So through a press statement by Free TV that was about a dozen paragraphs longer than it could’ve been - are they basically trying to argue “we want to be able to have anti-siphoning mean we should be able to take the rights for something and then only have to place it on 7plus/9Now/etc”?
First thought is, subscription is one thing, but does that mean that a FAST service from someone else (I know it’s early days and how viable that’d be in AUS is another matter, but say if Freevee pops up here for argument’s sake) should also be able to qualify under that model, even though it’s not over-the-air? I’m sure they’d baulk and cover their ears at that…
There needs to be clarity around streaming and serious consideration needs to be given to it being either you allow all free streaming options to be permissible or none.
This model must be seen for what it is a marketing strategy to loss lead with a small number of sports in front of a paywall in the hope of driving increased subscriptions. Australians can’t afford marketing strategies to take the place of good public policy.
So when inevitably FTAs start dumping listed content onto BVOD only, its what? Because that doesn’t seem like good public policy either.
These responses are basically predictable - Free TV wants more restrictions, Foxtel wants less. Could have told you that before the consultation opened.
Its really time to clarify what free actually means - is it it has to be a licenced FTA broadcaster (regardless of how they deliver it) or is it anyone who can provide the coverage free-to-access (which could be an FTA broadcaster, or Foxtel, or Amazon, or even old mate who tried to by the UCL rights). The former is a community benefit that is wrapped around protectionism, the latter still has a community benefit without the protection nor does it stop the FTAs from operating their current model.
There probably also needs to be consideration of what happens if listed sports want to distribute their content themselves (i.e. run their own streaming service) - the rules need to reflect the current reality of broadcasting, not some historical relic of how broadcasting was.
