Does Neon represent good value for money (compared to Netflix, Lightbox etc)? Those services (content delivered online) are all comparable, right?

sbiddle:

 

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.

 

To me it sounds an awful lot like trying to use the Copyright Act to restrict access to whatever Sky thinks is illegal content. Sky should not be the one to determine this kind of thing. It is not the province of a private, for-profit company. The courts are the only ones qualified to make this kind of judgement. I believe this is in fact a slippery slope and should not be allowed. Just because backward bushwhackers in Australia are doing it, doesn't mean we should.

tdgeek:

 

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.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this proposition. Once the principle of blocking stuff on the say-so of a vested interest is accepted, it will open the door to widespread abuse. One only has to look overseas to see examples of this.

MikeB4: Sky reminds me Gatland and Cheika. Instead of bitching and moaning Sky needs to fix it's product. They are sticking with an out dated unpopular delivery vehicle instead of innovating and providing what the market wants.

MikeB4: Sky reminds me Gatland and Cheika. Instead of bitching and moaning Sky needs to fix it's product. They are sticking with an out dated unpopular delivery vehicle instead of innovating and providing what the market wants.

Can you elaborate?

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.

 

He's the CEO of a horse and coach business that's trying to stop people importing motorcars because he believes he has the exclusive rights for transportation. We know exactly how that ended.

PhantomNVD:
Agreed, and if they separate the sport and offer their ‘basic’ without the subsidies included they could then become relevant to the ‘basic’ user who would be happy to pay the $20(ish) cost and start seeing how many rugby fanatics REALLY value their product when they need to pay $80-100 for the sport channel.

100% agree. Its not just rugby, its sport overall. Basic is a nice service for many. So is sport. Basic is overpriced by say 800,000 x $25 per month, add that to the smaller number of sports subscribers, no idea how many of those there are

tdgeek:

 

MikeB4: Sky reminds me Gatland and Cheika. Instead of bitching and moaning Sky needs to fix it's product. They are sticking with an out dated unpopular delivery vehicle instead of innovating and providing what the market wants.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Take a look at Foxtel Now as an example. https://www.foxtel.com.au/now/index.html 

You can get the rough equivalent of SoHo + Sport for AU$44 per month. You can play two streams at once. If you have a Chromecast, it is available in HD. And if you prefer an old style set top box, you can buy one for AU$99 and get two months of all the available channels, which practically makes it free.

When Vodafone announced the new look 'Vodafone TV' earlier this year, this is what I was expecting them to launch.

Meanwhile, if you want Sky Sport (only four channels) then you need to pay more than twice that (Fanpass $99/m) on a monthly contract :(

Wow... DNS blocking, IP blocking, by a private company...

sbiddle:

 

He's the CEO of a horse and coach business that's trying to stop people importing motorcars because he believes he has the exclusive rights for transportation. We know exactly how that ended.

 

I would imagine Freitasm would comply with any legal order to provide his user list. People are not exactly hiding behind anonymity here. User names help avoid unwanted spam and other privacy intrusions. That is the nature of the modern Internet.

https://www.orcon.net.nz/sky-censorship-response seems to be taken down?