Telecom New Zealand and Sky sign agreement

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Telecom New Zealand and Sky sign agreement

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#477222 2-Jun-2011 21:37

---Is there a state broadcaster in the world who can compete financially with pay-tv ? After all thats what it comes down to.....money---

As I said above, pay and free tv have income (end user subscriptions or advertising) and both have paid content bought wih that revenue.

Sky seems to have a better business, why? More revenue, more efficient fixed and variable expenses? Lets say they are both run efficently, the difference is Sky gets more revenue, so perhaps free tv needs a small subscription (TV Licence) to make it similarly capable?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#477228 2-Jun-2011 21:49

---Traditionally state broadcasters are not meant to compete with pay TV. Their role has been to provide public service content, not premium content.---

Excellent point. If the public demands more, thats fine. If they compare free tv to Sky thats fine. If they want Sky-like content, thats also fine. It needs to be paid for. Thats what Sky does, it pays for it. If Free TV wants to be like Sky or have some content instead of Sky, work out how much per subscriber is needed and the end users can pay, like Sky end users.

If anyone feels my comments are sarcy, etc, they aren't. Its Accounting 101, it is that simple.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#477261 2-Jun-2011 23:29

andrew027:

Probably off topic, but I'm not sure the decline in interest in rugby has anything to do with pay TV. New Zealand viewer numbers plummeted after the All Blacks went out of the last World Cup, and haven't returned to teh same levels since. Over exposure to televised rugby has resuilted in boredom and indifference, rather than rebuilding the passion. This year we can tune in to high school rugby, local ("grassroots") and provincial games, Super 15 and tri-nations (how much AU v NZ v SA do we need - can't we play anyone else?) and of course RWC. Familiarity breeds contempt.

I believe it's been dropping since it went professional. I think it was at it's most popular before and during the 1995 world cup. I think it not being on FTA, has had an influence in the drop off in popularity. It hasn't helped with all the rule changes. I prefer league and football, but I used to really love rugby, but couldn't care less about it these days.

BigMal

996 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#477308 3-Jun-2011 09:12

mattwnz:
andrew027:

Probably off topic, but I'm not sure the decline in interest in rugby has anything to do with pay TV. New Zealand viewer numbers plummeted after the All Blacks went out of the last World Cup, and haven't returned to teh same levels since. Over exposure to televised rugby has resuilted in boredom and indifference, rather than rebuilding the passion. This year we can tune in to high school rugby, local ("grassroots") and provincial games, Super 15 and tri-nations (how much AU v NZ v SA do we need - can't we play anyone else?) and of course RWC. Familiarity breeds contempt.

I believe it's been dropping since it went professional. I think it was at it's most popular before and during the 1995 world cup. I think it not being on FTA, has had an influence in the drop off in popularity. It hasn't helped with all the rule changes. I prefer league and football, but I used to really love rugby, but couldn't care less about it these days.

Yup I went from rugby season ticket holder to non-watcher. Too much rugby nowadays, too many competitions - the NZRU sold their soul to News Ltd.

I wish it would follow an NFL format in terms of a shorter season with offseason events like the draft and combine.

Now we're way off topic....sorry about that.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#477443 3-Jun-2011 14:55

tdgeek: ---Traditionally state broadcasters are not meant to compete with pay TV. Their role has been to provide public service content, not premium content.---

Excellent point. If the public demands more, thats fine. If they compare free tv to Sky thats fine. If they want Sky-like content, thats also fine. It needs to be paid for. Thats what Sky does, it pays for it. If Free TV wants to be like Sky or have some content instead of Sky, work out how much per subscriber is needed and the end users can pay, like Sky end users.

If anyone feels my comments are sarcy, etc, they aren't. Its Accounting 101, it is that simple.

I'm not asking for premium content to be free, nor am I expecting "free" TV to compete with Sky. I think I agree with you - I was merely responding to Beccara's "why" question.

What I'd really like to see happen is *more choice*. I'm not willing to pay ~$100 per month for a handful of channels on top of the FTA channels that I can get for free. If someone offered cheaper, smaller and *independent* packages of movie and/or documentary channels then they'd have my money. The fact that there isn't more choice for subscribers would be the only reason that I'd want to see regulation.

To address the money talk: my expectation would be that getting access to less channels would cost less money. I understand that the cost models for buying the content (cost depending on subscriber/viewer estimates, content owner channel package discounts etc.) will mean that comparisons like "if it costs $x for channel y then it would also cost $x if channel y were offered by itself" aren't fair. In fact I'd expect a *small* premium for being able to choose the packages/channels that I want. However, the net effect should be lower cost to me as a subscriber.

NOTE: I am not and never have been a Sky subscriber. I never will be a Sky subscriber if they don't offer a "product" that suits me better.

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#482595 18-Jun-2011 16:11

Oh goody this topic isn't locked yet...

tdgeek: ??? Please do not quote previous posters comments and then alter the wording to suit your ends. And then analogising that to a rape? At the risk of myself being spoken to by the moderator, your comments are pathetic and immature and not acceptable.

Below is the comment I'm referring to, I was too lazy to quote two posts. For your benefit I'm going quote-crazy in this post. And I'm not biting.

Beccara: The difference between Sky and Telecom is simple, Sky built up it's monopoly from scratch, Telecom was given it on a silver platter. I think it would be wrong to step in and regulate Sky as this is a private company funded by private money who has private infrastructure that has never been in public hands

I'm glad my analogy got your attention. The point I was making is that anticompetitive behaviour is still illegal regardless of how "worthy" the offender is. So anyone who claims a monopoly is ok because it was built up over time by a private entity is disagreeing with both the letter and intent of the law. The only genuine points of contention are whether a monopoly really exists and whether there is a significant negative impact on people's lives.

ockel: OfCom (and the EU) spent considerable time and research in determining the best way to create competition in EPL given its "importance" to consumers and the belief that the monopoly on that content was not in the consumers best interest. To say that it was poorly thought out is flippant.

What it did highlight was that the theoretical notions of the cost-benefit analysis were simplistic and that regulation led to unintended consequences and higher costs that were not considered by the analysis. And that is the folly of regulation.

Shame it didn't pan out for them. But if governments always put it in the too hard basket every time a competition issue came up then today America would be more like Russia - largely controlled by a tiny number of robber barons.

robbyp: I think the future is over the internet, but we are probably a decade away from that replacing satellite.

I just added this quote because Sky's monopoly is in content, not the delivery mechanism. So the problem isn't going to go away just because we have a high speed fibre network or extra pipes to Aussie. The content owners will have deals with Sky and are going to make it as hard as possible for you to get that content from anywhere else.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#482610 18-Jun-2011 16:42

----I just added this quote because Sky's monopoly is in content, not the delivery mechanism.---

The content is not locked to Sky.

TV NZ had good content, Sky got it as TV NZ would not pay, thats the market. Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market.

Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

Plenty of choices, rather than complain. Fonterra has took much market share, we need Govt to remove that. When will it stop? I thought we moved away from socialism.

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.

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek

#488937 3-Jul-2011 22:08

tdgeek: Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market.

Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

Huh. With those suggestions I hope you're not going to play a role in the regulation of broadcasting.

tdgeek: Plenty of choices, rather than complain. Fonterra has took much market share, we need Govt to remove that. When will it stop? I thought we moved away from socialism.

With any luck this article indicates a move away from knee-jerk accusations of socialism whenever anyone dares to suggest that the unfettered free market isn't always in the public interest.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#488940 3-Jul-2011 22:16

davidcole: Interesting that two fairly big broadband providers (Telecom and Vodafone) have both got partnerships with Sky.

Sky must be laughing all the way to the bank with their monopoly.

I have Freeview. I'm happy enough with that.

A big chunk of Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I do not knowingly give any of my moneyto that man.

His shonky, lying media have killed more people than Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush put together.

People like that don't get my money. Same reason I ignore Super (number?) Rugby. Murdoch created so he had rugby content he could sell to the aphids. Stroke them for cash. Like ants do.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#488945 3-Jul-2011 22:27

I really hope his lawyers don't find this post of yours...

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#488947 3-Jul-2011 22:30

tdgeek: Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market.

Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

Huh. With those suggestions I hope you're not going to play a role in the regulation of broadcasting.

My comments were tongue in cheek. Seems to me that when we want something cheaper, or want a change in terms, content, etc, etc, etc there is the suggestion to regulate. Your reply implies that there is a need to regulate. Well, there is no monopoly, it is a free market. And that article doesn't read well, reads like a "poor me" issue with the writer. He even bleats over the content, well what he hates, others like .

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#488949 3-Jul-2011 22:37

Hmmm. Quite hard to read... Could you please use the quote tags next time?

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#488952 3-Jul-2011 22:42

Sorry Mauricio.

---tdgeek: Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market. Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

---Compost: Huh. With those suggestions I hope you're not going to play a role in the regulation of broadcasting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comments were tongue in cheek. Seems to me that when we want something cheaper, or want a change in terms, content, etc, etc, etc there is the suggestion to regulate. Your reply implies that there is a need to regulate. Well, there is no monopoly, it is a free market. And that article doesn't read well, reads like a "poor me" issue with the writer. He even bleats over the content, well what he hates, others like .

Stu

Hammered
8332 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#489059 4-Jul-2011 10:07

tdgeek: Sorry Mauricio.

---tdgeek: Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market. Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

---Compost: Huh. With those suggestions I hope you're not going to play a role in the regulation of broadcasting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My comments were tongue in cheek. Seems to me that when we want something cheaper, or want a change in terms, content, etc, etc, etc there is the suggestion to regulate. Your reply implies that there is a need to regulate. Well, there is no monopoly, it is a free market. And that article doesn't read well, reads like a "poor me" issue with the writer. He even bleats over the content, well what he hates, others like .

Seriously. Could you please just hit the "Quote" button like everyone else? I can't recall ever seeing a post by you that quotes with the provided method. Tends to make your posts hard to read.

Dulouz

883 posts

Ultimate Geek

#489074 4-Jul-2011 10:39

tdgeek: ----I just added this quote because Sky's monopoly is in content, not the delivery mechanism.---

The content is not locked to Sky.

TV NZ had good content, Sky got it as TV NZ would not pay, thats the market. Perhaps the Govt can provide funds from our taxes to get better content. Or setup a state free TV broadcaster to compete, thats also the market.

Maybe the govt can pass a law to take over Sky then make it FTA

Plenty of choices, rather than complain. Fonterra has took much market share, we need Govt to remove that. When will it stop? I thought we moved away from socialism.

It is the nature of capitalism to create monopolies. A monopoly is the prize for succeeding in the market. Power then remains in the hands of a power elite who seek only to make a profit. The monopolist then makes it impossible for new entries to the market and the result is less choice for consumers.

Amanon

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6