Berkeley_Eagle
Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan
Television's future being decided in Canberra
MILES KEMP From: The Advertiser
November 23, 2010 12:01AM
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/tv/televisions-future-being-decided-in-canberra/story-e6freeul-1225958805057
OTHER than big banks, television networks are the most protected species in Canberra but regulatory changes loom which could change all that, as MILES KEMP reports.Â
BIG TV is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the nation's capital, so powerful that the Federal Government has taken more than 12 months to painstakingly negotiate what changes, if any, are tolerable to the network bosses who currently enjoy exclusive first broadcast access to 1300 events across 12 sports.
The so-called "anti-siphoning scheme" was introduced in 1994 to ensure that events of national importance and cultural significance remained freely available to the Australian public.
It is a right justified, the free-to-air networks argue, because only about 30 per cent of the public have chosen to, or can afford to, subscribe to pay TV.
The list of sporting events is extensive and spans the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Melbourne Cup, Australian rules football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, soccer, tennis, netball, golf and motor sports. But it is an anti-competitive system which does not sit well with the drive towards a less-regulated economy and has been subject to open criticism even by the Government's own competition watchdogs.
The current anti-siphoning list of sporting events expires on December 31, with the Government now scrambling to reach an agreement on what changes can be made acceptable to the warring pay TV and free-to-air camps.
The third parties in the dispute, major sporting groups such as the AFL, are also eagerly awaiting the result, which could have significant effects on the value of the telecast rights for their events.
The Federal Government's caution on the issue has created a void of information within which wild speculation has developed over the past four weeks and especially since Cabinet first discussed a decision on the issue last week.
In the absence of information, major network advocates have been able to fuel speculation that Australian Open tennis, major AFL games, some international cricket matches and some Olympic events could be lost to pay TV.
The free-to-air TV lobby panicked earlier this month as speculation swirled that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had caved in to pay TV interests to remove the majority of the AFL and NRL weekly matches from the anti-siphoning list.
Senator Conroy has shied away from even suggesting what is on the negotiating table, pending the findings of the year-long review, describing his approach as "dignified" amid the speculation.
Other than denying outright the statement in a Melbourne newspaper that "Some blockbuster AFL games could disappear from free-to-air television", he has made little specific public contribution to what the TV landscape will look like, or even if a decision will definitely be made this year.
Speculation is rife that the AFL will have greater power to sell TV rights to some games to the highest bidder, giving pay TV direct access rather than on-buying off free-to-air stations.
The biggest games would remain on free-to-air but the AFL would benefit financially from any additional competitive tension during bidding for TV rights.
But AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has pointed out that the sport's interests would not be best served by accepting the highest bidder if audience share were decimated in the process. For the future of the sport, fan power is at least the equal of obtaining the top dollar in any bidding process, he has suggested.
With the Federal Government's parliamentary majority on a knife edge it is unlikely brave changes will be made to the current system. A picture developing from limited public comments and leaked versions of executive-level discussions with Senator Conroy is one in which the rights of free-to-air TV to events which are on the anti-siphoning list - but are not considered lucrative enough to telecast live - are eroding.
In exchange the Federal Government would break down the barriers to free-to-air stations telecasting first-run events on their multiple digital channels. At the centre of the debate the two major changes are seen as a sensible compromise.
One advocate of a use it or lose it system for free-to-air TV is Foxtel chief executive Kim Williams who argues what is sought by pay TV is far more sensible than the public debate to date would suggest.
He told ABC radio the debate should be about the content set aside for free-to-air television which is never transmitted. For example, 75 per cent of sport which free-to-air TV has first rights to is not transmitted live.
"That which is played on free-to-air television should continue to enjoy protection, that which is not should be available for open competition," he said.
HOW ANTI-SIPHONING LAWS COULD CHANGE TV
ÂÂ
>WHAT COULD CHANGE: Currently 1300 events in 12 sports are protected for free-to-air television only but the majority are never aired. Protection for free-to-air TV will continue but will be eroded.
>WHAT FREE-TO-AIR TV WANTS: Continued protection from open bidding for major events.
>WHAT PAY TV WANTS: Open competition for major sporting events, without rules currently excluding pay TV.
>WHAT FREE-TO-AIR TELEVISION IS LIKELY TO GET: Relaxation of the current restrictions from airing sporting events on their digital channels.
>WHAT PAY TV IS LIKELY TO GET: A use-it-or-lose-it policy applied to the events such as the 75 per cent of sporting programs they control but do not transmit.
poll on the site
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/tv/televisions-future-being-decided-in-canberra/story-e6freeul-1225958805057
Sport on TV - who decides?
Who should get the job to pick which AFL and NRL games are shown on pay TV and free-to-air TV?
a) Parliament
b) free to air TV (ie networks 7, 9 or 10)
c) The codes - AFL and NRL
d) There should be no restrictions - let the market decide
Vote now
MILES KEMP From: The Advertiser
November 23, 2010 12:01AM
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/tv/televisions-future-being-decided-in-canberra/story-e6freeul-1225958805057
OTHER than big banks, television networks are the most protected species in Canberra but regulatory changes loom which could change all that, as MILES KEMP reports.Â
BIG TV is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the nation's capital, so powerful that the Federal Government has taken more than 12 months to painstakingly negotiate what changes, if any, are tolerable to the network bosses who currently enjoy exclusive first broadcast access to 1300 events across 12 sports.
The so-called "anti-siphoning scheme" was introduced in 1994 to ensure that events of national importance and cultural significance remained freely available to the Australian public.
It is a right justified, the free-to-air networks argue, because only about 30 per cent of the public have chosen to, or can afford to, subscribe to pay TV.
The list of sporting events is extensive and spans the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Melbourne Cup, Australian rules football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, soccer, tennis, netball, golf and motor sports. But it is an anti-competitive system which does not sit well with the drive towards a less-regulated economy and has been subject to open criticism even by the Government's own competition watchdogs.
The current anti-siphoning list of sporting events expires on December 31, with the Government now scrambling to reach an agreement on what changes can be made acceptable to the warring pay TV and free-to-air camps.
The third parties in the dispute, major sporting groups such as the AFL, are also eagerly awaiting the result, which could have significant effects on the value of the telecast rights for their events.
The Federal Government's caution on the issue has created a void of information within which wild speculation has developed over the past four weeks and especially since Cabinet first discussed a decision on the issue last week.
In the absence of information, major network advocates have been able to fuel speculation that Australian Open tennis, major AFL games, some international cricket matches and some Olympic events could be lost to pay TV.
The free-to-air TV lobby panicked earlier this month as speculation swirled that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had caved in to pay TV interests to remove the majority of the AFL and NRL weekly matches from the anti-siphoning list.
Senator Conroy has shied away from even suggesting what is on the negotiating table, pending the findings of the year-long review, describing his approach as "dignified" amid the speculation.
Other than denying outright the statement in a Melbourne newspaper that "Some blockbuster AFL games could disappear from free-to-air television", he has made little specific public contribution to what the TV landscape will look like, or even if a decision will definitely be made this year.
Speculation is rife that the AFL will have greater power to sell TV rights to some games to the highest bidder, giving pay TV direct access rather than on-buying off free-to-air stations.
The biggest games would remain on free-to-air but the AFL would benefit financially from any additional competitive tension during bidding for TV rights.
But AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has pointed out that the sport's interests would not be best served by accepting the highest bidder if audience share were decimated in the process. For the future of the sport, fan power is at least the equal of obtaining the top dollar in any bidding process, he has suggested.
With the Federal Government's parliamentary majority on a knife edge it is unlikely brave changes will be made to the current system. A picture developing from limited public comments and leaked versions of executive-level discussions with Senator Conroy is one in which the rights of free-to-air TV to events which are on the anti-siphoning list - but are not considered lucrative enough to telecast live - are eroding.
In exchange the Federal Government would break down the barriers to free-to-air stations telecasting first-run events on their multiple digital channels. At the centre of the debate the two major changes are seen as a sensible compromise.
One advocate of a use it or lose it system for free-to-air TV is Foxtel chief executive Kim Williams who argues what is sought by pay TV is far more sensible than the public debate to date would suggest.
He told ABC radio the debate should be about the content set aside for free-to-air television which is never transmitted. For example, 75 per cent of sport which free-to-air TV has first rights to is not transmitted live.
"That which is played on free-to-air television should continue to enjoy protection, that which is not should be available for open competition," he said.
HOW ANTI-SIPHONING LAWS COULD CHANGE TV
ÂÂ
>WHAT COULD CHANGE: Currently 1300 events in 12 sports are protected for free-to-air television only but the majority are never aired. Protection for free-to-air TV will continue but will be eroded.
>WHAT FREE-TO-AIR TV WANTS: Continued protection from open bidding for major events.
>WHAT PAY TV WANTS: Open competition for major sporting events, without rules currently excluding pay TV.
>WHAT FREE-TO-AIR TELEVISION IS LIKELY TO GET: Relaxation of the current restrictions from airing sporting events on their digital channels.
>WHAT PAY TV IS LIKELY TO GET: A use-it-or-lose-it policy applied to the events such as the 75 per cent of sporting programs they control but do not transmit.
poll on the site
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/tv/televisions-future-being-decided-in-canberra/story-e6freeul-1225958805057
Sport on TV - who decides?
Who should get the job to pick which AFL and NRL games are shown on pay TV and free-to-air TV?
a) Parliament
b) free to air TV (ie networks 7, 9 or 10)
c) The codes - AFL and NRL
d) There should be no restrictions - let the market decide
Vote now
