Mobile TV Coverage - Optus Won

[IanW]

This is all a bit stormy teacuppy.

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/convergence_review/review_timetable

Convergence Review due in about a month.

They will have been looking at ways do deal with this. Whole purpose of CR was to legislate for this stuff so you don't get situations where Fed Couyrt makes law on the hop.

Daw,

What this case means is the default - if new legislation isnt proposed, or is held up in the Senate, or whatever - is that internet providers can rebroadcast free to air tv, regardless of any "internet rights" that have been sold.

 

[Hornberger]

And a judge just gave him an opening to accelerate that plan.

That is not even close to being true.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Demetriou commenting: "This ruling means Telstra can't hold an unfair monopoly and charge exorbitant prices for a pathetic product. It's an outrage."

 

[IanW]

Demetriou commenting: "This ruling means Telstra can't hold an unfair monopoly and charge exorbitant prices for a pathetic product. It's an outrage."

Link or it didnt happen.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Link or it didnt happen.

PSST: I made it up.

 

[Bobber]

I can't beleive how selfish and short sighted some people are, only caring about there own interests.

If this decision isn't overturned it could have massive impacts to the AFL funding of new stadiums, Grass Roots Footy, Player Wages and club handouts. That is just for the AFL, let alone any other Aussie sport! If the networks/telcos arnt willing to pump in money into our sports then our sports will be on a downward slope, because the networks is where we get alot of our money! Sure, it's only optus offering an average product, but give it a few months with this green light and quite a few things will pop up where we can watch it for free & the afl gets nothing out of it

 

[MaddAdam]

Daw,

What this case means is the default - if new legislation isnt proposed, or is held up in the Senate, or whatever - is that internet providers can rebroadcast free to air tv, regardless of any "internet rights" that have been sold.

For now. Fed Court has given swift leave to appeal to the full bench which AFL and NRL will be joining forces to take up.

This is a long way from being set in stone.

 

[IanW]

I can't beleive how selfish and short sighted some people are, only caring about there own interests.

If this decision isn't overturned it could have massive impacts to the AFL funding of new stadiums, Grass Roots Footy, Player Wages and club handouts.

On the other hand, it could lead the AFL clubs getting rid of the middleman and you paying your club to be able to watch a game live via the internet, rather than being forced to subscribe to a Pay TV channel you dont want except for footy, or having to stay up till midnight to see a game only broadcast on delay.

 

[IanW]

PSST: I made it up.

If you're going to be a complete flog and make stuff up, Bay 13 is that way.

 

[kBuck]

i think its pretty disappointing, one company is paying for or subsidising the cameras, the staff, infrastructure, the other company is just scumming off the feed.

Pretty weak by Optus, but then again its all about profits.

I think the only thing they can do is start ripping of Optus feeds maybe like the tennis.

I wonder how much the value of the Australian open would devalue of Telstra ripped off the tennis and the Golf?

That would be great eh? watch the australian open on a 1 minute delay for free after optus pumped in a couple of million for the sponsorship rights?

as for FTA, it still makes money through advertising.

SO basically optus gets money from advertising for just running a router and rebroadcasting service, would like to see Tennis Australia get told their exclusive contract with ch7 and optus isn't worth anything, and you can watch the tennis with NO optus advertising (ok, you'll have to deal with telstra advertising).

or ch9 being told their deal with vodaphone and bupa is rubbish because ch10 is now rebroadcasting the cricket with a 1minute delay (worth it to get rid of slats and heals, would miss benaud and lawry though). Throw in the fact you'd probably have to put up with Dodo commercials.

Open the doors and let optus suffer the consequences of their actions.

I like where your heads at.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't get where the TV channels are losing out.


They only exist to put programs between the ads.
Those ads (and the broadcast) are just being re-transmitted.

 

[MYOB]

I don't get where the TV channels are losing out.


They only exist to put programs between the ads.
Those ads (and the broadcast) are just being re-transmitted.

It's not about TV channels missing out. It's about Telstra paying $150 million to be able show AFL exclusively on mobile phones, only for Optus to pay nothing to do it.

 

[Final Siren]

It's a good decision.

I record free-to-air television on my home PVR, which is a computer. I can send it to my TV, which is a computer, or stream it to another PC in my house, or my mobile phone, which is also a computer.

For some reason, Telstra & the AFL seem to think they can order me to only watch some of my recorded shows on a computer that's plugged into a wall. Well... no.

They are confused about the difference between a distribution channel (free-to-air, radio, internet, 3G) and a device (TV, PVR, phone). They can pick and choose their distribution channels. They don't get to choose my device.

 

[S for September]

i think its pretty disappointing, one company is paying for or subsidising the cameras, the staff, infrastructure, the other company is just scumming off the feed.

Pretty weak by Optus, but then again its all about profits.

I think the only thing they can do is start ripping of Optus feeds maybe like the tennis.

I wonder how much the value of the Australian open would devalue of Telstra ripped off the tennis and the Golf?

That would be great eh? watch the australian open on a 1 minute delay for free after optus pumped in a couple of million for the sponsorship rights?

as for FTA, it still makes money through advertising.

SO basically optus gets money from advertising for just running a router and rebroadcasting service, would like to see Tennis Australia get told their exclusive contract with ch7 and optus isn't worth anything, and you can watch the tennis with NO optus advertising (ok, you'll have to deal with telstra advertising).

or ch9 being told their deal with vodaphone and bupa is rubbish because ch10 is now rebroadcasting the cricket with a 1minute delay (worth it to get rid of slats and heals, would miss benaud and lawry though). Throw in the fact you'd probably have to put up with Dodo commercials.

Open the doors and let optus suffer the consequences of their actions.

They would most likely just output 7's stream, not change commercials... Unless you mean added advertising on top of what is already there?

 

[grimface_87]

I'll be interested in how Telstra's mobile coverage will work. Presumably, they will have a dedicated app with tabs for stats, live dream team, social media, etc and take the clean feed of the game with their own score bug (unlike TV Now which will take the direct TV broadcast making the scores unreadable on a mobile phone).

If Telstra can do all this well with attractive pricing (will Telstra place their own ads after goals and between quarters?), it would be a great success. Do we have any word on pricing yet?

9 live games on Telstra Mobile AFL vs 3 live and 1 delayed game using Optus TV Now.

 

[Synth]

And the AFL kisses bye bye to $150mill they almost had.

Hard to tell what the digital rights are worth when they aren't exclusive. But the price will definitely be slashed.

 

[Slattery_20]

It's not about TV channels missing out. It's about Telstra paying $150 million to be able show AFL exclusively on mobile phones, only for Optus to pay nothing to do it.

Then the "Telstra shareholders board" is... err... no, in fact, nowhere on here at all.

You're prolly right, but I just couldn't care. Telstra's AFL coverage & sites have been shambolic at best. Their "streaming" coverage has been more like "steaming" (as in pile) for many, many years. Not sad to see them put under the pump whatsoever.

If this means the AFL's broadcasting deal is only $220M p.a., instead of $260M...we're talking monopoly money either way.

 

[I'm the Juggernaut]

On the other hand, it could lead the AFL clubs getting rid of the middleman and you paying your club to be able to watch a game live via the internet, rather than being forced to subscribe to a Pay TV channel you dont want except for footy, or having to stay up till midnight to see a game only broadcast on delay.

I hear where you are coming from.
Over the last 12 months the AFL have been investing millions of dollars and employing 100s of people in their new AFL Media group.
They have been creating content that hasalready been sold to broadcasters, hell they are even creating content and selling it back to Telstra.
Regardless of this decision, there won't be a next digital rights agreement, the AFL will manage the whole thing 100% and will sell their programmes/content to the broadcasters/telcos etc for distribution.

 

[Tas]

Two mins delay is near as damn it live. It destroys the value of the product Telstra has bought from the AFL. If you don't understand that then discussion with you is pointless.

$150m over 5 years translates to a little less than $1m per club per year - your club needs that money (and so do many others).

It also creates a precident for the TV rights if they are "stored and played back" - Free TV replays on the internet for everyone! Yippeeee! Shame the clubs will be broke.

The content belongs to the Clubs (via the AFL), it should not be given free to a company for their own benefit.

If the law does not protect the clubs it is wrong and needs to be changed. This will totally knacker sports rights for all sports in Australia.

Near live isn't live. Optus is not charging for broadcasting the football, all they are charging for is the cloud service which allows people to record and play something back, it will be as futile as media companies trying to ban video recorders, back in the day. Is this copyright infringement? Yes. Does it fall under the reasonable use clause of the Copyright Act? Yes.

Optus is not broadcasting an internet Football tv coverage. They are allowing people to record shows broadcast on FTA TV and play them back, which is within the reasonable use provisions.

Does this 'destroy' the value of what Telstra paid for? Who can say? The maximum TV Now service is for 20 hours of TV for $10. A Footy program is about 3 hours, it wouldn't even get you 7 games in a month and you will be paying for a lot of FTA advertisements.

I don't know how much Telstra is planning to charge, but they would offer ALL games live, no FTA ads, both live and during the games. Optus' service can't really compete for quality.

I am reluctant to believe the sky is falling predictions from content providers, the music industry tried it, the film industry tried it by saying reasonable use will kill these industries, there is no real evidence that it has any significant impact, these industries bitch because they are just fearmongers who want to stall the development of technology because it would require 'effort' to adapt.

Telstra could make a fortune if they use their access to the footy well, a lot better than they executed their hold on the internet rights in the past.

 

[Furn]

Its a tough one. You can see both sides point of view.

However just on exclusivity to mobile devices, i was watching Rain man last night and I noticed he was watching live FTA tv on the old Sony watchman which is kinda a mobile device.

 

[seanoff]

The content that is FREELY broadcast to everyone on FREE TO AIR television? The content that electronics shops have going all day, every day? That pubs have going all day, every day?

It shouldn't be available for FREE?
Interesting.

The networks buy it to package ads in. Nothing more.

Those ads are getting in more people's faces in more places at more times of the day. They'll live.

you should step out of this discussion now, you obviously have NFI what you are on about.

if you are a retailer you pay, if you are a pub, you really pay.

base price is $377 /yr for each 105cm+ screen. if you have foxtel in a pub $$$$, PPV $$$$$$$$$.

if you don't pay, you are in breach of copyright and you will be fined heavily.

 

[Slattery_20]

you should step out of this discussion now, you obviously have NFI what you are on about.

if you are a retailer you pay, if you are a pub, you really pay.

base price is $377 /yr for each 105cm+ screen. if you have foxtel in a pub $$$$, PPV $$$$$$$$$.

if you don't pay, you are in breach of copyright and you will be fined heavily.

I'll stay right where I am, thanks.

If you look really, really, closely, you'll notice I said "FREELY broadcast on FREE TO AIR". It's in big capitals, in the first sentence, and you quoted it. So that would be your mistake.

Foxtel would be a different matter.

 

[Tuco]

The ruling basically says that the TV Now functionality is no different to having a vcr set up at home. Basically the "cloud" is a virtual vcr according to this ruling.

But what I find interesting is that the law protecting VCR use was only on the basis that use was non commercial. Ie: no one made a buck. But the difference here is that tv now charges you a fee in order to use this virtual VCR. So in fact they are making money.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the debate around the "cloud" evolves. Because technically TV Now have recorded it for you at your request and then are charging you a monthly fee to look at any recordings you tell them to make.

I may be naive here, but using the VCR analogy you could argue that Optus is like a guy who records movies off the tv and then charges people to come over and watch them. And that is not legal at all.

So the debate becomes: has Optus in fact made a recording of copyrighted material, stored it and then sold it? So far the Judge doesn't think so. He ruled that the user made the recording and then watched it, and merely paid Optus for the software/service that allowed him to do this. But if the former was proven it would have major consequences.

Watch this space

 

[Andrew Mc]

A question - how good a quality is this stream? Honestly I could never see myself watching anything on a device the size of a phone (even a tablet) - can only imagine it upscales pretty badly if you want to watch it on any decently sized device.

 

[Down At Gillon]

The ruling basically says that the TV Now functionality is no different to having a vcr set up at home. Basically the "cloud" is a virtual vcr according to this ruling.

But what I find interesting is that the law protecting VCR use was only on the basis that use was non commercial. Ie: no one made a buck. But the difference here is that tv now charges you a fee in order to use this virtual VCR. So in fact they are making money.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the debate around the "cloud" evolves. Because technically TV Now have recorded it for you at your request and then are charging you a monthly fee to look at any recordings you tell them to make.

I may be naive here, but using the VCR analogy you could argue that Optus is like a guy who records movies off the tv and then charges people to come over and watch them. And that is not legal at all.

So the debate becomes: has Optus in fact made a recording of copyrighted material, stored it and then sold it? So far the Judge doesn't think so. He ruled that the user made the recording and then watched it, and merely paid Optus for the software/service that allowed him to do this. But if the former was proven it would have major consequences.

Watch this space

Really well put.