Mobile TV Coverage - Optus Won

[IanW]

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.

As your connection gets better, so does the quality. Phones tend to have a crappy connection, so they get crappy picture. Phone lines have crappy quality. ADSL is better. Broadband is even better.

That newfangled national network thats being rolled out ... yeah. That will do HDTV, easy.

 

[Andrew Mc]

As your connection gets better, so does the quality. Phones tend to have a crappy connection, so they get crappy picture. Phone lines have crappy quality. ADSL is better. Broadband is even better.

That newfangled national network thats being rolled out ... yeah. That will do HDTV, easy.

I know about networks/broadband - just wondered what this Optus system in particular was capable of.

 

[Final Siren]

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.

Yes, there's a lawyer making the same point, as reported in this Age article:

Mr Ehrlich's opinion is that the judgment is wrongly based on the existing copyright exemption for private users recording free-to-air television programs on videotape.

“There's a big difference between you pressing a button on your videotape machine at home to record a free-to-air program on your videotape and pressing a button on your phone which in effect is asking Optus, for a fee, to make a copy of a the program for you and then to stream it to you on your telephone or iPad.

"I don't think… that the end-user is making a program for private use at all. I think Optus are making it for you for a fee and I don't think the exemption applies.”

 

[IanW]

Final Siren,

Optus' obvious reply is "We're just Radio Rentals here, and renting them the VCR by the month".

In any case, the danger for Telstra of a narrow defense is that Optus will just rejig their service to remain outside that defense.

 

[Luc]

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.

Or you could argue that Optus is just renting you a VCR on a monthly basis. What you do with it is up to you.

*edit* IanW just beat me to it

 

[PaulCat]

G'Day All, I am new to this site but would like to convey the glee I feel over this decision so here's a few thoughts.

So the Fat Cats cry because the corporatisation they have instilled into footy is shown to be legally available by other means rather than being fleeced by the AFL.

Grass roots fans who are of lower socio-economic status are being further removed from footy because of this corporatisation. Tickets to a game, chips a drink etc some average fans just cannot afford to take their kids (read future supporters). Nor can they afford Foxtel and yet their team may not be on free to air. So Alex.....sucked in mate. 1.2 Billion and the poor are still ripped off, whereas you make more than the best footy players and you are NOT the game.

Sucked in I say...give the game back! Let members of clubs be able to get tickets to the grand final when their team plays......not corporate boxes and mates of mates with the old tie!!!!!

Fat cats reap what you have sown, the game belongs to the people. Your interference and inequity is clearly on display with home games and the almighty dollar..just look at the (poxy) Pies and the MCG.

Alex, you are a sook. You didn't think this out clearly and now I am sure you will blow heaps more money on lawyers to fight this rather put such funds into struggling clubs.

Sour grapes me thinks Alex. Sucked in Rupert. And for once I have to say GO OPTUS!!!!!!!!

Remember this is not about semantics.......it's about the law. So Alex, get bet lawyers!!!!!!!

 

[The_Wookie]

YEAH! And lets go back to the days when you could only get a replay! NO LIVE TV AT ALL FTW! And you could only get the SANFL on tv in Adelaide! And players were paid in the hundreds of dollars! Also bring back duffell coats

 

[PaulCat]

YEAH! And lets go back to the days when you could only get a replay! NO LIVE TV AT ALL FTW! And you could only get the SANFL on tv in Adelaide! And players were paid in the hundreds of dollars! Also bring back duffell coats

C'Mon Wookster, The Power and Richmonds are struggling even with a truckload of money in the AFL.

To get games that are affordable (TV, PC or at the game) is where footy will thrive.

For example......As a member going to Homebush Stadium to watch the Swans v Cats 44,000 people rocked up. I took my girlfriend and a mate and the tickets costs $71.00 EACH!!!!!!! The next week Swans play the Doggies in a final.....13,000 frocked up!!!!! WTF????? I wasn't expecting a private box with dancing girls (unfortunately didn't get em anyway) but these were bleachers, this nonsense has to stop.

In WA if it ain't Dockers or Eagles you have a fat chance. Even free to air radio gets overridden. So I just get on the net and drop onto FTA radio!!!!!! funny that eh?????

So the question still remains.....How can a bloke with 3-5 kids afford to take them to the footy if they can't afford Foxtel?????? In the old days we could at least go to the game.

 

[The_Wookie]

um yeah... BUT NOTHING ABOUT DUFFELL COATS. WINRAR

 

[deck]

On SEN this morning they had some media guy on who explained that the phone must be connected to a TV for the user to record.

If this is the case then why would Foxtel not take the manufactures of VCRs, DVD Recorders, PVRs and HDD Recorders to court. They offer the same outcome with there devices.

The fact is if I want football on my phone I don't need to pay Optus $10 a month to do it. People will pay for live footy on there phone but I doubt many would pay for replays when the can get it for free.

 

[hawk65]

Does anyone know how much Telstra were charging for there mobile phone AFL package. I couldnt find it anywhere.

 

[Furn]

The more i thing about it the more i think Teltsra should win.

The idea that FTA means a total free for all doesnt wash.

Can i record the GF, burn it to dvd and sell it at the local market for $30 ?

Hell no.

So free to air doesnt mean free for all.

It means you can watch it in your home and thats it.

 

[Fluro Boots]

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.

In the vcr analogy what if you owned the equipment (phone) but paid me to come around and press record for you every time your team played so you could watch it when you come home from work? I'm not on either side really but can see how it's a 50/50.

 

[Tas]

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.

They paid for exclusive BROADCASTING rights, they still have exclusive broadcasting rights. Optus isn't broadcasting and isn't selling Footy. They sell a recording and playback service for FTA shows.

They have an issue with people using mobile devices to stream something they recorded off FTA and are playing back on their device. This is legal. I'd be surprised if they could opt out after signing the deal, because they are still getting what they are paying for.

You can't purchase exclusive rights to how people want to use their phones, Optus isn't hacking Telstra's broadcast, they are allowing their users to record C7's broadcast and replay it.

Telstra still has the superior product, I am not an Optus nor Telstra user, but if I wanted to watch footy on my phone I would still desire the Telstra product over the Optus one.

 

[Tas]

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.

That isn't quite correct, manufactures of VCRs and recordable media made a fortune. It is as long as the content wasn't recorded and re-sold.

Optus is not recording and selling the content, they are allowing you to purchase 20hours of recording space on their Cloud Service and replay it back without any bandwidth cost. It is not different to them manufacturing VCRs and recordable media. They profit from allowing individual users to utilise the service.

Are they providing the service for cost + profit margin or are they effectively charging for broadcasts, you will probably find that they are using the cost + profit margin model which would be easily comparable to manufacturers of vcrs, pvrs, recordable media, etc.

There are andoid apps to watch stream FTA TV for free, you just have to pay your data usage requirement, this would be faster than using TV Now and would be available to people on any network. Is Telstra and the AFL going to try and shut down all these?

It is the Pay-TV content that is their trump card, and for the FTA content they also provide ad-free content, Telstra should be promoting the benefits of their product rather than making it like Optus is going to give you the ability to provide the same service for less. They are already doing a piss poor job marketing their product.

 

[The_Wookie]

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...eal-under-threat/story-e6frf9jf-1226261241891
Date: February 3rd
Title: AFL says Telstra will honour contract

But AFL chief Andrew Demetriou said the deal would go ahead.

"We have an agreement with Telstra and they've indicated to us they'll honour that agreement," Demetriou told ABC radio.

Conroy foreshadowed legal changes to protect sports rights.

"If we want to sustain the competitions - the NRL, the AFL, and all of the other sporting competitions - not just here but around the world - if you pay a large amount of money for those rights, you have got to be able to protect it," Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday.

"It is a very far-reaching decision that could significantly change the way sporting rights are allocated and whether it is possible to protect content online

 

[yaco55]

On a bit of a tangent but a follow up of S20's argument about American sport charging a subscription to watch games online.

If only this could be done for the Olympic Games - So that I could watch my favorite sports - Should be easily organised as all sports are broadcast in their entirety.

 

[Furn]

C'Mon Wookster, The Power and Richmonds are struggling even with a truckload of money in the AFL.

To get games that are affordable (TV, PC or at the game) is where footy will thrive.

For example......As a member going to Homebush Stadium to watch the Swans v Cats 44,000 people rocked up. I took my girlfriend and a mate and the tickets costs $71.00 EACH!!!!!!! The next week Swans play the Doggies in a final.....13,000 frocked up!!!!! WTF????? I wasn't expecting a private box with dancing girls (unfortunately didn't get em anyway) but these were bleachers, this nonsense has to stop.

In WA if it ain't Dockers or Eagles you have a fat chance. Even free to air radio gets overridden. So I just get on the net and drop onto FTA radio!!!!!! funny that eh?????

So the question still remains.....How can a bloke with 3-5 kids afford to take them to the footy if they can't afford Foxtel?????? In the old days we could at least go to the game.

ummm get a job maybe ?

I bought a new wireless fax/photocopier/scanner/printer for $99 last week. The standard of living is better than its ever been.

When i was a kid we were the only family that had a computer (bbc micro) in our whole town, now my 8 yr old niece has a mac, an ipad and an iphone, but none can apparently afford $5-10 to take a kid to the footy.

I dont get it.

 

[Bosk]

Surely with the NBN coming the AFL is going to sell direct to the customer sooner or later anyway.

Yes, the networks may in effect be funding the game at this point in time but is it really best for the long term health of the sport for most of the games to only be available live on payTV, particularly in NSW & QLD where the AFL wants to expose footy to the widest audience possible?

 

[Slattery_20]

So the question still remains.....How can a bloke with 3-5 kids afford to take them to the footy if they can't afford Foxtel?????? In the old days we could at least go to the game.

Really?

MCG general admission is free for a kid under 6, and $2.50 for a kid under 15, for the H&A season. That's ridiculously cheap.

 

[Baldur]

Really this is a storm in a teacup. All Optus is doing is providing a recording service. Cloud recording to watch on your mobile instead of requiring your own video recorder to watch on your TV.

The Free to Air networks should be very happy, the adverts that pay for their service are going to a wider viewing public with no cost to them. So they can charge advertisers more.

The AFL should shut up, they are no worse off, sure they cannot charge as much for downstream rights to Telstra, but they should be able to charge more for the original Free to Air rights.

Telstra is entitled to feel a little aggrieved, they purchased downstream rights for mobiles which are now devalued. But note devaluated not rendered valueless. They paid too much this time. There is no silver lining without a dark cloud. If anybody is going to get a dark cloud, better it is Telstra.

None of this is going to matter for very long anyway, I am given to understand that mobiles with TV tuners are already possible & mobiles have their own memory. So it will not be long before people can do this themselves with Optus having any involvement. Some people may prefer to continue to use the Optus service, so what.

Furthermore remember we are talking about watching footy on a mobile phone! Who would do that when they could watch it on a big TV screen? It is always going to be a small viewing public considered to those who watch it on TV.

The real danger here is our idiot government will decide to do something; we will end up with ordinary people being banned from recording anything again just like the law said before the amendments to the 2006 Copyright Act. The fools made almost everybody in theory a criminal, watch them so it again.

 

[Slattery_20]

Yes, there's a lawyer making the same point, as reported in this Age article:

Then how does he see the Apple Cloud?
Basically, your songs etc aren't necessarily stored on your computer or iPod.
They're stored on some Apple server, somewhere, but you (as the owner or subscriber to that iTunes account) can get them sent to any of your devices anywhere.

With what Ehrlich is saying, using your own iTunes account (paying a company to store your music/movies/whatever & stream it to you via the cloud) is the same as this Optus service. ie, virtually piracy.

I just can't agree with him. With what I've understood of the law, there can only be one outcome here.
Any other decision would put any cloud based storage on pretty shaky legal ground.

Optus would have been pretty careful to stress that only the particular subscriber has access to what that particular subscriber has asked them to store.
If they just had a list of shows that the subscribers (as a group) could scroll through & watch, I think it'd be a different story entirely - but I think that's the semantic point, being available to one person only, vs being available to many on command.

Remember this is not about semantics.......it's about the law. So Alex, get bet lawyers!!!!!!!

"it's mabo, it's the vibe!!!"
I think you'll find the law is often quite concerned with semantics.


EDIT: Just like to say, some really good posts/discussions on here. Better take it to the polls board, bit highbrow in here.

 

[Killer eagle]

Will channel seven be broadcasting four different games a week in different states?

In WA as far as I'm aware they will always show the West coast and Freo games, and then pick another two (Friday and Saturday night game?). obviously the eastern states broadcast will show different games.

So is Optus tv now region specific? If it is can you change your region to view extra games. If its not then you will get extra games.

 

[le dominateur]

With what Ehrlich is saying, using your own iTunes account (paying a company to store your music/movies/whatever & stream it to you via the cloud) is the same as this Optus service. ie, virtually piracy.

Except ITunes pays commissions to musicians/artists etc?

 

[Hawkers]

I don't get the difference bewteen this:

It's illegal for me to bit torrent a tv show off the internet to whatever device I like
But now it's legal for me to watch football in the same manner

anyone explain that?