No doubt the Government will decide that âfreeâ means âFTA networkâ so it protects the crumbling empires of the legacy television networks.
Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications today released its report on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill. The recommendations are:
- The committee recommends that the Minister for Communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe.
- The committee recommends that the Minister for Communications request that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, and the Arts prioritise the implementation of radio prominence on devices such as smart speakers.
- The committee recommends that the Minister for Communications amend the bill to extend free-to-air codes of practice to online services.
- The committee recommends that the Minister for Communications, on advice from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, and the Arts amend the bill to allow the review of the prominence framework to be conducted within two years of implementation, as necessitated by rapid technological change.
- The committee recommends that the Minister for Communications consider, either before or as part of the prominence framework review, other related reforms in the industry, to reflect the growing role of the internet, online service provision, and consumer behaviour.
- The committee recommends, subject to the recommendations contained earlier in this chapter, that the prominence provisions of the bill be passed.
- The committee recommends that the anti-siphoning provisions of the bill be passed.
Full report
Sevenâs response to the Senate committee report
TV networks unite to keep sport free for all Australians
The Seven, Nine and 10 networks have joined forces to launch a new advertising campaign this morning urging the Federal Government to amend its proposed changes to the anti-siphoning Bill.
With the Bill coming before Federal Parliament this week, the new âFree Sport Is On The Lineâ ads are running across print, online and social media.
The key issue for the commercial free-to-air television industry is that the Bill only addresses access to free sport for Australians who watch through an aerial, which represents only 61% of people, a proportion that is declining. It ignores people who access TV content through connected TV apps and mobile devices. The industry also wants the government to apply the prominence framework to TV sets already in the market.
Seven West Media Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Howard, said: âWe welcome the governmentâs plan to keep sports for free on broadcast TV, but it needs to do more: it must recognise the way people watch sport is changing and extend the amendments to the anti-siphoning regime to include free streaming.
âItâs very simple: the new Bill only guarantees free sports for Australians who have an aerial. It does not guarantee people will get free sport if they choose to stream it over the internet or donât have an aerial. No aerial is going to mean no access to free sport in the future.
âUnder the current proposed rules, Australians who donât use an aerial will not have guaranteed access to free sport. The clock is ticking: as people increasingly use the internet to watch sport, they are going to have to pay unless the government acts now.â
Mike Sneesby, Chief Executive Officer of Nine, said: âAustralian audiences need to be able to watch sport for free whenever and however they choose to enjoy it. We need the government to deliver the anti-siphoning framework that ensures we can continue to provide this for all Australians.â
Network 10 President and Head of Streaming and Regional Lead, Paramount ANZ, Beverley McGarvey, said: âWhen Australians go to free-to-air TV, they increasingly donât even think of an aerial as the gateway, they simply access our channels and content whenever they want, wherever they are and on whatever device they choose.
âItâs no different with the big sports events. Australiansâ free access to the Australian Formula One Grand Prix or the Matildas and Socceroos shouldnât be governed by how they choose to access our channels. They donât think that way and neither should the government when devising the anti-siphoning and prominence laws for all Australians and their TVs.â
More information can be found at Free TV Australiaâs Free For Everyone website.
Free TV CEO Greg Haywood has written an opinion piece in Mondayâs edition of Australian Financial Review, explaining why it is important for the federal government to amend the proposed changes to the anti-siphoning bill.
Funny how FreeTV and the networks are up in arms about the small percentage of people who could not watch sport if another company offers to pay more for the rights
Yet theyâve been silent in the slow removal and death of scripted Australian drama from our screens putting it all behind streaming pay walls
I prefer to see my sports ad free
At the moment I think it also depends on what you want to watch as the FTA networks have been buying up rights to everything that Foxtel wonât.
Australians face paying up to $2000 to watch sport under Governmentâs new laws
Free TV Australia warned that Australians are facing annual payments of up to $2000 a year just to watch their beloved free sports. The peak industry body today called on the Government to urgently reconsider its approach to anti-siphoning legislation following revelations that consumers in the US are facing paying up to $2400 each to watch the 2024 NFL season alone.
âNews from the US today that consumers will need to pay more than $2400 (USD $1600) to watch the full 2024 season of NFL should alarm every Australian. US consumers will be forced to subscribe to up to seven separate streaming apps just to watch a single season of NFL.
âThis is a clear signal of what we will face in Australia if we donât future-proof new laws to protect Australiansâ right to free sport on TV, however they access it,â said Free TV CEO Bridget Fair. âWith the current cost of living pressures Australians are facing, it is hard to understand why the Government is not stepping in to stop this from happening.â
âIn Australia weâve always had a right to share the highs and lows of our favourite sporting teams with our family and friends for free, no matter how much we earn. Watching free sport brings the nation together and is part of the Australian way of life. We donât want a two-tier community where the haves can watch sport, and the have-nots miss out.
âAustralians should not have to sign up to seven streaming services just to get the sports they currently get for free. And this is the horribly certain future under the new anti-siphoning rules before the parliament which do not protect the right of Australians to watch their free sport if they access their free TV services via the internet.â Ms Fair said.
More and more Australians watch their free TV via the internet using apps like 7Plus, 9Now or 10Play because they donât have an aerial on their house and use their internet connection instead. Almost 40% of Australians do not have access to an aerial right now. It is predicted that more than half of all viewing of free TV services will be via the internet by the end of the decade.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024 will be considered by the Senate in June. Unless it is amended, it will be outdated before the opening siren, because it only guarantees free sport if you watch via broadcast TV, not if you watch your free TV services using free streaming apps.
The Bill must be amended to require that both the free broadcast and free digital streaming rights be acquired by a free broadcaster before the event can be acquired by a pay TV or subscription streaming provider.
The Bill prevents subscription streaming services such as Amazon, Apple and Disney from buying exclusive terrestrial broadcast rights to iconic sporting events like the Olympics, AFL, NRL and cricket, but they can still acquire exclusive digital rights and lock out the millions of Australians who watch free sport on services such as 7plus, 9Now and 10Play.
âIf we donât fix this glaring omission, it is a certainty that Australians will have to pay to watch the sports they currently get for free. And thatâs just not right.â
So $876 of the US$1610 is for âNetwork games: Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, ESPNâ. Which I guess is 12 months of YouTube TV streaming cable service, not sure why you need to pay for the whole year for a 5 month competition, nevermind all but 5 of those games last season were available by antenna.
$60 for Peacock (which seems to be a yearâs worth), when theyâve got 1 exclusive game (from Brazil) this season, so could just go with the $6 for a month. I guess theyâre also simulcasting the NBC games but youâd already be able to access that with YouTube TV.
No clue why theyâre paying for NFL+ (which seems to be equivalent to the old Telstra Live Pass mobile only streaming plans, but only getting local broadcast games).
Also paying for a yearâs worth of ESPN+ (for $99) rather than $10 a month for the 5 months of the season.
It is hypocritical that Nine and Ten are supporting Keep Sport Free while putting parts of the French Open tennis and the Socceroosâ away game against Bangladesh on paywalls on their respective paid streaming services. I predict Nine will do the same for Wimbledon. And while the Olympics are on you can play the drinking game when a Nine commentator says âwatch Stan Sport to see the games live in 4K and on demandâ.
Also the previous Rugby World Cup had less games on FTA under the 9/Stan deal compared to the one prior on Fox/10
Thatâs a surefire way to get liver poisoning 
What they say: Keep sport free.
What they mean: Keep sport free from Foxtel, Amazon, Optus etc, when we put things behind a paywall itâs fine.
It depends on whether the product available on FTA is reduced as a result of the subscription tier. As long as the FTA component is not compromised, it isnât an issue as that free component is still there, which is as it should be.
Will be interesting to see how much FTA coverage Wimbledon gets this year compared to previous years?
Wouldnât mind betting that sometime many sports bodies will try a restraint of free trade High Court case if all broadcast and streaming rights continue getting FTA protection?