SKY ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR INTERNET, SAYS VOCUS

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › SKY ATTEMPTING TO CENSOR INTERNET, SAYS VOCUS

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

158 posts

Master Geek

#1910754 29-Nov-2017 21:29

One person supports this post

quickymart:
I was wondering that too. Rugby existed before Sky came along, for a long time. What's so different now? (sorry, not a sports/rugby person so don't really follow it).

Rugby became a Professional sport in 1996. When it was amateur, the players couldn’t be payed a salary, so the costs to the NZRFU were much less.

quickymart

4906 posts

Uber Geek

#1910757 29-Nov-2017 21:34

That makes sense - but I'm sure Sky had the rugby before 1996, didn't they? What happened in that timeframe after they came into existence in 1990? Did they just outbid TVNZ/TV3 year after year?

Dynamike

158 posts

Master Geek

#1910764 29-Nov-2017 21:58

quickymart:
That makes sense - but I'm sure Sky had the rugby before 1996, didn't they? What happened in that timeframe after they came into existence in 1990? Did they just outbid TVNZ/TV3 year after year?

TV One screened all the Tests, and a couple of the NPC games on the weekends. The 1995 World Cup was the last amateur Rugby tournament. Sky Sport was mainly just ESPN.

sbiddle

28786 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1910832 30-Nov-2017 07:27

StarBlazer:

Hi can we keep this on topic and not turn it into yet another Sky/Rubgy/Cost thread.

This issue is about the erosion of net neutrality by using "copyright" as the justification.

I don't see where net neutrality comes into this as it has nothing to do with it, no matter how you want to define net neutrality.

This isn't about taking means to charge extra for some legal services or limit access to other legal services, it's about using the Copyright Act to restrict access to illegal content. This sets a precident when it comes to Internet filtering.

I would love to know if Sky have made any attempts to get things added to the DIA filter, and if they did what the response from DIA was.

robjg63

3043 posts

Uber Geek

#1910835 30-Nov-2017 07:41

nzbsgfan:
I'm not sure about others here, but is painfully obvious my ISP is now already blocking content.

A quick A/B comparison for available streams on a "popular streaming platform" indicate 30 to 40 times the number of available streams once a VPN is enabled.

That is not blocking. The 'popular platform' works out where you are and shows you 'appropriate' content for your part of the world. The VPN or geounblocker service unlocks this location restriction. That's what those products do.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

PhantomNVD

2590 posts

Uber Geek

#1910836 30-Nov-2017 07:48

One person supports this post

I think we can all agree that giving ANYONE control of our core internet access is a very slippery slope, and that giving this sort of influence on that control to a private corporation is simply ludicrous.

Sky asking for specific sites to be banned IS An attempt for them to ‘control access to legitimate sites’ too, as whatever sites they want to list are ‘legitimate’ in their country or would be taken down from there?

If the population is not restricted from using VPN’s (which definitely have a legitimate use) then any rules we make only push this ‘further underground ‘ just as the article says.

Until global distribution becomes a fact (like it has with music) the grey imports (and blatant piracy) will continue to be a problem.

Sky’s biggest loss hasn’t been to piracy, it’s been to online streaming like lightbox/Netflix/neon etc, and their days of ‘price distribution’ by making ‘basic package’ subsidise the rest are now over.

They need to adapt now!

sbiddle

28786 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1910842 30-Nov-2017 08:00

PhantomNVD:

Sky’s biggest loss hasn’t been to piracy, it’s been to online streaming like lightbox/Netflix/neon etc, and their days of ‘price distribution’ by making ‘basic package’ subsidise the rest are now over.

They need to adapt now!

And how should they adapt?

The problem IMHO is Sky can't adapt. The global model for TV and video is still one of selling the same product to 180+ territories. It also relies around TV rights heavily funding commercial sport.

Until the world decides to move away from this model Sky are stuck trying to make this model work in a small country with a customer base that are very quicky tiring of their product and pricing strategy. It's likely our dollar will continue to trend downwards under a left wing government which is only going to make things worse for them as programming costs increase.

If I was at Spark right now I'd be exploring the options or rights to existing Sky channels that can be resold (Discovery, Net Geo and so on) and offering this as an IPTV offering for those who don't want to give up Sky but don't care about sport. Vodafone could have done this years ago had it not been for Rusty and John being such great mates.

Coil

6615 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1910844 30-Nov-2017 08:10

I commented on their FB page and just dropped someones one liner from here just to stir the pot and I got a reply from some Joker called Neil who linked me Sky's response to Vocus. Apparently they 'got it wrong'
Well, i read the same thing just from the other parties perspective. https://www.sky.co.nz/-/mk_pressrelease_291117

Net censorship. It doesn't matter of what kind (Unless its dark web crap) it isn't good.

tdgeek

19843 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1910847 30-Nov-2017 08:26

2 people support this post

sbiddle:

If I was at Spark right now I'd be exploring the options or rights to existing Sky channels that can be resold (Discovery, Net Geo and so on) and offering this as an IPTV offering for those who don't want to give up Sky but don't care about sport. Vodafone could have done this years ago had it not been for Rusty and John being such great mates.

Nice idea. Those Basic type channels I assume are cheap and non exclusive. Place this within Lightbox. If the user has a streamer box that includes LB as well as the FTA OD services, thats convenient for the masses. While not every one of those Basic channels may be easy to obtain, they could build a Spark "Basic" equivalent of Nat Geo, BBC Documentary, History, FoodTV and so forth.

geek4me

843 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1910848 30-Nov-2017 08:27

One person supports this post

When United Video can offer new movie releases for $2 in our area on Tuesdays, it shows that Sky's prices are Sky high. People will eventually shun organisations that are seen to be overcharging the public. Sky needs to reduce their prices and stop trying to block others who compete with them.

Oh no, not another end of the world prediction

tdgeek

19843 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1910850 30-Nov-2017 08:30

geek4me:

When United Video can offer new movie releases for $2 in our area on Tuesdays, it shows that Sky's prices are Sky high. People will eventually shun organisations that are seen to be overcharging the public. Sky needs to reduce their prices and stop trying to block others who compete with them.

$2 a day? thats $60 per month for one movie. I think Sky Movies is $25 or so for I guess maybe 50 of them? Not new releases I know, but $60 per month is a lot to charge for one movie.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1910851 30-Nov-2017 08:32

One person supports this post

sbiddle:

StarBlazer:

Hi can we keep this on topic and not turn it into yet another Sky/Rubgy/Cost thread.

This issue is about the erosion of net neutrality by using "copyright" as the justification.

I don't see where net neutrality comes into this as it has nothing to do with it, no matter how you want to define net neutrality.

This isn't about taking means to charge extra for some legal services or limit access to other legal services, it's about using the Copyright Act to restrict access to illegal content. This sets a precident when it comes to Internet filtering.

I would love to know if Sky have made any attempts to get things added to the DIA filter, and if they did what the response from DIA was.

Because every time a company gets to control the way the internet is delivered takes us yet another step towards removing net neutrality - IMO. I'm not saying that this is Sky's goal in this instance; but what if they say they want a court order to throttle overseas content providers to ensure the experience is poor enough to effectively force people to use NZ services? Because let's face it, blocking websites is not going to change anything.

What if Netflix didn't open a New Zealand service? Sky could be asking for their content to be blocked or limited. How would we even know if for example Vodafone or Spark were to limit overseas VoD to the benefit of Sky/Lightbox?

Ok I'm getting into the "tin foil hat" area, but technology moves at such a pace that this kind of thing could happen very quickly though some dubious midnight closed-door legislation.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

tdgeek

19843 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1910852 30-Nov-2017 08:42

sbiddle:

StarBlazer:

Hi can we keep this on topic and not turn it into yet another Sky/Rubgy/Cost thread.

This issue is about the erosion of net neutrality by using "copyright" as the justification.

I don't see where net neutrality comes into this as it has nothing to do with it, no matter how you want to define net neutrality.

This isn't about taking means to charge extra for some legal services or limit access to other legal services, it's about using the Copyright Act to restrict access to illegal content. This sets a precident when it comes to Internet filtering.

I would love to know if Sky have made any attempts to get things added to the DIA filter, and if they did what the response from DIA was.

Exactly. To say its about controlling the internet is ridiculous. Thats just media bluster, newsworthy, clickworthy, hateSkyworthy.

MikeB4

14894 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1910856 30-Nov-2017 08:56

4 people support this post

This will be a PR and commercial nightmare for Sky and will damage an already badly damaged brand. If they do not see that then Mr Fellet is more out of touch with the market than I previously considered.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Be it ever so humble, there is no place like home.

tdgeek

19843 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1910858 30-Nov-2017 09:11

MikeB4:

This will be a PR and commercial nightmare for Sky and will damage an already badly damaged brand. If they do not see that then Mr Fellet is more out of touch with the market than I previously considered.

I agree, as its portrayed and reported as controlling the internet, which is obviously not the case. Its just the simple and boring concept of protecting a business against an illegal activity that affects it. That its TV or internet is irrelevant, that just brings on the tin foil hat brigade. If its not kosher, we should apply the same stance to everything, and condemn anyone or anything that upholds laws or statutes.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9