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!

RL independence day arrives - NRL Independent Commission announced

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
No. The NRL or IC have to negotitate WHAT the product is first. If a broadcaster comes along and says we'll give you your $1b but we don't want City/Country and we don't want Test matches interupting the NRL then it is absolutely crucial that those negotiating the deal don't give concessions that will damage the game. The IC has to think about what it's selling, not just for how much.


That brings into question what the first and last rights clause applies to.
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
The main concern for me would be the implication F&L rights would have on future Internet TV rights.

There's little question the future broadcasting of the game lies there, so I'd be unconcerned if News retains rights of subscription broadcast for as long as they want. What must remain free from legal dispute is the games ability to negotiate lucrative Internet TV rights. Whether they outsource the distribution or do it themselves.

Internet TV will come upon us faster than most believe, and I'm amazed that sporting bodies in this country have not realised the potential. The constant deferment to Foxtel, as if it is the only way one will watch Live Sport in ten years time is of unceasing annoyance to me.

I'd love to know the legal framework around the latest F&L rights. If it affects Internet TV then the formation of the IC truly would be a terrible deal.

I dont rate it. My tv is for watching tv and my laptop is for gaming and internet activities. I honestly dont know anyone who crosses the 2, or maybe i am just a techno-phobe. Dont trust the internet connection in Australia or anywhere i have lived to get internet tv at any point.
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
My tv is for watching tv and my laptop is for gaming and internet activities.
Your TV itself will be connected to the Internet and streaming HD reliably to it over the net will become trivial as speeds increase. The end user experience as a television watcher doesn't necessarily have to change (although it will no doubt evolve), just the delivery mechanism will change from a couple dozen channels broadcast over the air and proprietary cable systems with a few hundred channels to a standard internet connected data pipe capable of receiving any stream available from any where on earth. And as the geographic and bandwidth barriers fall away, choice will explode.

This is already happening. Netflix and similarly services delivered to Internet connected TVs and set top boxes (incuding Xbox and Playstations) is already supplanting traditional broadcasters. I personally know people here in Dallas that don't have cable or even a broadcast tuner. They have an Internet connection, a Playstation or Xbox connected to their 50 inch screen, and a Netflix streaming subscription. Being based in the USA, the only way I can watch most NRL matches live is via the NRL's official internet streaming service. It's currently only standard def but it works reliably with no stuttering to my 50 inch plasma screen over a 10Mb Fibre to the node connection.

The point is that I and others do this today. It's just a matter of bandwidth and for the time being bandwidth seems to be following Moore's Law. It keeps growing and it shows no signs of stopping its growth before the Internet has well and truely subsumed basic high def video delivery for all live and on demand purposes.

Leigh.
 
Last edited:

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,714
I dont rate it. My tv is for watching tv and my laptop is for gaming and internet activities. I honestly dont know anyone who crosses the 2, or maybe i am just a techno-phobe. Dont trust the internet connection in Australia or anywhere i have lived to get internet tv at any point.

I haven't had Pay TV for 2 years and I've probably missed one Parra game in that time when not at the game. If I could be bothered (which I probably will next year), I'll hook the new TV up to the computer and watch it that way.
 

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,446
I dont rate it. My tv is for watching tv and my laptop is for gaming and internet activities. I honestly dont know anyone who crosses the 2, or maybe i am just a techno-phobe. Dont trust the internet connection in Australia or anywhere i have lived to get internet tv at any point.

It's a fair criticism for now, but things will change rapidly. The outcome of the convergence review and the future regulation of Internet TV companies such as Fetch TV into the Aus market will be of interest to me.

Furthermore, we'll all have access to a superfast broadband network within a few years, whether you agree with the politics of that or not. For sporting bodies to ignore that is suicide.

The technical details of these matters escape me too mate, best to leave that to blokes like Docbrown et al. But I just call it as I see it, and I see big changes in future viewing habits that will bring fabulous changes but bad things also, such as personalised advertising.

But the most imprtant thing it may bring us footy fans is the best coverage of games and untold riches for the game we love.
 

Desert Qlder

First Grade
Messages
9,446
To further expand on Quidgybo's point is the fact Australian Television Networks are operating on an increasingly outdated model, as is Foxtel.

The viewer today is not happy to watch their favourite shows in the form it is packaged when broadcast on a commercial network. They are not interested in their spruiking of 'Sunrise with kochie' or any such rubbish while watching a quality HBO series at 1am in the morning one week, then 3am the next. Rightly, given the technology at their disposal, they want to watch their programs when they want and how. How else would you explain the substantial rise in DVD sales of television programs over the years?

Internet TV will allow the viewer the choice it demands and 7, 9 and 10 will be left behind forever. Unless of course they have Live Rugby League or Aussie Rules. It is the only way they will be able to attract the sponsorship dollar to stay afloat. This dramatic change is already well underway, with Nine looking at substantial losses at the present time.

I will not mourn the passing of any commercial network, especially Nine. The only time I enjoy watching them is when they are covering a sporting event I'm interested in and I abhor their politics. They contribute to the dumbing down of National debate, increasingly skew their coverage towards an older, more irrelevant audience and treat sports viewers like idiots.
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
Your TV itself will be connected to the Internet and streaming HD reliably to it over the net will become trivial as speeds increase. The end user experience as a television watcher doesn't necessarily have to change (although it will no doubt evolve), just the delivery mechanism will change from a couple dozen channels broadcast over the air and proprietary cable systems with a few hundred channels to a standard internet connected data pipe capable of receiving any stream available from any where on earth. And as the geographic and bandwidth barriers fall away, choice will explode.

This is already happening. Netflix and similarly services delivered to Internet connected TVs and set top boxes (incuding Xbox and Playstations) is already supplanting traditional broadcasters. I personally know people here in Dallas that don't have cable or even a broadcast tuner. They have an Internet connection, a Playstation or Xbox connected to their 50 inch screen, and a Netflix streaming subscription. Being based in the USA, the only way I can watch most NRL matches live is via the NRL's official internet streaming service. It's currently only standard def but it works reliably with no stuttering to my 50 inch plasma screen over a 10Mb Fibre to the node connection.

The point is that I and others do this today. It's just a matter of bandwidth and for the time being bandwidth seems to be following Moore's Law. It keeps growing and it shows no signs of stopping its growth before the Internet has well and truely subsumed basic high def video delivery for all live and on demand purposes.

Leigh.

Question is though, commercial and public broadcast television is free with only a TV required while from my understanding internet tv you pay for your connection and content on an ongoing basis. For that reason i see traditional television in the box seat for a while yet.

It's a fair criticism for now, but things will change rapidly. The outcome of the convergence review and the future regulation of Internet TV companies such as Fetch TV into the Aus market will be of interest to me.

Furthermore, we'll all have access to a superfast broadband network within a few years, whether you agree with the politics of that or not. For sporting bodies to ignore that is suicide.

The technical details of these matters escape me too mate, best to leave that to blokes like Docbrown et al. But I just call it as I see it, and I see big changes in future viewing habits that will bring fabulous changes but bad things also, such as personalised advertising.

But the most imprtant thing it may bring us footy fans is the best coverage of games and untold riches for the game we love.

This in particular i dislike. But the concept of personalised viewing on internet tv i like.
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Internet TV is not going to challenge broadcasting for a while yet. Access to content, reliability and decent devices are all major issues. Imagine explaining to people that they have to reboot their TV. Or that their logon is stuffed and support will need to reset the password. Digital set top boxes are already connected via the net if you want them to be anyway.


But specialised, pay-per-view content is a growing market. If anyone is in doubt where sport is headed just have a look at www.nfl.com . The NFL is so far ahead of every other sport in this regard.

But again the issue of what was given to News Ltd has to be questioned. What are these first-and-last rights to 2027 for? Will it affect this type of online content?
 

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
what does it matter?

if someone offers more they lose


Depends how it is bundled. What is included etc.

Separate timeslots sold to different networks? And to different internet content providers? Separate rep games? Different games into different cities? The traditional one bid for everything idea might allow a first and last rights scenario. But is that style of selling valid nowdays?

With a company as large as News hovering, will it be worth it for non-aligned networks to even put a serious bid together, knowing it can be trumped anyway?
 

ParraEelsNRL

Referee
Messages
27,714
Companies like news will all eventually move into the telco industry anyway, they're not rich and powerful for nothing and they know where the future lies.

I was reading at RugbyForumXIII yesterday that there's a new Pay TV provider starting up with a sports channel or 3-4. Aljazeera sports are here and they have just out bid Canel + in France for some of the biggest European Soccer rights. It has been reported that they will be covering 5 continents very shortly, I'm wondering if Australia may be one, now that'd give Fox a kick up the arse eh?
 

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
Question is though, commercial and public broadcast television is free with only a TV required while from my understanding internet tv you pay for your connection and content on an ongoing basis. For that reason i see traditional television in the box seat for a while yet.
Sure, there will be a long period of overlap/transition. But it has already started, the early adopters and the younger generations are already consuming their media online. And I suspect at some point the pressure for ever more wireless bandwidth for mobile Internet usage will eventually consume most other uses of the limited wireless spectrum.

That'll push out broadcast television and radio in the traditional sense. The traditional television networks may still exist as may the traditional radio stations, but the delivery mechanism will be the Internet. Via high bandwidth wired connections for the most part with short range wireless filling in the connection gaps in the home and longer range wireless for access on the move.

Whether you have to pay for your Internet connection will depend on your circumstances. You have to think of this like we think of the plain old telephone today. A voice service is seen as a necessity as much as paying for water and electricity and so much so that the government makes sure that even those who can't pay (eg. Pensioners) can still get a basic fixed service. That $10 a month basic voice service that you or the government pay Telstra for today is the basic Internet connection of the future. And eventually even the most basic connection will provide enough bandwidth to stream HD video flawlessly.

Finally whether you pay directly for the content will be entirely up to you. There'll be all sorts of content models. You can watch ABC News 24 on the net today without subscription. Of course it still costs you your 8 cents a day in taxes but you don't have to pay a subscription to view it. There's no reason that will change simply because the delivery mechanism has moved from broadcast to Internet streaming.

Likewise there'll be advertiser supported content services like Hulu and there's nothing to stop traditional broadcasters continuing to support their service thru advertising even though it is streamed instead of broadcast. You still pay for these free channels, even in the broadcast world of today. You pay for it in the cost of goods and services that are inflated by the cost of advertising. But regardless, there'll be streamed content every bit as free as the broadcast content today.

Of course if you want to pay for premium content then you can, just as you can today. If you want Fox Sports or HBO today then you have to pay for it over and above your basic access to the pay television platform. In an Internet streaming world, you will of course still have to pay for those premium services over and above your Internet access cost.

Leigh
 
Last edited:

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257
^ I think the laws governing broadcasts will get very mirky as the transition to more internet based content occurs.

Like pay TV first and last rights. If foxtel becomes internet based, do those rules still apply?

And then you have things like the anti siphoning list. The government will want to continue broadcast TV as long as it remains the lowest common medium. But what if the TV business model shifts to internent based. How does anti siphoning regulations fit into that?

All gets a bit mirky as the lines between TV and internet are blured. Foxtel is already under preasure to increase subscriptions before the NBN is rolled out.

And what of American sports, where there are already internet "channels" where the sport controls all its own media and offers internet content. Reasonable to expect us to go down the same path. Telstra as a content partner will be where the money is in future, but what of their commitment to Foxsports and Pay TV?

What of News Ltds media interests in sport as the media becomes more digital? Interesting times.
 
Last edited:

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
Yep, sick of waiting now. So I'll kick off the bidding with $20 and a guarantee of live coverage into Melbourne and Perth. I'll throw in a carton of Tooheys if I can have a 2 min ad break after every conversion attempt. Any advance on that?

Leigh

(no, I am not Kim Williams)
 

age.s

First Grade
Messages
7,841
$35. But the NRL have to buy me lunch and I control kick off times.

Will accept Subway steak and cheese footlong ftr.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
70,111
$50 but they have to have 9pm and 11pm KO's in Eastern states so I can setlle down for 7pm and watch it live!
 

Latest posts

Top