Anti-siphoning stoush: ASTRA vs FreeTV Australia
STV wants Canberra to reconsider the anti-siphoning list, but Free-to-Air broadcasters are having none of it.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under Subscription
The anti-siphoning stoush went another round between Subscription TV and Free to Air broadcasters this week.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Andrew Maiden, chief executive of the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association, said the record $1.25 billion broadcast rights deal between the AFL and Seven West Media, Foxtel and Telstra was a ”good model for other sporting codes.”
ASTRA has taken a fresh proposal on the issue to the federal government, seeking to reduce the length of the 1300 events on the anti-siphoning list and proposing “competing broadcasts” if a sporting body decides to sell to free TV and Pay TV in parallel.
”At the moment, the anti-siphoning mechanism is constructed as though the public-policy rationale is to give free-to-air networks protected access to sporting rights,” he said. ”But in fact the public-policy rationale of the anti-siphoning regime is only to ensure the viewing public have access to certain sports at no cost.
“What we propose is to put more power in the hands of the sports bodies themselves so they can decide to sell subscription rights directly to subscription providers, or free-to-air rights directly to free providers.
”We believe that they’re [sports bodies] best placed to determine how they balance the revenue they might get from subscription with the reach they might get with free.”
But FreeTV Australia has hit back, with Chairman Harold Mitchell saying, “Pay TV is trying to trick the public and policy makers with a call for the current system to be replaced with a ‘dual rights’ scheme where free-to-air and pay TV rights for listed sports are sold separately.
“It’s nonsense to suggest that a dual rights scheme would deliver the same amount and quality of sport on free-to-air television. This is a ploy to force Australians to pay to watch their favourite sport on television.
“Now that all Australians have converted to digital television, the only change that the Parliament should consider is to enable free-to-air broadcasters to show listed sports on all their channels.”
Dare anybody suggest that Australians also want their sport in HD too?
Share
- Tagged with AFL
21 Responses
@ RobbieK77
As for Foxtel not having watermarks. I’ve seen the sports channels on FTA and they all have different symbols on the right hand side. Even though they are solid. I don’t mind that because other channels do “borrow” that footage so it makes sense.
The only thing I don’t like as someone with computer graphics phobia is the word “Live” cluttering up the screen. I just wish they’d get rid of it or hide it in the channel symbols somehow. Have one for “Live” and one that isn’t. Less clutter; much easier. I like that Channel 9 during the Ashes had it on the microphones.
I’ll admit I like the idea that the government gets rid of exclusive rights. So Free-to-air can’t block Pay TV. Nor is Pay TV allowed to ever block any programming from Free-to-air. Including overseas stuff. For example they buy Game of Thrones but so can FTA. Also none of the TV services can block the DVDs being sold. Basically if something from overseas is offered for sale then it should be sold within the month on DVD or the like and digital i.e. like for like. So no-one can block anything.
Of course it would be good if the government required sensible start times because even the Americans aren’t that dumb. There’s fines if people start late except for sport and even then they announce on twitter the start times. Not to mention the British also have rules. The channels have proven they can’t be trusted.
FTA in Australia is the best in the world why?Because the government allows them to broadcast pay tv programs.In the rest of the world that is not allowed.Foxtel in Australia really cops it badly a very uneven playing field.HD is a very important issue now,and FTA networks perhaps should concentrate on providing that to the consumer than anything else.SBS has done so it’s about time other’s follow suit.Watching the Football through Channel 7 is like watching a coverage that was seen in the 80’s.At least when Channel 10 had the share of rights they broadcasted in HD.Look at there pictures to Channel 7 of today there is a big difference.So FTA concentrate on something you have the power of changing.
The day is coming, yes my friends, where all live sport shall be on Free To Air TV (Along with their annoying watermark) top right hand corner, along with commercials, where the network deems fit.
Having said that, the day is coming also, and it is not too far away, where those who pay for their live sport through subscription TV, shall receive no watermarks and no add breaks, including pop up ads during live play. Being that you pay for it, you should and will not be plagued by annoyance of thus mentioned.
Keep watching, big changes are coming…
Definitely agree that dual rights would be the best for consumers and sports moving forward. Pay tv treats sports with the represent they deserve, yes they only do it to get our $ but so what? I love being able to watch 5 games of NRL live in HD and with no ads. It kills me watching 9 on fro night and Sunday arvo in their ad riddled, delayed and SD broadcast. FTA networks should always have the option of buying sports to show. But that shouldn’t stop foxtel also being able to buy them. The new V8s deal is a good example where all rounds will be live and in HD on foxtel with only some rounds live on FTA. The public shouldn’t feel like they are entitled to unlimited sport for free.
Both Pay and FTA have to offer coverage that attracts viewers.
Pay TV has to get them for fork over a subscription so has to offer more. Since Foxsports only does sport they offer live coverage, no ads during play, HD, and replays at other times.
FTA ignores sport that doesn’t rate highly, shows lots of ads during play and dumps coverage when ever something else would rate better. It does offer exposure and a chance for sports to get new viewers.
No other country tells commercial organisations that own and run sports that they have to sell their content below market value to FTA networks so politicians can get votes. They should be allowed to balance quality of coverage, revenue and exposure for their sports.
I totally agree with Johnjet. Duel rights is the best way to accommodate all viewers. We currently have a situation where NRL fans are forced to watch delayed SD footy on ch9 of two games per round. The AFL tv deal is the perfect model moving forward.
The sooner the anti siphoning list is abolished the better. FTA sports coverage is a disgrace: SD, delayed, edited and full of ads so you lose continuity.
Pay tv on the other hand: HD, live, complete and no ads during play.
Let pay tv treat the viewer and the sport with the respect they do today for all sport and fta can treat the viewer with the contempt they so today. Then those that choose to pay aren’t disadvantaged for those that choose not to.
Also people would argue that at a junior level basketball soccer and netball have high junior participation so if commercial FTAs can’t see the ‘value’ of grocery shopper ratings (unless the national teams play or Olympics) then why can’t PayTV give the sport prime time focus which the FTAs won’t offer them.
I agree with @johnjet on this one.
I also think the ‘use it or lose it’ approach is still at the heart here, so we aren’t really talking about sport staples like AFL, NRL and cricket about growing their brands. We are talking about Fed and Davis Cups, NBL/WNBL, W-league and Women’s Cricket, surfing, to a lesser extent V8s and other ‘unknown’ sports. If a niche market exists for them then the sports need to explore them in order to get the best revenue outcome for their sport so as to support development programs. Develop the brand/sport first then market to FTA to compliment coverage if the quality product is there (I.e Big Bash)
The Big Bash cricket is a clear example of what FTA can do that Pay TV can’t – exposure. If you want your sport to get low ratings with low exposure go to pay tv. If want decent exposure and you have a long term view to build a brand go with FTA. You can’t say that sports getting around 100,000 people watching is building a brand. Total nonsense.
I really hope this goes through, it’s so annoying paying for Foxtel to watch the NRL in HD ad free all year and then having to revert back to the joke that is CH9 to see the GF.
FTA should still have the right to play it if they want to but Foxtel should also be able to play it.
They should consider anti-siphoning for other TV shows. Foxtel doing a good job locking up shows like Game of Thrones into crazy contracts.
I like the notion of duel rights. FTA should not be ever allowed to buy the Pay TV rights to a sporting event, like wise Pay TV should never be able to buy the rights to FTA.
If both Pay TV and FTA want to show the Olympics or other such event they should only be allowed to bid for their sector. And if it means FTA end up paying $30 million and Pay TV $40 million then so be it.
Give the viewers the choice. If they want to watch it in SD then they can do so on 7, 9 or 10 and if they want it in HD, Live and all matches/events then they get Pay TV.
Let me as a consumer choose what is best for me.
Better SD than behind a pay wall imo
“Only a fool would think that their favourite sport would get better treatment from a Pay TV provider”
Nonsense. FTA can’t compete with Pay when it comes to treatment of sport coverage.
The last line says it all.
The way the FTA networks broadcast sport here is atrocious.
Only a fool would think that their favourite sport would get better treatment from a Pay TV provider. It doesn’t matter who the broadcaster is, they’re only in it for the money (with the possible exception of the ABC). The audience is not their customer, as anybody paying attention already knows.
The moment you relax any of these requirements, *all* you’re doing is telling those on fixed and low incomes that they’ll likely no longer have the privilege of watching what they already can, moving forward. Having said that, it would not hurt to allow the broadcasts to be spread across all the FTA digital multi-channels, now that analogue is gone.
Bogues, News Corp sold their interest in Sky NZ last year.
I think your last line of this one David says it all… If Pay TV have the resource to produce in HD and support grass-roots sport and FTA can’t match that, then people need to accept the harsh reality. Netball and Soccer (Pay TV) are good examples of positive investment across the board (and even FTA simulcast). NBL is not (using FTA). Showing a deciding game of a Semi Final at 4am is not growing a sport, and the controlling body produces its own content anyway online. So why can’t they decide the best revenue outcome for their various sports?
Look at NZ where all tv rights for all major sports are held by Sky TV (a News Ltd company). Don’t be fooled Australia. The end of the anti siphoning list would be the end of live sport on FTA television.