I was a backer of strong laws, up until the rugby case study, or fiasco. Now I think it doesn’t matter.
Rugby was popular, and not covered under anti-siphoning rules. Fox paid millions, and put it behind their paywall.
Now, after several years, nobody gives a shit about rugby, the Fruit & Nut Wallabies are a joke, and rugby has reversed course and now has games on FTA.
Other sports have taken note.
We have such a small population (market size) with so many sports (products) that making it only available via pay to watch is a very dangerous game (price sensitive).
Rugby was popular
It was?
Honestly, I find it hard to get too worked up about any of this. It’s just sport - and while I watch plenty of it I wouldn’t be too cut up if I had to stop watching. There’s other free content available. Some of it is probably more interesting TBH. Especially compared to most rugby matches.
In a portent of the risks ahead, International Cricket Council World Cups will disappear from free-to-air television between 2024 and 2027, after the world governing body signed an exclusive four-year deal with streaming platform Amazon.
Fuck this is shit. It’s our national sport, and being able to hide it behind a paywall like that is crap.
The most controversial recommendation related to the scope of anti-siphoning laws, affecting how Australian viewers can access sport in the medium term.
It supported the government’s position, on grounds of excessive competitive advantage, that anti-siphoning should only apply to terrestrial broadcasting. This excludes digital rights for live streaming through broadcast video on demand apps such as 9Now, Seven+, iView and SBS On Demand.
Very disappointing. I personally rarely watch TV, and if I didn’t already have one in my apartment, I’m not sure I would buy one. This law is essentially saying “people like me are not entitled to watch the sports that our society has deemed culturally significant enough to pass special laws entitling everyone to be able to watch”.
It’s all pretty antiquated.
Feels like a classic Labor “we want to improve things, but more than that we don’t want to upset the entrenched interests” move.
Yes, exactly. We always seem to be behind when it comes to understanding and accepting the use of newer technology in this country.
This law is essentially saying “people like me are not entitled to watch the sports that our society has deemed culturally significant enough to pass special laws entitling everyone to be able to watch”.
The issue already exists too. The previous cricket deal had online streaming locked by a paywall, and although the current one fixes that, it’s a shame a future deal could legally pull that shit again in the future.
This comment has to be trolling, right? Please tell me it’s trolling.
Transcription of the above comments:
wallyman16
International matches involving our national teams need to be on free to air . We saw the effect the Matildas have had on the country being on free to air and games that bring the country together need to be accessible to all.
lizard3 ↳ wallyman16
I guess that is relevant if you like female football.
I have objection that females play football.
However it is not compulsory to watch it.
If it is female sport I prefer gymnastics. There the females used different equipment to the men . Equipment hat suits their physical abilities and strengths.
The men in Gymnastics use different equipment than the females and they are suited to the men’s physical abilities and strengths.
A sport where men and women do different things wich is what makes it Interesting.
The second one is definitely a boomer, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.
deleted by creator
Feeeeeemales
The fact that he (normally, for anonymous online comments, I’d say “they”, but let’s be honest, this is definitely a he) uses “females” and “men” in the same sentence just really highlights how gross it is.
anyone using ‘females’ to refer to humans outside of a clinical setting is showing their entire misogynistic arse
This is the best summary I could come up with:
This is why, in 1995, the anti-siphoning scheme was introduced to ensure sport “events of national importance and cultural significance” would not be captured exclusively by pay TV at the expense of free-to-air coverage.
Its subsequent Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 is designed to close the “regulatory gap” that has emerged within media law since Netflix’s launch in Australia in 2015.
The federal government is troubled by overseas services like YouTube and Amazon being immediately visible on smart televisions through commercial licensing agreements, effectively “burying” Australian free-to-air TV.
As Foxtel told the Senate hearing, both Nine (Stan) and Ten (Paramount+) are now hybrid networks, able to move acquired sports from free-to-air broadcast to behind a streaming paywall.
Nonetheless, as modernisation was a central justification for the anti-siphoning reforms, the strategic compromise over broadcast video on demand apps will inevitably be scrutinised.
While it is widely, though not universally, acknowledged action is needed to protect free screen sport viewing, intense disagreement remains among competing interest groups over what is to be done now and in the future.
The original article contains 902 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
