What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Foxtel FoxSports / Kayo /Ch9 + NRL TV Rights

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,008
well you can easily download the app for each fta channell but I see Albo's point

I assume Netflix, et al, pay a commission to have thier aps preloaded onto all new TVs/devices

Ironic that Fox are saying "it undermines customers right to choose" when it actual fact it should say "it undermines customers rights to not have to pay for streaming TV services"
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,310
To be honest you'd think the Australian Government had bigger issues and priorities than enforcing free market companies to put the App of another free market company, or Governent funded TV organisation, on people's own TVs that they've paid for with their own money.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,056
The purpose of regulation is to interfere with the market to protect consumers from corporations. This naturally brings up a bunch of related considerations but you can’t say it’s not a legitimate function of government.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,062
To be honest you'd think the Australian Government had bigger issues and priorities than enforcing free market companies to put the App of another free market company, or Governent funded TV organisation, on people's own TVs that they've paid for with their own money.
Government can walk and chew gum at the same time. Here is the Minister’s second reading. What don’t you agree with ?

 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,310
Government can walk and chew gum at the same time. Here is the Minister’s second reading. What don’t you agree with ?

It's a complete and utter waste of tax payers money, and the worst form of government over-reach I could possibly imagine.

Why is it an issue that Amazon, Netflix, Foxtel etc have an app preloaded on a TV and Australian Free to Air stations don't?

On what planet does any government get involved in this sort of nonsense. If people have a smart TV, they have the internet, and they can download their own f**ken apps.

I assume that if Amazon, Netflix, Foxtel, etc. have an app pre-loaded then they've paid for the privilege, and if the free to air companies want the same, then they also should be made to pay for the privilege.

We probably have the worst mobile phone coverage in the western World, it is a complete and utter f**ken disgrace outside of a metro environments, and substandard compared to even developing countries. How about the Minister responsible for both of these issues prioritises getting that sorted out before influence Australians what Apps they have to have on their TV's.

Last time I looked we didn't live in a communist country.
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,310
The purpose of regulation is to interfere with the market to protect consumers from corporations. This naturally brings up a bunch of related considerations but you can’t say it’s not a legitimate function of government.
A legitimate function of government is what apps come preloaded on the TV I've paid for?

It's unnecessary government over-reach. Why does anyone need to be protected in this instance?

You've got the internet, you can download apps, download what you want. It's not rocket science.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,062
It's a complete and utter waste of tax payers money, and the worst form of government over-reach I could possibly imagine.

Why is it an issue that Amazon, Netflix, Foxtel etc have an app preloaded on a TV and Australian Free to Air stations don't?

On what planet does any government get involved in this sort of nonsense. If people have a smart TV, they have the internet, and they can download their own f**ken apps.

I assume that if Amazon, Netflix, Foxtel, etc. have an app pre-loaded then they've paid for the privilege, and if the free to air companies want the same, then they also should be made to pay for the privilege.

We probably have the worst mobile phone coverage in the western World, it is a complete and utter f**ken disgrace outside of a metro environments, and substandard compared to even developing countries. How about the Minister responsible for both of these issues prioritises getting that sorted out before influence Australians what Apps they have to have on their TV's.

Last time I looked we didn't live in a communist country.
^^^^^
Over the last decade there has been a fundamental transition in the TV market in Australia. Free-to-air television broadcasting services now exist as one of many content options on connected TV interfaces, and are becoming increasingly difficult for consumers to find. Research has shown that a significant portion of the Australian population lacks the skills and knowledge to install and engage with these services on newer devices.

There is also a change in the way content services are made available on TV interfaces. The space on the home screens of connected TV devices is increasingly being monetised, with the positioning and placement of services often dependent on the payment of fees or other consideration. There is a material risk that free-to-air television broadcasters will be crowded out by the larger, international services operating in the Australian market.

In order for the free-to-air broadcasting sector to continue to support the achievement of important policy objectives, it is imperative that their services are easily available to audiences on the devices that are commonly used to access TV content. This is precisely what the prominence framework aims to do.

The key element of the new framework will be a requirement for a manufacturer of a regulated television device to adhere to a set of minimum prominence requirements. Manufacturers will be prohibited from supplying a non-compliant device, and must take reasonable steps to ensure the device continues to comply with the requirements, subject to a number of limitations.


It just protects peeps that can’t operate a TV or device to get free-to-air. They don’t want a scenario to develop where people are forced to pay for content because Harvey Norman only carry devices that block or make it difficult to watch FTA TV. We all know that Murdoch hates FTA cos it messes with his paywall business model. This is the whole point of anti-siphoning laws.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,062

NRL calls for ‘technologically neutral’ overhaul to sport broadcasting​

Controversial anti-siphoning laws should be amended to enable free online video platforms, not just free-to-air TV, to have first dibs on lucrative sport broadcasting rights, the NRL has said.
Jack Quail

3 min read
February 23, 2024 - 5:16PM
NCA NewsWire



The battle over the order of content displayed on smart TVs is heating up as Labor’s prominence changes are…


A controversial overhaul of Australia’s anti-siphoning laws, which grant free-to-air television channels first dibs on broadcasting rights for major sporting events, should be amended to allow all free video platforms to negotiate broadcast deals, the NRL says.
Fronting a Senate inquiry into new legislation which proposes to stop streaming services from outbidding free-to-air television networks, NRL corporate affairs boss Misha Zelinsky said a “technologically neutral” approach was needed to bolster the game’s revenue and expansion.
“Essentially when the list was conceived, we lived in a very different world … now of course people take their content in all manner of ways,” Mr Zelinsky said.
The NRL has called for controversial anti-siphoning laws to be expanded so that all freely available broadcasters, not just free-to-air television, are granted preferential treatment. Picture: Supplied.

The NRL has called for controversial anti-siphoning laws to be expanded so that all freely available broadcasters, not just free-to-air television, are granted preferential treatment. Picture: Supplied.
“We should be technologically neutral if the intent is for people to be able to see [sport] freely; we think that’s a great outcome [but] it doesn’t necessarily need to be free-to-air television.
“If it’s only that it can be available essentially through free-to-air television that significantly limits the bidders and fewer bidders means lower competitive tension, which in the end means lower pricing – essentially the ability to generate revenue for any sport.”
The recommendation from the NRL, Australia’s most-watched sporting code, would open the door for platforms such as YouTube to also receive preferential treatment under anti-siphoning rules.
The laws, first introduced in 1992, stop pay television networks from purchasing broadcast rights for sporting events of “national importance and cultural significance” unless free-to-air channels have already purchased the rights for the event. An event is automatically removed from the anti-siphoning list six months before the event is scheduled to start.
Under proposed amendments to the legislation introduced by the Albanese government earlier this month, streaming services will also be stopped from outbidding free-to-air television networks, barring platforms such as Optus Sports for putting events behind a paywall.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has also flagged plans to add women’s sports and para-sports to the anti-siphoning list to ensure they are freely accessible.

Sports currently listed include the AFL, the Melbourne Cup, the NRL, the Melbourne Grand Prix, the Australian Open, and the Olympic and Commonwealth Games.
But Mr Zelinsky said less, not more, matches and codes should be covered by the anti-siphoning list to increase the number of bidders who were eligible for broadcast rights.
“When the [Newcastle] Knights are playing the [St George-Illawarra] Dragons, as much as we may love it, I’m not sure if you qualify as ‘nationally significant’ or ‘iconic’,” Mr Zelinsky told the inquiry.
“That limits the ability of our game to monetise the rights and the inability to monetise the rights curtails the ability to invest in all elements of sport: elite, participation, grassroots, the women’s game … It has a material impact, no question.”
Foxtel Group chief Patrick Delany said the anti-siphoning rules had distorted the market for sports broadcasting rights. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Foxtel Group chief Patrick Delany said the anti-siphoning rules had distorted the market for sports broadcasting rights. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Also appearing at the probe, Foxtel boss Patrick Delany said the launch of paid streaming services by free-to-air channels, including Nine’s Stan Sports and Network 10’s Paramount Plus, had created a “murkiness” within the anti-siphoning framework.
“In the case of Nine and Ten when they acquire the rights, there is no obligation to actually broadcast the rights,” Mr Delany said.
“They can put it on their pay companies, which are Paramount Plus and Stan, and it’s a very dangerous situation, especially if you mandate that the rights of the broadcast as well as the rights for digital have to be acquired before anyone else which distorts the market.”
NewsCorp Australia, owner of NCA NewsWire, holds a 65 per cent stake in Foxtel.
TV execs clash over app placement
The changes proposed by the Albanese government will also grant preferential treatment to apps belonging to free-to-air broadcasters such as ABC iView and 9 Now on smart televisions ahead of other pre-installed streaming apps like Netflix and Binge.
The bosses of commercial broadcasters Seven, Nine and Ten and public broadcasters ABC and SBS argued in favour of the legislation.
Seven West Media boss James Warburton said the changes were needed as Australian viewers increasingly turned to digital consumption.
“The problem for us is we can’t compete. We can’t compete with the global players … You get blown out of the water,” Mr Warburton said.
“Everyone wants a clip of the ticket, a clip of the revenue between 10 and 20 per cent to actually be on the service. We’re just asking for a fair crack.”
Free-to-air TV executives united in support of the Albanese government’s legislative overhaul. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Free-to-air TV executives united in support of the Albanese government’s legislative overhaul. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
SBS managing director James Taylor told the Senate committee that the broadcaster had their SBS On Demand app removed by a TV manufacturer when it refused to pay a placement fee for the product.
However, Foxtel boss Patrick Delany said free to air options should remain easily available without interfering with consumer choice and convenience.
“We believe customers are entitled to control their own connected TVs that they choose,” he said.
“Any proposal to alter search results and app placement in favour of free to air services undermines a customer’s right to choose.”

 

the phantom menace

First Grade
Messages
8,836
It's unnecessary government over-reach. Why does anyone need to be protected in this instance?
It's helping to protect Australian broadcasting sector ffs - and all the shows and jobs that those five free-to-air stations (and their expanding range of channels) continue to provide and create.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,056
A legitimate function of government is what apps come preloaded on the TV I've paid for?

It's unnecessary government over-reach. Why does anyone need to be protected in this instance?

You've got the internet, you can download apps, download what you want. It's not rocket science.
There's plenty of people who don't know those apps even exist. The default options on any tech stack are a huge cause of social pain, whether insecure default configurations on hardware or making people think their only choice is to sign up for Netflix or Binge. If it wasn't important these hugely powerful firms wouldn't waste the money getting their apps preinstalled on phones and TVs. Of course, there's a reason the FTA orgs don't spend their own money doing the same. It would be good to know why they don't see value in it.

And for a huge part of the population it is functionally indistinguishable from rocket science.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,056
Seven West Media boss James Warburton said the changes were needed as Australian viewers increasingly turned to digital consumption.
“The problem for us is we can’t compete. We can’t compete with the global players … You get blown out of the water,” Mr Warburton said.
Ok so this is why. Fair enough.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,062
^^^^^^^


The NRL has called for controversial anti-siphoning laws to be expanded so that all freely available broadcasters, not just free-to-air television, are granted preferential treatment.
“We should be technologically neutral if the intent is for people to be able to see [sport] freely; we think that’s a great outcome [but] it doesn’t necessarily need to be free-to-air television.
“If it’s only that it can be available essentially through free-to-air television that significantly limits the bidders and fewer bidders means lower competitive tension, which in the end means lower pricing – essentially the ability to generate revenue for any sport.”
The recommendation from the NRL, Australia’s most-watched sporting code, would open the door for platforms such as YouTube to also receive preferential treatment under anti-siphoning rules

=================

So the NRL are looking to be their own content provider ? In the short term, a broadcast partner is YouTube. In the long term maybe a combination of their own broadcast like Racing.com ?
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,310
It's helping to protect Australian broadcasting sector ffs - and all the shows and jobs that those five free-to-air stations (and their expanding range of channels) continue to provide and create.
You would hope that I would still be able to delete the unnecessary apps on the TV I pay with my own money though.
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,310
^^^^^^^


The NRL has called for controversial anti-siphoning laws to be expanded so that all freely available broadcasters, not just free-to-air television, are granted preferential treatment.
“We should be technologically neutral if the intent is for people to be able to see [sport] freely; we think that’s a great outcome [but] it doesn’t necessarily need to be free-to-air television.
“If it’s only that it can be available essentially through free-to-air television that significantly limits the bidders and fewer bidders means lower competitive tension, which in the end means lower pricing – essentially the ability to generate revenue for any sport.”
The recommendation from the NRL, Australia’s most-watched sporting code, would open the door for platforms such as YouTube to also receive preferential treatment under anti-siphoning rules

=================

So the NRL are looking to be their own content provider ? In the short term, a broadcast partner is YouTube. In the long term maybe a combination of their own broadcast like Racing.com ?
This is essentially the same issue that the Australian free to air broadcasters have in saying they can't compete with foreign companies. This would be Google owning the rights to the NRL instead of Foxtel/9.

The market would have to seriously change for YouTube to be the financial benefactor the NRL thinks it would be. The NRL currently earns more (probably at least double) from Foxtel/9 with what 2 million people per week max, than the highest earning YouTube Channel, MrBeast, does from over 45 million viewers per week.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top