do. That is precisely why the laws were put in place, and that is why they will continue.

The cynic might suggest that if they do indeed continue, it will have more to do with Conroy and his Labor mates fearing a backlash from the ACA types who expect entertainment for free, and expect the government to make sure they get it. Alas, that is democracy.

 

[shoe]

SBS should get first dibs as they're actually prepared to p!ss off their regular programs for sport ( see the ashes coverage for eg)

Mate. They are towelling up 10 and 7. The cricket games are not only much longer (and taking up more of their other scheduled programming slots), but they're bloody on the other side of the world... and it's still live.

And here we are having to put up with 7 chucking hissy fits when the fans want them to televise the team song after the win.

 

[Crazy Joe Davola]

Yeah totally, and all of that may well make al of this stuff irrelevant in the end.

After being incredibly stable for so long the industry is going through a massive period of change. But the legislative framework is an overhang from a bygone era and is dragging everything down.

Hopefully the NBN will radically change the whole marketplace. Who knows.

you'd think long term foxtel and FTA's biggest threat would be sport delivered over the net direct????

Not sure it will effect the parent companies as they will probably be tied up in delivering it.

 

[weevil]

For the sake of argument, let us assume that you are right and the majority of consultants/academics/etc have indeed argued for the AFL to be on the anti-syphoning list.

[snip]

Mate we’ve both had a pretty good dip at this. I'd say that you are still simplifying my arguments and I’m sure you’d say the same. Don’t think we are going to make any more progress.

It’s been fun for a while, but I’m over now, have better things to do with my time and am at the agreeing to disagree stage.

See you on the cricket board (where I will card your arse off (kidding)) have a good one.

 

[weevil]

you'd think long term foxtel and FTA's biggest threat would be sport delivered over the net direct????

Not sure it will effect the parent companies as they will probably be tied up in delivering it.

Who knows WTF is going to happen. Reckon there will be a lot of pirated stuff around.

 

[Borgsta]

Does anyone remember the sport of Basketball? They used to have a league called the NBL. It was huge in the 90's. It was also on FTA. Then it went to Foxtel and was never seen again because no one could watch it anymore. Fox may have payed big money and may have shown games live, but it meant nothing as no one could watch the games and everyone lost interest. Now there is no more NBL as it used to be.

That is the danger when you let Fox get a monopoly over a sport. FTA is a must if you want to keep a sport alive and healthy.

What a load of bollocks. Australian basketball has been terrible for years and was never hug. How many individual teams going bankrupt did you need to see. Foxtel saved the NBL from extinction by about 5 years.

 

[UpForGrabs]

Does anyone remember the sport of Basketball? They used to have a league called the NBL. It was huge in the 90's. It was also on FTA. Then it went to Foxtel and was never seen again because no one could watch it anymore. Fox may have payed big money and may have shown games live, but it meant nothing as no one could watch the games and everyone lost interest. Now there is no more NBL as it used to be.

That is the danger when you let Fox get a monopoly over a sport. FTA is a must if you want to keep a sport alive and healthy.

What a load of shit.

If you were actually educated on the subject, you'll know that Channel Seven had the telecast rights in the early 90s before Channel 10 took over for the so-called 'glory days' (aka the years when the Melbourne teams were winning).

Channel 10 eventually refused to resign the rights for the broadcasts and they eventually fell to the ABC, who bought them for well under $100,000.

Fox Sports then came to the party and offered more cash and since then, basketball has been a Fox Sports domain.

 

[Durham Hawks]

the FTA fear-mongerers remind me of bush-supporting americans.

 

[smoovy]

I don't care who televises it, as long as the network that has the rights, uses them to most benefit the sports viewer. Evidence so far is that the FTA netoworks cannot be trusted on this.

One only has to look at what 7 has done with football and also the apalling Wimbledon coverage by 9.

 

[deck]

Don't think it will make much difference as FTA don't like going head to head with each other. The best that could happen is maybe 1 extra game on FTA as 10 where desperate to televise 3 games on a Saturday.

 

[that_dood]

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/asse...ort_on_Television_Review_discussion_paper.pdf

This is the paper the government have put out for public discussion.