94 replies to this topic

[DrP]

Of course we must all recall that media releases 'do not cut it' and can not be used as a source of information, at least according to alanh.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.  media releases 'do not cut it' only when someone other than alanh refers to them.  When alanh refers to them they (even the precise same article) suddenly become authorative.

Edited by DrP, 01 April 2012 - 06:29 AM.

[alanh]

All,
If you go back to the original statement from the broadcasting act. The anti-syphoning provisions is to prevent Pay TV from stopping FTA from showing sporting events of national importants.

The Anti-syphoning provisions are being applied in NSW and Qld. This leaves Foxtel with no interest in broadcasting the NRL in all other licence areas.
As a result the anti-syphoning provisions are not required.

The reason for the Nine media release is to cover the fact that they could have done this last season provided they reach a licencing agreement with the ARL.

AlanH

[DrP]

Give it up alanh.  Your point about the government having nothing at all to do with it earlier on has been well and truly disproven.  All you are doing is digging the hole deeper and deeper.  Even those mysterious hidden forum members you claim support you 100% must be smirking by now.

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

All,
If you go back to the original statement from the broadcasting act. The anti-syphoning provisions is to prevent Pay TV from stopping FTA from showing sporting events of national importants.

The Anti-syphoning provisions are being applied in NSW and Qld. This leaves Foxtel with no interest in broadcasting the NRL in all other licence areas.
As a result the anti-syphoning provisions are not required.

The reason for the Nine media release is to cover the fact that they could have done this last season provided they reach a licencing agreement with the ARL.

AlanH

The original statement from the broadcasting act has a blanket ban on showing anti-siphoning list events on SDTV and HDTV mutlichannels as well as a list of events that it covers. The list is not on a state by state basis, the list is not on a 'if Foxtel is interested' basis, it is not on a 'agreement with the ARL' basis. It is in black and white - there is a list of sporting events that FTA channels cannot air on multichannels prior to their airing on the main channel. Nationally. Without exception.

As a helpful poster once stated:

alanh, on 02 November 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Why do so many of you missing the point.
For the anti-syphoning law, events like the Melbourne Cup have to be broadcast on either analog or an SD channel. Analog in areas where it is still on air and SD where analog has been switched off.

The anti-syphoning law applies to all broadcasters

Now that all you can buy is HD or Full HD receivers and HD STBs are $50 is it time to pressure for a change in the anti-syphoning law. The "Main channel" definition be changed to the HD channel.

Commercial stations can make more money if they don't simulcast.

AlanH

And that:

alanh, on 31 March 2010 - 11:31 PM, said:

If the commercial station is transmitting a program which must not be transmitted by Pay TV such as the Melbourne Cup, it must be transmitted on the analog transmitter and SD DTV program stream. Not allowed to transmit this program on the secondary  program stream.

If the above program is being transmitted on the analog transmitter it may be transmitted in HD.

It also says a station is not allowed to transmit the anti-syphon event on another (secondary) program stream

So, again, point me to the state based exemptions in the legislation that magically change this otherwise clear situation with respect to the AFL and NRL coverage.

[alanh]

If the anti-syphoning provisions applied, then nine would have had to show NRL outside of NSW & Qld on analog and SD digital. In WA they tried it once a long time ago and it did not rate which is why it was delayed till midnight. If the laws apply NRL would have been common place. The anti-hoarding sections of the law would mean that the NRL would have had to be offered to ABC & SBS who obviously did not want it. It then goes to Pay TV who did not want it either so nobody showed it live.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

If the anti-syphoning provisions applied, then nine would have had to show NRL outside of NSW & Qld on analog and SD digital.

Which they did.

I'll expand on this with a practical example. Last year while on daylight savings, Nine would have started airing an NRL match in Sydney at 7:30 AEDT, which would typically begin to air in Nine Melbourne between 11:00pm and 12:30am, depending on the length of the Friday Movie that usually screens first. That means, for a best case scenario, the NRL would be on as little as a 3 and a half hour delay in to Melbourne, but more typically closer to four. Meanwhile, Seven Melbourne aired, on delay at 8:30pm AEDT an AFL match that began at 7:40pm AEDT. Seven Perth would then have aired this same match, delayed, at 8:30pm AWST - or 4 hours after the match began.

Under your claim, in these equal scenarios that occurred multiple times last year, the anti-hoarding legislation would have kicked in and required Seven to give the ABC or SBS the chance to air the AFL - a chance they must have turned down, followed by Pay TV turning it down before its delayed airing on Seven Perth was allowed? Correct?

Edited by GoForMoe, 01 April 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Malich]

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

All,
If you go back to the original statement from the broadcasting act. The anti-syphoning provisions is to prevent Pay TV from stopping FTA from showing sporting events of national importants.

We have done exactly that in this thread, and we all know and agree on the purpose of the anti-siphoning provisions & legislation.

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The Anti-syphoning provisions are being applied in NSW and Qld. This leaves Foxtel with no interest in broadcasting the NRL in all other licence areas.

The anti-siphoning provisions and legislation are not state-based. This is can be proven by simply reading the legislation. They apply Australia-wide, or not at all - but do not require that events on the list be broadcast Australia-wide.

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

As a result the anti-syphoning provisions are not required.

No. By the simple fact that 9 has the existing rights to broadcast NRL games, and in (in some markets at least) is broadcasting them on the primary channel, the anti-siphoning provisions are in effect.

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

The reason for the Nine media release is to cover the fact that they could have done this last season provided they reach a licencing agreement with the ARL.

No, the reason for the Nine media release is that because the anti-siphoning provisions are in effect (as demonstrated above), if they choose to broadcast them in a particular market they must use the primary channel. Showing them on a secondary channel would breach the requirements of the existing anti-siphoning provisions. Hence, they needed a ministerial determination giving a variation to the anti-siphoning legislation.

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

If the anti-syphoning provisions applied, then nine would have had to show NRL outside of NSW & Qld on analog and SD digital.

No, as explained previously and again above, the anti-siphoning provisions are not state based. Broadcasting an event on the anti-siphoning list in any market* is enough to satisfy the legislation.

(* Actually, I vaguely remember something about it being necessary that events be broadcast in a major market in order to trigger the anti-siphoning provisions. Or maybe it was reported as being in their contracts with the leagues. Either way, the point was to prevent them (for example) broadcasting NRL games in Broome and claiming compliance.)

alanh, on 01 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

In WA they tried it once a long time ago and it did not rate which is why it was delayed till midnight. If the laws apply NRL would have been common place. The anti-hoarding sections of the law would mean that the NRL would have had to be offered to ABC & SBS who obviously did not want it. It then goes to Pay TV who did not want it either so nobody showed it live.

You really are an idiot, Alan. In fact, if you actually read the pieces of legislation you keep referring to, you'd be less of an idiot than you are now - simply because you'd then know how much of an idiot you've been through this whole thread.

[DansDans]

Any chance someone can talk about the quality and advanatges of this arrangement instead of the crap above?

[GoForMoe]

DansDans, on 01 April 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Any chance someone can talk about the quality and advanatges of this arrangement instead of the crap above?

Well the net of it is that those in Victoria, SA and WA get the NRL live and in HD on Gem, while those in Sydney and Brisbane get to watch in SD on Nine or wait for the delayed replay on Fox. But of course since Extra started, Gem's even more bit starved so the PQ looks terrible in fast motion, so the only time anything looks good is when it is all absolutely still.

It's obviously better than the late night replays, but I'd rather have an AFL style deal where all the Storm games get played into Melbourne, than getting whatever the luck of the draw is - which I think is 5 of the matches. Considering the NRL is fixed to have a Friday night game with a Queensland team just about every week, it leaves little FTA TV time for Melbourne.

[alanh]

Malich,
No it's not state based, it's licence area based. Essentially licence areas are one for each mainland state capital, Regional Qld, North coast/New England, Southern NSW but including the NW slopes, East and West Victoria, Regional SA, WA SW/GSW/Central Ag, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie/Esperance, Tasmania, Darwin, Remote NT/Qld, Remote NSW/Vic/Tas/SA, Remote WA.

Just because I do not agree with you, does not make me an idiot.

All,

Quote

"The Minister may publish a declaration under subsection (1AA) only if the Minister is satisfied that at least one commercial television broadcasting licensee or national broadcaster has not had a reasonable opportunity to acquire the right to televise the event concerned."

Broadcast Services Act  Vol 1 page 271

The anti-hoarding means it has to be offered to the ABC/SBS. They do not have to show it either if they wish. They do not wish to show it for the asking price. Now anybody who the NRL wishes to authorise can show it provided they pay a high enough price. The NRL does not have to sell the broadcast to any body if they wish.

The new ARL has now decided to get more exposure in states other than NSW/Qld. So they have agreement with the NINE/WIN networks to show the program on GEM, with the anti-syphoning working in NSW & Qld. This is what I have said from the start.


AlanH

[MLXXX]

Alanh,
can you please explain your understanding of why the Minister made the amendment labelled 4.1 in this formal Notice?:-

No. 5 of 2012 Notices & Notifications as made

This notice amends the Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010 to remove all matches to be played between 30 March 2012 and 30 April 2012 as part of the 2012 National Rugby League Premiership competition, and the international rugby league 'test' match to be played in New Zealand between Australia and New Zealand on 20 April 2012, from the current anti-siphoning list.

Administered by: Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010

(Amendment No. 5 of 2012)

I, STEPHEN MICHAEL CONROY, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, under subsection 115(2) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, hereby amend the Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010 made under subsection 115(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Dated 28 March 2012


STEPHEN MICHAEL CONROY

Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

____________________

1. Name of Notice

This Notice is the Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010 (Amendment No. 5 of 2012).

2. Commencement

This Notice commences on the day it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.

3. Definitions

In this Notice:

Principal Notice means the Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010.

4. Amendments

4.1 Substitute Item 5.1 of the Schedule to the Principal Notice with the following:

5.1 Each match in the National Rugby League Premiership competition, including the Finals Series, except for:

(a) all matches to be played between 30 March 2012 and 30 April 2012 as part of the 2012 National Rugby League Premiership competition.

4.2 Substitute Item 5.3 of the Schedule to the Principal Notice with the following:

  
5.3 Each international rugby league “test” match involving the senior Australian representative team, played in Australia, New Zealand or the United Kingdom, except for:

(a) the match to be played on 20 April 2012 in New Zealand between the senior Australian representative team and the New Zealand representative team.

[Malich]

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

No it's not state based, it's licence area based.

No it's not. Proof? Read the actual current legislation.

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

Just because I do not agree with you, does not make me an idiot.

This is one of the few things we apparently do agree on.

Consistently being wrong doesn't make you an idiot either - merely wrong. Consistently being too stubborn to accept you're wrong doesn't make you an idiot either - merely stubborn and wrong.

But consistently being wrong, consistently refusing to accept you're wrong, then continuing to publicly spread the same mistaken understanding, makes you an idiot.

Even then, most of us here couldn't give a toss. It's the continuing spouting, re-telling, and spreading of easily-refutable misinformation by you, a senior member of this forum and alleged one-time educator, that we're really objecting to. By dint of your high post count and claimed former status, some people will look to you for information - and, if they do, they're almost certainly getting badly-distorted, mistaken, and false information.

That's why I think you're an idiot.

In future, alanh, you could save yourself a lot of typing and public embarrassment (and the rest of the world a lot of head-scratching and raised blood pressure) by just reading this page and pretending you're posting.

[Malich]

Further food for thought:
Sport on television: A review of the anti-siphoning scheme in the contemporary digital environment Review report November 2010

Points to note:

• Consistent reference is made to free-to-air "networks" and "broadcasters", not licencees or licence areas.
  
• "The anti-siphoning scheme effectively provides free-to-air broadcasters with the first opportunity to acquire the broadcast rights events on the anti-siphoning list. However, the scheme does not specify any particular kind of coverage. Free-to-air broadcasters may chose to provide live and full coverage of an event, although they are not obliged to do so under the scheme. The form and frequency of coverage of anti-siphoning listed events is a scheduling matter for the broadcaster determined primarily by commercial considerations and often in negotiation with the sports body that is making the rights to the event available."
  
• "Events on the anti-siphoning list can be shown on free-to-air digital multi-channels at the same time as, or after, they are shown on the broadcaster’s main channel—but not before." ¹
  
• "The anti-siphoning scheme currently prohibits free-to-air broadcasters from premiering events on the anti-siphoning list on multi-channels unless the event has already been shown, or is simultaneously shown, on the broadcaster’s main channel. This restriction was introduced in 2006 to provide the widest access for viewers to anti-siphoning listed events while digital television take-up remained relatively low."

Now, I realise this is merely a report summarising the current outcomes of a government review, and doesn't have the cachet - or, indeed, legislative force - of either a ministerial press release or the voices inside alanh's head. But it certainly displays the DBCDE & government's interpretation of the current anti-siphoning rules.

(¹ - This is a tricky one, and a potential reason for alanh to jump up and gloating state "Look! See! I told you that they didn't need permission to broadcast NRL on Gem Perth when it's broadcast on the main 9 channel in eastern states! Therefore, I was right all along!". But remember, they are quotes from a summary. It's very clear from the actual legislation and other surrounding documentation that this restriction is designed to ensure broadcast on a primary channel before it appears on an associated secondary channel in the same market.)

(Oh, and BTW, this time I've chosen to highlight sarcasm and snark in indigo...)

[hidefdave]

[alanh]

Malich,
Please explain why the NRL has not been shown live for many years outside of NSW & QLD in analog?

AlanH

[DrP]

Attempting to divert attention away from your error is not the answer.  Admit it.  Move on.

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Malich,
Please explain why the NRL has not been shown live for many years outside of NSW & QLD in analog?

Because there's no requirement for them to do so, and there was a law preventing them putting it on a multichannel.

If you're still trying to claim their delay breaks anti-hoarding laws, explain why the situation I posted here http://www.dtvforum....dpost&p=1793351 is different.

[Malich]

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Malich,
Please explain why the NRL has not been shown live for many years outside of NSW & QLD in analog?

http://www.dtvforum....dpost&p=1793576

Alanh,
Please explain why you believe 9 did not have to obtain a ministerial amendment to the anti-siphoning legislation in order to broadcast NRL games on Gem in Perth.

Edited by Malich, 02 April 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[alanh]

Malich,
For the same reason that analog channel 9 outside NSW and Qld has never shown NRL except at very late hours.

AlanH

[Malich]

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Malich,
For the same reason that analog channel 9 outside NSW and Qld has never shown NRL except at very late hours.

AlanH

Alanh,
Please explain why you believe 9 did not have to obtain a ministerial amendment to the anti-siphoning legislation in order to broadcast NRL games on Gem in Perth.

[crippstor]

alanh, on 02 April 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Malich,
For the same reason that analog channel 9 outside NSW and Qld has never shown NRL except at very late hours.

AlanH

Alan, I was going to get you a shovel to dig yourself in deeper but you are doing such a good job yourself. Your statement above is incorrect, unless you call 7.30pm very late, or do you call Sunday afternoon late as well?

[doodlefeatures]

I had a quick squiz on Sunday, the picture was terrible, any little bit of movement and there were blocks all over the screen

[MLXXX]

<sup>As alanh is declining to offer an explanation about why the Minister saw fit to amend the legislative rules, we might as well talk about Picture Quality.

How many of the NRL matches are being covered using HD cameras?</sup>

[DansDans]

Finally, back on topic

Was Sunday's game LIVE?

[Slattery]

1. When analogue singals are finally turned off in 2013, will we finally change to the HD signal becoming the primary channel or will we still be stuck watching 9's summer of cricket in pathetic SD still?

2. Last friday night's game involving the storm on GEM HD in Melbourne was that blocky with an obvious low bitrate is was almost unwatchable. However, when I went to GEM HD through Foxtel HD it looked very good. (Not up to Fox Sports Channels standards but still good.)

<sup>How many of the NRL matches are being covered using HD cameras?

All 8 games on Fox Sports were shown in HD over the weekend!</sup>

Edited by Slattery, 03 April 2012 - 08:57 AM.