Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Sky blames piracy for lost customers. Sky: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 57

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1879267 8-Oct-2017 08:51

tdgeek:

I read the other day that Peters wants FTA sport. This was across many sports not just rugby tests. Tennis was mentioned, we have bugger all in that sport, maybe its the three Grand Slams that are on Sky? And racing which is only on Sky Basic. Interesting as this was supposedly a non negotiable.

Sky said if there was no competition for sport, especially rugby, the sport will suffer due to less funding. I guess they would say that, but OTOH surly NZF would propose that the Govt funds the same rights costs that Sky pays?

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, There is zero chance that Rugby will ever be FTA in NZ. The government has better things to spend millions on than sport and it is just going to get more expensive, because without broadcast money professional sport as we know it will cease to exist.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1879271 8-Oct-2017 09:10

vexxxboy:

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, There is zero chance that Rugby will ever be FTA in NZ. The government has better things to spend millions on than sport and it is just going to get more expensive, because without broadcast money professional sport as we know it will cease to exist.

I agree that the government have better things to spend money on, and if Peters plan is to give money to FTA networks to bid for sports that isn't going to happen. After all it is our money that is being used to pay for it, so it'll kinda like we are all paying for it anyway. However, the alternate option is to create an anti-siphoning list that means FTA networks can bid on certain events to the exclusion of pay tv. This works well in Australia, where AFL, NRL, cricket, rugby union and a whole list of other sports are required to be shown live on FTA tv. That model could work in New Zealand too, and not cost the taxpayers any money.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1879274 8-Oct-2017 09:20

stinger:

vexxxboy:

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, There is zero chance that Rugby will ever be FTA in NZ. The government has better things to spend millions on than sport and it is just going to get more expensive, because without broadcast money professional sport as we know it will cease to exist.

I agree that the government have better things to spend money on, and if Peters plan is to give money to FTA networks to bid for sports that isn't going to happen. After all it is our money that is being used to pay for it, so it'll kinda like we are all paying for it anyway. However, the alternate option is to create an anti-siphoning list that means FTA networks can bid on certain events to the exclusion of pay tv. This works well in Australia, where AFL, NRL, cricket, rugby union and a whole list of other sports are required to be shown live on FTA tv. That model could work in New Zealand too, and not cost the taxpayers any money.

Sport is only exclusive once someone has bought the rights. FTA is free to bid for the rights. But they can't recover those costs as its free to air.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#1879278 8-Oct-2017 09:41

stinger:

vexxxboy:

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, There is zero chance that Rugby will ever be FTA in NZ. The government has better things to spend millions on than sport and it is just going to get more expensive, because without broadcast money professional sport as we know it will cease to exist.

I agree that the government have better things to spend money on, and if Peters plan is to give money to FTA networks to bid for sports that isn't going to happen. After all it is our money that is being used to pay for it, so it'll kinda like we are all paying for it anyway. However, the alternate option is to create an anti-siphoning list that means FTA networks can bid on certain events to the exclusion of pay tv. This works well in Australia, where AFL, NRL, cricket, rugby union and a whole list of other sports are required to be shown live on FTA tv. That model could work in New Zealand too, and not cost the taxpayers any money.

But it doesn't work though. You end up with quirks like:

- All games involving national teams are FTA but other country's games require a subscription anyway.

- Certain events in a calendar end up on FTA but you still need a sub to see the rest of a championship.

- FTA channels can't show a full weekend event e.g. F1 so you end up with just getting the races and no prac/wualy and end up with a far poorer product.

- FTA sport in NZ has often been bumped to the wee small hours if it clashed with the newshour (less of an issue with Freeview, but would mean less full HD sport if on Duke etc).

Consolidation of sports with Sky works well in a small market because it's easier for fans to get value. If I get Warriors games FTA but the rest of the NRL is behind a pay sub, then all you've done is take money away from actual core services that Govts should be running. Plus I'll end up paying multiple providers for different sports and it all adds up quickly.

I sort of agree with Trackside being FTA given that the TAB is effectively a statutory body, however. I suspect Winston (and his voters) would be happy with that.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1879290 8-Oct-2017 10:13

I believe Winston is right. In a small country like NZ, main sport should be available to all, not just those that can afford Sky.

hairy1

3332 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1879310 8-Oct-2017 11:03

The FTA bill has been voted down already in Parliament. It's going to cost around $125 million.

Even if it doesn't cost $125 mill it's going to cost an awful lot of money that could be spent on other stuff. The money for FTA sports is going to have to come from somewhere.

My views (except when I am looking out their windows) are not those of my employer.

quickymart

13925 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1879317 8-Oct-2017 11:16

As someone who couldn't care less about sport, I would be quite annoyed to see my taxpayer dollars being wasted (in my view) on sport, whereas it could be better spent on healthcare or fighting child poverty.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1879319 8-Oct-2017 11:19

stinger:

vexxxboy:

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, There is zero chance that Rugby will ever be FTA in NZ. The government has better things to spend millions on than sport and it is just going to get more expensive, because without broadcast money professional sport as we know it will cease to exist.

I agree that the government have better things to spend money on, and if Peters plan is to give money to FTA networks to bid for sports that isn't going to happen. After all it is our money that is being used to pay for it, so it'll kinda like we are all paying for it anyway. However, the alternate option is to create an anti-siphoning list that means FTA networks can bid on certain events to the exclusion of pay tv. This works well in Australia, where AFL, NRL, cricket, rugby union and a whole list of other sports are required to be shown live on FTA tv. That model could work in New Zealand too, and not cost the taxpayers any money.

the AFL just sold their broadcast rights for 2.5 billion dollars. Channel 9 pays 100 million a year for Cricket and is losing 40 million a year on broadcasting sports because they can only make money selling advertising which is dropping . It's serious money to get the rights to sport and in NZ only Sky has the money to do it.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1879320 8-Oct-2017 11:32

vexxxboy:

tdgeek:

Sky said if there was no competition for sport, especially rugby, the sport will suffer due to less funding. I guess they would say that, but OTOH surly NZF would propose that the Govt funds the same rights costs that Sky pays?

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, ...

Whilst I agree with the comment about Peters, I don't actually see the point of paying money to Sky to pay to the IRB to pay to the NZRU. Sky & IRB clip the ticket and the profits go overseas.

Make international games involving NZ's national teams FTA in NZ, and instead give the money (I'd happily pay in taxes some of the money I now pay to Sky) directly to the sports involved. Sky and the rest can still bid for rights to broadcast the games to Australia, SA, UK, etc. and via live streaming.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#1879333 8-Oct-2017 11:53

frankv:
vexxxboy:

tdgeek:

Sky said if there was no competition for sport, especially rugby, the sport will suffer due to less funding. I guess they would say that, but OTOH surly NZF would propose that the Govt funds the same rights costs that Sky pays?

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, ...

Whilst I agree with the comment about Peters, I don't actually see the point of paying money to Sky to pay to the IRB to pay to the NZRU. Sky & IRB clip the ticket and the profits go overseas.

Make international games involving NZ's national teams FTA in NZ, and instead give the money (I'd happily pay in taxes some of the money I now pay to Sky) directly to the sports involved. Sky and the rest can still bid for rights to broadcast the games to Australia, SA, UK, etc. and via live streaming.

You realise that global sports bodies own the rights and Sky just has the NZ rights? Like Sky can't broadcast ABs games into other countries.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1879340 8-Oct-2017 12:20

GV27:
frankv:

vexxxboy:

tdgeek:

Sky said if there was no competition for sport, especially rugby, the sport will suffer due to less funding. I guess they would say that, but OTOH surly NZF would propose that the Govt funds the same rights costs that Sky pays?

Peters will say anything that will win him votes and popularity, ...

Whilst I agree with the comment about Peters, I don't actually see the point of paying money to Sky to pay to the IRB to pay to the NZRU. Sky & IRB clip the ticket and the profits go overseas.

Make international games involving NZ's national teams FTA in NZ, and instead give the money (I'd happily pay in taxes some of the money I now pay to Sky) directly to the sports involved. Sky and the rest can still bid for rights to broadcast the games to Australia, SA, UK, etc. and via live streaming.

You realise that global sports bodies own the rights and Sky just has the NZ rights? Like Sky can't broadcast ABs games into other countries.

Sky may have the NZ broadcast rights but they sure go out of their way to prevent you from watching it from any other source,,

Regards,

Old3eyes

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1879371 8-Oct-2017 13:43

Watching the great race then bye bye Sky, and no Mr Fellet I am not a pirate I have never illegally downloaded content.

kingdragonfly

11190 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1910820 30-Nov-2017 07:10

Sky still spending money on lawyers, rather than content.

In Trump's words: "Sad, really"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/99370235/sky-television-claims-win-in-piracy-fight-securing-interim-injunction

"Sky Television claims win in piracy fight securing interim injunction"

"Sky Television says it has secured an interim injunction against a Christchurch company which it accuses of selling devices that help people access television programming without paying.

The win comes on the same day that a separate, wider war of words has broken out over a plan by Sky to force the country's top internet providers to block access to websites hosting pirated television content.

Sky TV launched legal action earlier this year against two companies – Hamilton-based My Box and Christchurch company FibreTV NZ – which it said were selling devices designed to help people illegally watch programmes, including those for which Sky has the New Zealand broadcasting rights.

Both companies sell Android media players, commonly referred to as Kodi boxes, which cost upwards of $70 and often come pre-loaded with software that points to foreign television streams."

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1910830 30-Nov-2017 07:20

kingdragonfly: Sky still spending money on lawyers, rather than content.

In Trump's words: "Sad, really"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/99370235/sky-television-claims-win-in-piracy-fight-securing-interim-injunction

"Sky Television claims win in piracy fight securing interim injunction"

"Sky Television says it has secured an interim injunction against a Christchurch company which it accuses of selling devices that help people access television programming without paying.

The win comes on the same day that a separate, wider war of words has broken out over a plan by Sky to force the country's top internet providers to block access to websites hosting pirated television content.

Sky TV launched legal action earlier this year against two companies – Hamilton-based My Box and Christchurch company FibreTV NZ – which it said were selling devices designed to help people illegally watch programmes, including those for which Sky has the New Zealand broadcasting rights.

Both companies sell Android media players, commonly referred to as Kodi boxes, which cost upwards of $70 and often come pre-loaded with software that points to foreign television streams."

I see no issue with Sky (or anybody else for that means - just look what's happening globally with Kodi itself and boxes) taking the action they have.

In this situation I'd almost go as far as saying Sky are doing the entire world a favour by preventing scammers from taking money off people by charging heavily inflated prices for something that's not worth what they're charging for it. Nobody sells $70 boxes - they sell them for hundreds, but they're only worth $70 tops.

amiga500

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1911115 30-Nov-2017 13:44

Share price in 2014 nearly $7.00 now at $2.47. In last three years fibre has really taken off. The only subscriber Sky can absolutely rely on is a sports lover who lives in rural area that can't now & probably never will get fibre internet. City dwellers who really love their sports will prob. keep them afloat.

1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | ... | 57