Pay TV? We're all paying for Foxtel, to the tune of $30 million

[Twizzle]

Pay TV? We're all paying for Foxtel, to the tune of $30 million

• John Birmingham

It's hard to believe, but it looks like the Turnbull government is going to get away with its $30 million backhander to Rupert Murdoch.

I know life comes at you fast these days, but it seems odd that the story of the undocumented grant to Foxtel is going to recede into the fog of winter.
That would be a shame. So let's remind ourselves of this delicious little scandal before it disappears down the memory hole forever.

Less than two weeks ago the ABC made an FOI application for documents relating to a $30 million grant to Murdoch's pay TV business. But they haven't yet, and seem disinclined to do so any time soon. The government, always keen to keep onside with the maximum Sith Lord, is likewise refusing to explain how it came to gift a media giant that doesn't pay any tax, with a lazy 30 million dollars lifted from the back pockets of those long-suffering mug punters who do.

• 
  The Communications Minister Mitch Fifield mumbled that, "This was a decision of government, announced in the budget as part of the media reform package", which is the equivalent of saying "This was a decision to give Rupert some money, announced in the budget as part of our plans to give Rupert some money."
  
  This just in … Rupe's not short of a quid. Foxtel might be suffering from the arrival of much cheaper and arguably better streaming services such as Netflix and Stan, but the solution to that problem isn't corporate welfare. It's providing a better service at a reasonable price.
  
  Given that Foxtel, like all Murdoch companies, is something of a black box – billions of dollars flow in, no discernible tax payments leak out – it's unlikely we'll ever know what became of that $30 million.
  
  But it's weird, don't you think, that there's not a single document anywhere in Canberra that explains how they came to trouser it in the first place.
  
  Stan is owned by StreamCo, a joint venture of Fairfax Media and Nine Entertainment Co.
  http://www.smh.com.au/comment/blunt...o-the-tune-of-30-million-20170801-gxmyq3.html

 

[Game_Breaker]

Survival of the fittest
If he's business can't fight off better businesses that stream then bad luck, that's capitalism

Foxtel couldn't even support GoT on their crappy streaming service properly

 

[Danish]

Survival of the fittest
If he's business can't fight off better businesses that stream then bad luck, that's capitalism

Foxtel couldn't even support GoT on their crappy streaming service properly

That was actually HBO's issue. Their service in the US crashed as well.

 

[Danish]

As for this $30 million, I read in another article that this was a payment for broadcasting various sports that don't rate (womens stuff mostly).

The proof I suppose will be in whether or not we see any of these sports actually airing on foxtel channels.

 

[Parra]

Survival of the fittest
If he's business can't fight off better businesses that stream then bad luck, that's capitalism

Foxtel couldn't even support GoT on their crappy streaming service properly

I've watched live F1 GP's and the last two GoT on foxtel go over crappy hotel wifi and it has worked well.

Some merkins just live to whinge

 

[Parra]

As for this $30 million, I read in another article that this was a payment for broadcasting various sports that don't rate (womens stuff mostly).

The proof I suppose will be in whether or not we see any of these sports actually airing on foxtel channels.

That is what I read - it is to broadcast sport that would otherwise not be on TV. You would think that it is easy enough to back that up with a list.

 

[Danish]

That is what I read - it is to broadcast sport that would otherwise not be on TV. You would think that it is easy enough to back that up with a list.

You would think so, although even if it's produced I doubt it would satisfy some

 

[Patorick]

The Communications Minister Mitch Fifield mumbled that, "This was a decision of government, announced in the budget as part of the media reform package", which is the equivalent of saying "This was a decision to give Rupert some money, announced in the budget as part of our plans to give Rupert some money."

Pretty much.

But...

 

[Dogs Of War]

That is what I read - it is to broadcast sport that would otherwise not be on TV. You would think that it is easy enough to back that up with a list.

Isn't that what the ABC and SBS are for? Give them that sort of cash to broadcast those sports.

 

[Parra]

Isn't that what the ABC and SBS are for? Give them that sort of cash to broadcast those sports.

ABC has already crapped on sports in this case. Why not mske the offer to SBS? No idea if it was.

Should we fund televising these sports at all?

 

[Dogs Of War]

ABC has already crapped on sports in this case. Why not mske the offer to SBS? No idea if it was.

Should we fund televising these sports at all?

Well without that, they may not get any exposure at all. I think it's a small way to assist in getting people watching different sports that they may find interesting and go out and participate in themselves. It really comes down to whether thats the best way of getting people interested, and what the outcomes they are expecting to achieve (which other than televise sports which no network will pick up).