Letter to ICT reps of the 3 largest parties regarding access to digital media in NZ

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Letter to ICT reps of the 3 largest parties regarding access to digital media in NZ

pwapwap

103 posts

Master Geek

#102590 17-May-2012 18:10

Hey all,

Given the ComCom decision to look into SkyTV I thought I should post the letter I sent to the ICT reps from the 3 largest parties, and the one response I got (from the minister).

First what I sent...

To: amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz, gareth.hughes@parliament.govt.nz, clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz

Subject:New Zealand's access to digital media.

To the ICT representatives of the three largest parties in parliament. As you know, the digital age is upon us. One of the major issues in relation to this is copyright infringement primarily of music movies and TV shows. Legitimate access to TV shows and movies is currently poor in New Zealand. Digital music access has now become commonplace via the internet so is not the subject of my concerns. I am keen on positive change in relation to this matter, encouraging legitimately licensed access to content. Ideally I would love to be able to switch over to a hardware product such as AppleTV or Roku, and have access to free local content (equivalent to freeview) and paid content from a service such as Hulu or Netflix. As such I would like to pose the following questions to you as my representatives in government.

With the switch off of analogue TV is there any encouragement by government for content owners to provide internet TV/movie services? This question applies to both to content available on demand, and live streaming of channels for news etc. Is there any regulation planned of the monopoly which Sky TV is enjoying on paid content? Has there been an investigation into Sky TV's pricing in their monopolistic market? I know internet infrastructure upgrades are in progress, has there been specific planning/consideration given to the ability of these upgrades to handle Internet TV services?

I am aware that a service called Quickflix is coming across the Tasman from Australia and I am hopeful that this will start the waterfall of services. I do however have doubts due to the limited content available for them to sell to NZ. Thank you in advance for any responses you give.
Regards,Brendan White.

pwapwap

103 posts

Master Geek

#627003 17-May-2012 18:32

Minister Adam's response. Apologies for the dropbox link but it was a PDF response.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3z1p2pvd0rmztn/Slevel4.5L_12050310390%20%282%29.pdf

I find it interesting that she is the minister for Communication and Information Technology but still has the urge to write a letter print, sign and scan it rather than replying by email.

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#627082 17-May-2012 21:20

Nice you got a reply, but to be honest the problem is the monopoly over rights that sky has and they don't really seem to care. Can you imagine how much smaller sky's subscriber base would be if they didn't have a monopoly over so many sporting events?

I believe sport is the biggest reasons why people subscribe to sky - personally aside from NatGeo, Discovery, and a few other channels, theres a lot of rubbish and space filler on there, which i would think is a view that many would agree with to varying extents. If we had similar to australia where free to air broadcasters get first dibs on national sporting events, the landscape would be a lot different.

A lot of quality TV shows also have their rights tied up as well, combined with the delays in airing over here it makes it quite pathetic. This is improving as we get releases closer to their US/UK release dates, but the rights situation is still less than ideal.

Jas777

838 posts

Ultimate Geek

#627175 18-May-2012 08:48

Yes the landscape would be a lot different but would it be for the better? TV3 has no money and I am sure TVNZ could not pay the same for sports rights so you would get diminshed coverage and diminished talent.

Also sporting competition such as the Super 15 and F&P Netball only exist because of PAYTV so why should they be on free to air?

Sporting coverage pre PAYTV was awful so what makes you think it will be any better? In Australia Channel 9 still go to news when cricket on and show the Sunday league game delayed and full of advertisements.

JonnyCam

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#627206 18-May-2012 09:51

I believe sport is the biggest reasons why people subscribe to sky - personally aside from NatGeo, Discovery, and a few other channels, theres a lot of rubbish and space filler on there, which i would think is a view that many would agree with to varying extents. If we had similar to australia where free to air broadcasters get first dibs on national sporting events, the landscape would be a lot different.

Prime broadcasts sports - badly delayed admittedly, but it's on FTA. (it's only 9.30 for a 7.30 game though)
Maybe a couple more games on Prime wouldn't hurt.

If they break a monopoly like they did in the EU with football rights.
They said that one broadcaster could not have more the x% of the games. So they sold them in packages.

This meant if you wanted to watch all of your teams games, then you would have to subscribe to more than one provider (maybe 3)

News Corp pay to have the Super Rugby comp on the air, and a portion of the AB's - if they don't have exclusive live rights, then they lose customers, meaning they pay Sanzar less for the privledge.

Less money for players = top players go overseas for a few years, competition gets weaker, less money at the next round of rights bargaining.

A lot of quality TV shows also have their rights tied up as well, combined with the delays in airing over here it makes it quite pathetic. This is improving as we get releases closer to their US/UK release dates, but the rights situation is still less than ideal.

The rights for TV shows seem to be more of a problem with TVNZ / Mediaworks - when did you see the box broadcast a new series?
Only recently has Soho come in a allowed Sky to have first rights to some programming.

JonnyCam

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#627218 18-May-2012 10:02

I find it interesting that she is the minister for Communication and Information Technology but still has the urge to write a letter print, sign and scan it rather than replying by email.

They probably have to save things as PDF's to go into their correspondence archiving system.
An MP writing to someone really does need to be saved so if there is any question of what was said, it can be recalled - and an email can be tampered a lot more easily than PDF.
(not relevant in this case, but you can see how it could be)

I agree though, an e-signature would have been better and straight to PDF.