Originally Posted by
griffin
Too many politicians and their (business owner) friends have a stake in Foxtel... so it will be well protected from any competition to its monopoly.
One of the big problems is that they are treating Foxtel as the same broadcast medium as free-to-air TV or online streaming... when it should be treated as its own broadcast medium (like radio, FTA-TV, Internet, pay-TV, newspapers, magazines). Each has its own realm and competitors... and exclusive rights to that broadcast medium.
Foxtel should be competing against other Pay-TV companies (like cable channels compete in America), but due to the way that broadcast medium was set up by the Federal Government, and then created a domineering juggernaut in the communications field of phones and Pay-TV when they sold off Telstra, Foxtel soon became a monopoly to Pay-TV (and phones).
It shouldn't be a direct competitor to FTA-TV, or Internet streaming of content, just because they've now crushed all opposition in the Pay-TV realm. The point of Pay-TV is to watch the same programs without advertising... that's what you are paying directly for, instead of indirectly on FTA-TV by patronising the advertisers. If Pay-TV keeps expanding on their exclusive content to the point of it being the only source of all the hit shows and sports, they'll start treating it like regular TV and fill the thing with commercials because exclusive content will be the incentive to pay for a subscription. (they haven't promoted "commercial free" for a long time now anyway)
Each of the other broadcast mediums are treated as separate for content, ratings and exclusive programming deals, so Foxtel shouldn't be given exclusive rights over other broadcast mediums. Otherwise, we will see more problems and more corruption by politicians protecting their investments, and their family and friends' investments, by prioritising and protecting Foxtel.
Reply With Quote