Spark. ISP or media-streaming company?

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Spark. ISP or media-streaming company?

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#171235 10-Apr-2015 15:02

Spark’s investment in Lightbox continues to fascinate. We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content, yet surprising lack of device support. But more recently, Spark has highlighted the uneasy relationship between being a both an ISP and a media company.

Spark are a major domestic ISP. Yet, now they have Lightbox, Spark the ISP is threatening legal action against other ISPs for providing customers with the ISP experience they are looking for? So, what message is Spark sending to their current and potential ISP customers? And, as an ISP, will Spark now start blocking all local Spark customers from using DNS-masking or proxy services? (and if they don’t, aren’t they being a little hypocritical?).

Spark are a new streaming video-on-demand company, one that is threatening legal action in an attempt to enforce an ancient geo-restricted model, a model well and truly under attack (initially by priracy, but more recently from streaming on demand). So, on one hand, Spark are trying to sell us a product that is the future of media, yet, somehow, at the same time, trying to operate this within an aging geo-restricted model? What, for example, will Spark’s reaction be to overseas customers willing to pay to view Lightbox’s library via an overseas DNS-masked ISP? Will they deny all access to overseas subscribers? (and if they don’t, aren’t they being a little hypocritical?).

1 | 2 | 3

1647 posts

Uber Geek

#1280718 10-Apr-2015 19:22

Just a small note, it's Lightbox NZ Ltd that's doing the threatening, not parent company Spark.

jmosen

551 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1280854 11-Apr-2015 03:26

This is not a distinction Spark itself is making.
Check their social media feeds and you'll see Spark, the parent company, engaging with customers, or in my case soon-to-be former customers because of this issue, defending its threatening behaviour.
I agree with the OP, there's a conflict of interest here.

Jonathan

lucky015

743 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1280856 11-Apr-2015 06:47

jmosen: This is not a distinction Spark itself is making.
Check their social media feeds and you'll see Spark, the parent company, engaging with customers, or in my case soon-to-be former customers because of this issue, defending its threatening behaviour.
I agree with the OP, there's a conflict of interest here.

Agreed, I don't believe for a second that someone in spark isn't calling the shots at lightbox and they should receive the backlash for what they are doing.

BigPipe operate as a separate company, Skinny do also but lightbox does not seem to have any separation of the 2.

To consumers "global mode" type services including those provided by ISP's and outside parties may be new but to a major ISP which has been watching the other providers intently including even the smallest this is not new information, I have to wonder if this tactic was intended from the conception of lightbox or at least while in the dev stages.

pchs

185 posts

Master Geek

#1280917 11-Apr-2015 10:21

lucky015:
jmosen: This is not a distinction Spark itself is making.
Check their social media feeds and you'll see Spark, the parent company, engaging with customers, or in my case soon-to-be former customers because of this issue, defending its threatening behaviour.
I agree with the OP, there's a conflict of interest here.

Agreed, I don't believe for a second that someone in spark isn't calling the shots at lightbox and they should receive the backlash for what they are doing.

BigPipe operate as a separate company, Skinny do also but lightbox does not seem to have any separation of the 2.

To consumers "global mode" type services including those provided by ISP's and outside parties may be new but to a major ISP which has been watching the other providers intently including even the smallest this is not new information, I have to wonder if this tactic was intended from the conception of lightbox or at least while in the dev stages.

Bigpipe and Skinny are brands/offerings of Spark NZ, just like Spark Digital, Retail etc- the Management of both report through to the Management of Spark and ultimately Spark CEO, they are not seperate companys - I.E if you have shares in Spark NZ you also own part of Skinny and Bigpipe, I think that Bigpipe reports through to the Spark CFO.

Lightbox New Zealand limited is a wholly owned subsidary of Spark NZ.

For comparson Southern Cross Cables is a seperate company, has a seperate Board/Governance.

Spark/Lightbox/Skinny etc all ultimately report through to the Spark CEO and Board, so they are all going to be alligned, and board decisions made to benifit the whole business, not just an individual company. They are bound to do this by their shareholders.

Same exists for Orcon/Slingshot/Flip - all owned by Callplus Group and eventually report through to a single board.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1281467 12-Apr-2015 14:42

Playing the devil's advocate here: If your company had paid for content rights in a particular region and another company made it easier to usurp this and access the content in another jurisdiction, what would you do? Remember you can't force the major studios to change the way in which content rights are allocated in an instant.

The reality is that Lightbox ARE operating in a geo-restricted environment whether we or they like that or not. Studios are still selling the rights based on this model to streaming media companies including Netflix in the US and they agree to adhere to the geographical restrictions.

I agree that these geo-restrictions are now antiquated, however it will be quite some time before media companies adopt a different model. Also we need to be careful what we wish for; if media companies can buy global rights to content, then we will see only a handful of companies dominate the industry and prices will undoubtedly rise as a result.

It's a very complicated situation but I'm looking forward to seeing how things pan out over the new few years as the force for change accelerates!

jmosen

551 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1281474 12-Apr-2015 15:02

Then the rights are worth less than they paid for them given the changing environment, and negotiating an appropriate price given their current value is a matter between them and the content distributors. It's no excuse to bully smaller competitors for engaging in perfectly legitimate activities.
It would be like The Warehouse suing Amazon because kiwis can import DVDs. Except in that case Amazon is the bigger player and could easily out-lawyer them.
If I were a Spark shareholder, I'd be damn angry right now. Spark has spent a lot of money on a rebranding. They dumped the name Telecom, in part because it conjured up images of the bullying, heavy-handed corporate throwing its weight around. Now all that money's been spent, and we're all being reminded that this leopard hasn't changed its spots.
It will be a long time if ever before I'll have anything to do with them again.

Jonathan

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1281849 13-Apr-2015 09:57

dafman: .......We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content

Id have to disagree with that. :-)

but back on topic,
Spark/lightbox would be stupid not to try & do something to protect content that they paid for .
Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

wsnz

649 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1282466 13-Apr-2015 19:44

jmosen: Then the rights are worth less than they paid for them given the changing environment, and negotiating an appropriate price given their current value is a matter between them and the content distributors. It's no excuse to bully smaller competitors for engaging in perfectly legitimate activities.
It would be like The Warehouse suing Amazon because kiwis can import DVDs. Except in that case Amazon is the bigger player and could easily out-lawyer them.
If I were a Spark shareholder, I'd be damn angry right now. Spark has spent a lot of money on a rebranding. They dumped the name Telecom, in part because it conjured up images of the bullying, heavy-handed corporate throwing its weight around. Now all that money's been spent, and we're all being reminded that this leopard hasn't changed its spots.
It will be a long time if ever before I'll have anything to do with them again.

You assert that they are engaged in perfectly legitimate activities, but are they in law? When the copyright amendments were made to allow parallel importing of physical goods, the importation of digital goods (of which you have a licence to use, NOT ownership as in the case of physical goods) were not contemplated. That's why we need this case to be challenged in court and to establish precedent, which is sparse if not non-existent in relation to the parallel importation of digital goods.

Do I think that the geoblocking rights based model is obsolete? Yes. However you must acknowledge the fact that telco's, media companies and other related parties do have every right to challenge this in court, and so they should. This is not about "bullying", it is about establishing clear rights in law.

Despite disagreeing with the existing model, I have to acknowledge that the results of this case will be beneficial.

Darren0

70 posts

Master Geek

#1282531 13-Apr-2015 21:44

wsnz:
jmosen: Then the rights are worth less than they paid for them given the changing environment, and negotiating an appropriate price given their current value is a matter between them and the content distributors. It's no excuse to bully smaller competitors for engaging in perfectly legitimate activities.
It would be like The Warehouse suing Amazon because kiwis can import DVDs. Except in that case Amazon is the bigger player and could easily out-lawyer them.
If I were a Spark shareholder, I'd be damn angry right now. Spark has spent a lot of money on a rebranding. They dumped the name Telecom, in part because it conjured up images of the bullying, heavy-handed corporate throwing its weight around. Now all that money's been spent, and we're all being reminded that this leopard hasn't changed its spots.
It will be a long time if ever before I'll have anything to do with them again.

You assert that they are engaged in perfectly legitimate activities, but are they in law? When the copyright amendments were made to allow parallel importing of physical goods, the importation of digital goods (of which you have a licence to use, NOT ownership as in the case of physical goods) were not contemplated. That's why we need this case to be challenged in court and to establish precedent, which is sparse if not non-existent in relation to the parallel importation of digital goods.

Do I think that the geoblocking rights based model is obsolete? Yes. However you must acknowledge the fact that telco's, media companies and other related parties do have every right to challenge this in court, and so they should. This is not about "bullying", it is about establishing clear rights in law.

Despite disagreeing with the existing model, I have to acknowledge that the results of this case will be beneficial.

I think that's all this is. They benefit a lot out of a successful court case, so it's worth them spending the money in having the laws tested.

Wade

2225 posts

Uber Geek

#1282721 14-Apr-2015 10:05

From my experience Spark is a great ISP, not the cheapest but I have have a consistent and good experience with them, I use and will continue to use Unotelly so the current 'global mode' shouldn't be of any concern to me. However, depending on the outcome I will most likely change ISP's out of principle, I understand it is Lightbox and not Spark that is taking action but in this case by supporting one i am supporting the other and that doesn't sit well with me

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1282814 14-Apr-2015 11:54

Not quite sure what this is going to achieve.

If they are successful, will all ISPs then block services that allow geounblocking? Are they going to go after xDSL subscribers one by one?

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282838 14-Apr-2015 12:17

1101:
dafman: .......We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content

Id have to disagree with that. :-)

but back on topic,
Spark/lightbox would be stupid not to try & do something to protect content that they paid for .
Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Because Spark are also in the business of providing ISP services that many of their customers use to circumvent geo blocking around the world.

On one hand they are complaining about geo-dodgers circumventing their Lightbox copyright, on the other hand they are providing a ISP service that allows customers to geo-dodge.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282846 14-Apr-2015 12:24

nate: Not quite sure what this is going to achieve.

If they are successful, will all ISPs then block services that allow geounblocking? Are they going to go after xDSL subscribers one by one?

If successful it will stop isps selling and promoting global mode. (Selling also includes giving it away for free with broadband)

It won't stop individuals using other means of getting round geoocking, but then it isn't really intended to. Global mode. The bigger, more obvious and well known target so will be most impactful.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1282850 14-Apr-2015 12:26

dafman:
1101:
dafman: .......We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content

Id have to disagree with that. :-)

but back on topic,
Spark/lightbox would be stupid not to try & do something to protect content that they paid for .
Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Because Spark are also in the business of providing ISP services that many of their customers use to circumvent geo blocking around the world.

On one hand they are complaining about geo-dodgers circumventing their Lightbox copyright, on the other hand they are providing a ISP service that allows customers to geo-dodge.

their service doesn't include global mode, so it's not really contradictory at all.
Sparks broadband doesn't 'allow' people to geododge. People can use it for geo dodging in conjunction with other products but that is a byproduct.

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1282886 14-Apr-2015 12:47

NonprayingMantis:
dafman:
1101:
dafman: .......We’ve discussed Lightbox’s great content

Id have to disagree with that. :-)

but back on topic,
Spark/lightbox would be stupid not to try & do something to protect content that they paid for .
Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Because Spark are also in the business of providing ISP services that many of their customers use to circumvent geo blocking around the world.

On one hand they are complaining about geo-dodgers circumventing their Lightbox copyright, on the other hand they are providing a ISP service that allows customers to geo-dodge.

their service doesn't include global mode, so it's not really contradictory at all.
Sparks broadband doesn't 'allow' people to geododge. People can use it for geo dodging in conjunction with other products but that is a byproduct.

While Spark are not directly providing the geo-dodge service, they are fully aware that a significant number of their customers are using their ISP product for geo-dodging and that their product offering facilitates this. It would be very easy for Spark to change their terms of service to block their customer access to geo-dodging sites such as UnoTelly, UnblockUS etc.

For Spark to not block customer access to geo-dodging site is somewhat hypocritical (in my eyes).

To do so, however, would damage their ISP brand and cost them customers.

Therein lies the conflict.

1 | 2 | 3