Posts by Paul Campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: Geoblocking, global mode and NZ…, in reply to llew40,
Paul, it’s still definitely a content owners/sellers market. There are now lots of SVOD services competing/bidding for the rights which is driving up price.
Yes but I think that's going to change - I remember when I was a kid - we have a very controlled economy in NZ - when someone was imported into NZ Customs took a cut, then the importer did, then the wholesaler, and finally the retailer - stuff was really expensive - now days chances are the retailer is importing directly, or maybe I am - one of the reasons things are still expensive here is that some of that system lingers on (try and get a high value item through customs without paying a customs agent - who, as far as I can tell exists to pass my money on to Customs and take a cut, why don't Customs have a website and an online payment system?)
I bthink that the content creators will realise that they can make more money if they sell stuff themselves, directly to the end user - yes they'll probably pay a SVOD platform (like NetFlix or LightBox) to host it for them - but the world has changed - the very interconnectedness that the internet creates allows them to interact directly with their customers, we'll pay less, they'll earn more and the middle-people will be squeezed out
-
The US also has "must carry" rules which means that cable and satellite companies must carry local broadcast TV stations - the trade off is that they don't have to pay for the broadcast TV they use. Here, with so few broadcast channels, we could require NZ on Air content to be carried .....
But you know internet TV kind of changes all that - no reason why I can't get TVNZ from TVNZ, TV3 from TV3, Discovery from whoever wants to offer it the cheapest, particular series from a film library like NetFlix. Rugby from the NZRFU, If I want the Shopping channel maybe they pay me.
This whole bundling thing is another bit of history we no longer really have a need of - the wire coming into my house can feed me video from anyone, not just what the cable company, or the phone company, or the sattelite company wants to put on it - I'm no longer tied to a single physical provider - there's no real need for these distributers like LightBox - middle men trying to take an extra cut of the pie - Netflix started off as a video library we'll probably still need those - but the idea that all TV should be sold through a 3rd party seems like simple rent taking.
In fact a lot of what we think of as a TV channel exists because of the way our wires have worked in the past there's no reason why they have to be a linear thing we subscribe to - a digital sports 'channel' will likely just be something a web site with streaming video and a video library
-
Yes but things are changing - I can buy my books from Amazon on my Kindle, or at my local book store, or as I used to, take an extra bag when I travel and fill it with books.
The same happened with music - I could buy from my local CD store, if there still was a good one (Real Groovy bought most of the good ones in Dunedin then went bust), or from ITunes .... if they had a Linux client ..... sadly I used to buy a CD a week, now I buy maybe two a year .... I miss music, I don't really know how to buy it any more, its distributers have failed me, one of their better customers
TV is about to go through the same paradigm shifts and we're seeing the various platforms jockey for position, bizarrely by doing exactly the things that most piss us off and alienate us
-
As I read the Commerce act yes I think it is.
I don't see a problem with the NZRFU licensing rugby to other then Sky, why shouldn't Netflix or Lightbox sell it too? the result is that the subscribers get shafted, want rugby or Game of Thrones, you need a Sky subscription, want Better Call Saul you need LightBox - this manipulation of the market drives prices up and competition out.
Why aren't there multiple distributers competing to provide rugby at the cheapest price? I don't much care about keeping particular rugby players around, I don't watch it, but it's not a reason why we should force people to purchase stuff they don't want to watch two or three times just to see the things they do want to see.
That's kind of the point though isn't it, the world is changing, it isn't really a content seller's market any more, they're scrabbling to hold on to their monopolies, consumers have lots of options now - 3-5 digital TV services, broadcast, cable in some cities, Sky - supposedly I'm getting gigabit fibre before the end of the year - that's roughly the same sized pipe as all the data that goes into a residential neighbourhood's cable plant for all the people who watch it in the entire neighbourhood - propably I'll cancel my Sky unless they can convince me I should stay- their MPEG quality sucks because their pipes are narrow. I'm looking much more for an ala carte provider I'll happily pay for the dozen channels I watch regulaly - I want Discovery and not the shopping channels, I'm an athiest but I can't block my kids from seeing the religious channels, I never watch any sport, why is that still on my TV grid? why can't I do an instant replay back skip on my MySky? (for dialog the "what did they say?" button) or skip forward past the ads?
(disclaimer: I spent a decade or so building set top boxes .. I share 2 Emmys for doing so, I've actually used good ones)
-
I'm saying the paying for exclusive rights within New Zealand creates a monopoly with New Zealand - which is illegal, and therefore not enforceable
(to repeat what I quoted above)
Section 27(1) of the Commerce act says “No person shall enter into a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, containing a provision that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market.”
While 27(4) says “No provision of a contract, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market is enforceable.”
-
Access: Geoblocking, global mode and NZ…, in reply to Steve Curtis,
I havent heard heard such a load of whinny self entitlement in a long time!. My good friend it is the producers of the show who sell the rights to who ever they choose. As for your rights, you are essentially naked, zilch, nada
It still doesn't give you a right to negotiate a monopoly, the law says it explicitly - in doing so Lightbox is essentially paying whoever make "Better Call Saul" to be the one to charge me (and to charge me more) for the privilege of seeing it. They are negotiating aaway my choice with the hope that they can leverage their monopoly to screw more money out of their market. That is illegal.
As it happens I also have other rights, I have the right to NOT spend my money on Lightbox because of their monopolistic behaviour, which is exactly what I'm doing - their service might just be the perfect one for me, but they wont get my money while they conspire with others to charge me more and reduce my choices.
I want to see real competition between digital providers - but heads up guys, when I choose, I'm only going to choose just one of you and it's more likely to be because of what you carry and what you don't carry, and so long as you keep playing silly buggers I'm more likely going to choose an off-shore provider with a wider range of material
-
Slightly off topic but I've realised that the thing that I find most offensive about the current attack on our right to choose who we purchase our media from is that what happens is that someone like Lightbox or Sky goes to someone like HBO or Showtime and negotiates away MY right to choose my media provider for a particular show - it means if I want to watch both Game of Thrones and Better Call Saul I have to purchase subscriptions to both services paying for 95% of their services twice.
What's missing at all these negotiations is my seat at the table, if you're going to negotiate my choices away, I should get a cut (actually we all should get a cut) - this negotiation gives Sky or Lightbox a monopoly position in New Zealand, and we see Lightbox in particular trying to leverage that monopoly to try and create a market position in the nascent NZ digital TV market.
Section 27(1) of the Commerce act says "No person shall enter into a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, containing a provision that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market."
While 27(4) says "No provision of a contract, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market is enforceable."
I would argue that Sky, Lightbox and friends don't have a leg to stand on
-
Hard News: The other kind of phone tapping, in reply to John Farrell,
Angela – I also worked on rotary – the Dunedin central exchange had both types as well. The oddest system we had was a “trombone satellite” exchange at Ravensbourne.
I remember visiting it on a school trip some time in the early 60s
-
BTW being the only country in the world with a backwards dial was a particular problem with push button phones, while the chips one could buy to manufacture them would happily make standard DTMF tones they wouldn’t make backwards dial pulses – in the US the various phone companies charged a premium for a DTMF capable line for many years, in NZ there was intense pressure to provide DTMF to support electronic phones
extra BTW: more about ‘battery’ – in California the phone company is required by law to be able to operate even if all the phones in the state get picked up at the same time (ie the big one hits) provided they don’t all dial, that means enough battery to power all the phones at once
-
I remember my delight in the telephone in a scene in Heavenly Creatures all black with that braided cord - just like my grandmother's