Let’s get one thing clear: whether you watch the game on your Telstra mobile or your Optus mobile, the AFL is generating broadcast revenue. While Telstra do indeed pay “big bucks” for mobile rights, the Optus method assists the AFL too because what you get is a retransmitted free-to-air broadcast.
That means you’re watching Channel Seven’s broadcast and being subjected to Channel Seven’s ads and increasing Channel Seven’s audience, in the same way someone watching at home is.
While it may take away from the value Telstra is getting for their deal, it adds to the value Seven is getting. Either way, the AFL are earning revenue off you watching football.
So why all the kerfuffle of the past few days? Why did this end up in the courts? Put simply, it’s because the AFL want to earn more revenue off you watching football. They want to double dip.
For one, there’s more money in exclusive broadcast deals. Just look at the FFA’s deal with Foxtel that sees important World Cup qualifiers – which would otherwise warrant free-to-air coverage – on pay TV because the sport’s rights are worth a lot more if sold exclusively.
There’s also more money in deals where the provider charges customers. The most recent footy broadcast deal was propped up by Foxtel gaining access to all matches.
The Telstra-AFL deal is both exclusive and involves paying customers. The deal with Seven does not. Therefore, you are worth more to the AFL if you are watching on your Telstra device than if you are just watching on Seven.
That’s why the AFL are so concerned.
Now, let’s get one more thing clear: the service operated by Optus is not illegal. In fact, it allows viewers to do something they’ve had the right to do for quite some time – that is record, or “time shift”, free to air television.
TV Now (the Optus product in question) allows you to record a free-to-air program to watch it later, as soon as two minutes after the program starts. It’s like the old VCR except you can now watch your recording “on the go”. Optus facilitates this by hosting the data you’ve recorded and allowing you to access it via your mobile or on the web.
Andrew Demetriou has said, “Optus have come along now to seek to try and use our content.” While that’s pretty damning, in truth Optus are not broadcasting the content.
It’s important to note that only the person who makes the recording using TV Now is able to access that recording, so it’s quite different to an illegal online stream. That recording is not available to other users – those users would have to go through the same process and record it themselves.
There are a couple of points where you might draw a line.
One such point would be if Optus were advertising their TV Now service as a way for customers to watch AFL games live. But Optus are marketing the product as a way to watch free-to-air, without specifically mentioning any programs that might allow you to watch.
In fact, currently the only ones advertising the fact AFL games can be seen on the TV Now service are Telstra and the AFL.
Another question mark is that Optus are charging customers for their TV Now service. While what they are charging for is advertised as “storage space” – the data being recorded has to be stored somewhere – if they have built a profit margin into that, things do become a little murky.
However even if they are making some kind of profit, you have to question how Optus are any different to say, a VCR manufacturer or, in modern times, TiVo. These companies have profited from allowing users to time shift, so why should we treat Optus any differently?
Unless the AFL once launched a law suit against a VCR manufacturer, I say we shouldn’t.
Yes, there are differences between the humble VCR and the TV Now service. However, once again – only the person who makes the recording has access to the recording.
As the recordings are done on an individual basis – as in, it’s up to the individual to make the recording – the same rights individuals have always had apply. As they should.
Finally, another point has to be made: it might be easier to sympathise with the AFL on this issue if their handling of mobile and online rights was not so archaic and against the best interests of supporters.
As you’d expect, Demetriou did his best to spin the Optus ruling as a loss for fans this week. “What we do as a not-for-profit organisation is: if we derive returns, we reinvest it into our code,” he said.
But surely the greater loss to fans is that the AFL have chosen to restrict mobile and online access to customers of just one provider. I’m not sure there’s too many codes outside of Australia that operate in such a manner.
Certainly, the United States has a host of examples that simply embarrass the AFL when it comes to games being broadcast on mobiles and online.
Just look at NBA League Pass, which allows you to surf between all the NBA games each and every night. I’ve used it at home on my computer and while out on my iPhone and the quality is superb – and thankfully, I wasn’t restricted by what mobile or broadband carrier I was with.
It’s a subscription service, so there is money to be made. Maybe that money isn’t as big or as easy as what the AFL gets through Telstra, but it would mean the product is available to a far wider audience of supporters.
When you see that the AFL’s deal with Telstra doesn’t even involve games being broadcast online (as in, on computers) and instead just covers mobiles, tablets and the T-Box, it illustrates just how far behind the league is – and will continue to be, given it’s five years until a new deal comes along.
What footy fans deserve is choice. Not only in terms of where and how they watch games but also, especially if they’re being asked to pay, in terms of what provider they want to go through. The AFL simply aren’t doing enough to give them that.
Just remember, though: the AFL isn’t being protective right now because it wants to make money. It’s being protective because it wants to make more money.
TW
Guest
Here is an update to Optus v Telstra - Telstra have released their pricing- Will there be churn from the AFL fans from Telstra to Optus Read on -- http://www.smh.com.au/business/telstra-unveils-afl-pricing-plan-20120213-1t1mn.html
The Cattery
Roar Guru
True - it's definitely going to be extra special this time round.
Redb
Roar Guru
Fox Footy rocks. nuff said. Channel 504 do yourself a favour, great line up. All games live and in HD and huge difference to years ago when Fox Footy was just replays.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
ICF You have been told many, many times: the AFL does NOT own any poker machines.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
Nothing wrong with the laws - anyone is entitled to record FTA programs - why does AFL need to be different. If the law changes you can bet it will be to the benefit of the corporates and not the fans and we will have to pay more either way, whatever sport it is. The AFL make most of their money at the punters expense. Companies and advertisers and the AFL just pass on the cost. They are already diversifying their income stream with a huge investment in poker machines for AFL clubs.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Sounds impressive - I note they mention doing U18 games, I wonder if that's a first?
TW
Guest
Here is an article describing the Foxtel facilities in Melbourne - There are no photos but it sounds very up to date. The 24/7 Footy channel opens on Feb 17. Link --- http://mumbrella.com.au/foxs-afl-channel-to-be-based-out-of-melbournes-global-television-studio-73422
Boomshanka
Guest
Redb With respect to the Borefest we trust you enjoyed courtesy of the NRL's broadcasting partner, Big Momma's House, City Slickers 2 and Antique Roadshow, instead of the big game that's about to hit primetime Melbourne TV screens later this year. Enjoy the change.
Boomshanka
Guest
Correct, as it stands at the moment the NRL can't sell exclusively to Pay TV.
Boomshanka
Guest
In Summary, the current law requires the Subscription TV licensee to not acquire rights to listed events unless national or commercial licensees hold them. Last time I looked Channel Seven hold the rights to four games each round. The other five exclusively held by FOX are in breach of the following; from: http://corrigan.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch2.html Broadcasting Act 1992: Schedule 2, Part 6 Subscription television broadcasting licences 10 Conditions applicable to subscription television broadcasting licences (1) Each subscription television broadcasting licence is subject to the following conditions: (e) the licensee will not acquire the right to televise, on a subscription television broadcasting service, an event that is specified in a notice under subsection 115(1) unless: (i) a national broadcaster has the right to televise the event on any of its broadcasting services; or (ii) the television broadcasting services of commercial television broadcasting licensees (other than licensees who hold licences allocated under section 38C or subsection 40(1)) who have the right to televise the event cover a total of more than 50% of the Australian population;
Redb
Roar Guru
Titus, tell us about the borefest last nIght.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Boomshanka, By the way, if what you are saying is right - and its not - the NRL cant sign a pay TV deal.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Boomshanka, The Minister would need to make a determination there is a problem, and then do something about it. Hasnt. Happened. Wont. Happen. The AFL deals are in clear compliance with the intention of Parliament in passing the act.
Boomshanka
Guest
The changes mooted in the press release you refer to some 15 months ago have not eventuated. The law as it stands at the moment does not allow FOX to hold rights Have a read of the accompanying fact sheet that came with the media release you refer to; http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/131466/MR_101123_Anti-siphoning_Reforms_-_Fact_Sheet.pdf Implementation The implementation of these reforms will require amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Amending legislation will be drafted over the coming months and introduced into the Parliament as soon as possible. Also from http://www.dbcde.gov.au/television/antisiphoning_and_antihoarding The current operation of the scheme ensures that certain events are available to the whole viewing public by preventing pay TV licensees from acquiring exclusive rights to listed events. Under section 115 of the Act, the Minister may determine a list of events or events of a kind that the Minister believes should be available free to the general public. The current anti‑siphoning list comprises domestic and international sporting events in 12 categories including cricket, tennis, golf, motor sports and the football codes. The scheme aims to give free-to-air broadcasters priority over pay TV licensees in acquiring rights to listed events. It prevents pay TV licensees from acquiring a right to televise a listed event until a right is acquired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the Special Broadcasting Services (SBS) or by commercial free-to-air broadcasters reaching more than 50 per cent of the Australian population.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Boomshanka, I see your problem. You dont understand how the law works. Read this release http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2010/122 "The Government will put in place a mechanism to protect the quality of AFL games on free-to-air television. This mechanism will ensure, as is the case now, that Friday and Saturday night games are able to be purchased by free-to-air, and that these feature the two best games of each round, as selected by the AFL. It will also ensure that South Australian and Western Australian viewers will be able to watch matches involving teams from their respective home states each week on free-to-air, and that Anzac Day and Queen’s Birthday games are also available on free-to-air. The Government will achieve this by regulation or an alternative arrangement agreed with stakeholders. The Government expects to negotiate a similar quality-assurance mechanism for weekly NRL games with Australian Rugby League’s newly-formed Independent Commission. Until these quality guarantees are agreed, all games of AFL and NRL will remain listed events, preventing their acquisition by a Pay TV licence holder until free-to-air broadcasters have a right to televise those events." Right. So, the AFL has negotiated with a free-to-air broadcaster for the rights to broadcast as above. Tick. It then sold rights to games not covered to the above to a pay TV provider. Well, ok. Has the Minister objected ? Nope, just some flog in the Murdoch press. And you. Do we have Friday and Saturday night matches on free-to-air, plus other matches ? Why, yes, we do. I guess thats the "an alternative arrangement agreed with stakeholders" Tick. Nothing to see here, just someone being a [fairly useless halfback flanker] about football being shown free-to-air, as opposed to on pay TV where he thinks it should exclusively be.
stabpass
Guest
@titus said ...... The “value” that someone is willing to pay only holds true if they themselves are able to resell for that same value(and hopefully more). Incorrect !!, and it has been pointed out to you several times on this thread alone, that 'value' in this instance (AFL rights), is what is payed for at the time. I might also point out that many people/companies buy things that never make money, or they never intend to make money out of them., but still value them. Please prove that you have to pay more for Foxtel because the AFL is on it. Please prove the AFL has a limited appeal outside of the older Australian demo
Boomshanka
Guest
Ian and TC. The AFL sold five games to FOX directly. This is the 'breach'. They could not do it when the deal was done and they can't do it now unless there is a law change. Its got nothing to do with the four games that Seven hold as these are 'compliant' with the legislation.
Boomshanka
Guest
Jaceman With respect to the mechanism I understand they are on the 67th draft and a long way from agreement (Check out; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/opinion/siphoning-still-tied-up-in-red-tape/story-e6frg99o-1226256696171) . As to the illegality of the AFL deal, check out Conroy's recent and feeble attempt by de-listing the entire AFL 2012 series at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00076 This is not sufficient to as under the anti siphoning laws a pay tv operator cannot hold rights to a listed event (which is what the AFL is) without these games being first offered to FTA TV first. Mobile TV is actually crap, but it is possible to put it on the big screen and we can even see numbers on the shirts. Not a long term solution but better than the total black out. I'm still happy to pay for accessing my sport, and would rather support this than dodgy P2P sites (where we had to go prior). Whilst yet to see a Friday night NRL game through the phone, the two other grand final games and post match presentation (which where not shown here) where adequate (if pushed I'd say 2 or 3 out of 10).
Titus
Guest
The "value" that someone is willing to pay only holds true if they themselves are able to resell for that same value(and hopefully more). Telstra pays $150 million, Optus pays $0 for the same thing, hard to see how Telstra will make the money back there unless they value add to their product. Channel 7 pays $500 million, but the product doesn't rate well in the eastern half of Australia, and has a fairly limited appeal outside of older Australian demographics. The diehard fans will no doubt watch the games uniterupted on PayTV thus diluting the channel 7 product that was said to be losing money on the deal as it was, meanwhile new narrowcast media further dilutes the advertising dollar. PayTV pays $500million for something that still has good coverage on FTA, with NRL/AFLand a growing list of sporting events on FTA it is hard to tell how many people will pay $70 a month to watch something they can still watch for free. What the media buyers have failed to grasp is that people want more choice, variety and at better value. As someone who wants to only pay to watch Football, I am reluctant to pay the Foxtel prices that have been jacked up to cover the AFL's massive media deal. I am hoping for the right to purchase just Football at a reasonable price, the FTA coverage of AFL and NRL will be plenty for me and of all my mates who are NRL fans I don't know of one that has Foxtel. People have proposed that things like music and movie piracy are destroying the product but I envisage that the internet and new media will open up the chance for more musicians, greater variety and a wider audience. Eventually a way of making money that cuts out the middle man and the greedy corporations will be found. Everyone is happy to pay for something they are interested in if the price is reasonable.
stabpass
Guest
@ AR, you are possibly right, that there will be no burning of bridges, however, i can also see that in business some things are considered more personal than others. Is this one of them ? ... who knows !, but when there is 150 million involved i can see it getting that way. The AFL has a very strong leadership group, which is sometimes good and at other times bad, it appears to me, if you are trying to get one up on AD, you gotta be pretty switched on.