Personally I would prefer to see TVNZ sold, running a TV broadcaster is not a Central Government activity.

blakamin:

 

ockel:

 

If you want Cricket in Australia - exclusive provider.  

 

 

 

Channel 9 FTA 

 

 

 

ockel: BigBashLeague Cricket - a different exclusive provider.  

 

 

 

Channel 10 FTA

 

 

 

ockel: If you want EPL - exclusive provider. Worse in Australia - you have to be an Optus customer.

 

Nope, Foxtel. Along with most live VASC (that's not on 10).

 

In each case an exclusive provider.  In the first two cases its advertiser funded.  Yes it is still exclusive.  And someone pays for it.  FTA does not mean free it means advertiser funded.  It is not non-exclusive.

In the last case you are wrong.  Its Optus.  Why do you think Optus has outsold Telstra almost 3-to-1 (hint: its not coverage or price).  Unless you want ChelseaTV, ManCityTV, LiverpoolTV, MUTV, ArsenalTV or SpursTV.  A direct copy of what happened in NZ when PLP got the EPL rights and Sky bought the club rights.  If you dont support those teams then you're out of luck.  

shk292:

 

ockel:

 

shk292:

 

 

 

We've had this argumet before, and once again I feel that although superficially we speak the same language, the way in which we understand the words id fundamentally different.

 

No point in arguing with you I feel

 

 

Thats because your argument fails to hold water.  Let me summarise your argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, :

 

The exclusive content that you want to watch, but arent willing to pay market price for, should be provided on a non-exclusive basis (or paid for by someone else) and for all other exclusive content you DGAF.

 

 

 

 

No, as I said above - I don't intend to argue with you.  Your evident personality traits, combined with our diametrically opposed views on the meaning of some words, means that such a discussion will yield no value.

 

I don't really agree. That's not because I agree with his views.

He has his style, but also so so the opposers, whether they be Sky "dislikers" or exclusivity dislikers

He puts forward his views, and backs it up with detail or examples. Often, those that oppose, don't give any detail, its generally a low detail disagree. I would like to see how a non exclusive business model would work. Lets use a prime sports event or series as an example. I'm keen to see how that can work