Ferangled

Commande, I know the type, beer belly, bottle in hand, tattoos everywhere, Mrs, with a fag on, 2 kids screaming in a push chair/buggie. Donkeys years ago we used to see them waiting for flights-package to Spain. maybe owned a fighting dog. You have the same here in places, from all sorts of countries, but a minority. So MOST of us are brainless. Were you visiting-living here??

2 kids screaming in a push chair? You mean actively pro-creating? God, they must be scum!!!

Does no-one get tired of this bs stereo-typing? Beer, check, tattoos, check, smoker, check, children, check, likes football, check... surely enough evidence for the hang em high brigade to convict them of some crime or other...

I know plenty of people who enjoy a beer, have some tattoos, are married with children and enjoy playing and watching football. Most are fairly decent people IMHO, I guess I must be white trash...

The only people they used to hang around my way were Arsenal supporters !

Clearly Arsenal supporters fall into a different category and all deserve contempt solely for supporting the wrong North London club...

I fully agree, Thai immigration should make visa's harder to get, increase the monetary requirements required every year etc, got to keep the undesirables out of Thailand

My ideal solution ( from a strictly personal perspective of course) for me to sit in immi and just say "yes" or "no" to the officer in charge as the applicants file past me based on a completely arbitrary system that only I know. The only reason I'd give would be " I don't like the look of him"

no under 25s unless accompanied by an over 40 would be my solution , ....cant see anything like this being introduced but im sure it would be benificial to LOS , so many of these younger guys think they are in ibiza or majorca , i wish they would stay there until they learn something from the "school of life" and show some respect , i know thailand is going down hill and the last thing this country needs is idiots like this making the place look more dangerous than it is , please .............just STAY AWAY !

I've read similar comments from many an old perv on here, moaning that all the good looking BGs won't "go with" an elderly gent any more because they have so many younger and more attractive options. How age is at all relevant to this thread I don't know... clearly the young are not inherently stupid and the elderly are not inherently better behaved, in fact taking farang in Thailand the opposite seems to be true.

Personally I don't think the younger generations are the ones that have given farang a bad name here - most come here to party, go directly to party locations (Phang Ngan, Phi Phi, Samui etc) and leave their elder counterparts to support half of Isaan through prostitution while they pick up attractive young girls from across the globe and do so without making payments for the family water buffalo...

Commande, I know the type, beer belly, bottle in hand, tattoos everywhere, Mrs, with a fag on, 2 kids screaming in a push chair/buggie. Donkeys years ago we used to see them waiting for flights-package to Spain. maybe owned a fighting dog. You have the same here in places, from all sorts of countries, but a minority. So MOST of us are brainless. Were you visiting-living here??

2 kids screaming in a push chair? You mean actively pro-creating? God, they must be scum!!!

Does no-one get tired of this bs stereo-typing? Beer, check, tattoos, check, smoker, check, children, check, likes football, check... surely enough evidence for the hang em high brigade to convict them of some crime or other...

I know plenty of people who enjoy a beer, have some tattoos, are married with children and enjoy playing and watching football. Most are fairly decent people IMHO, I guess I must be white trash...

you totally miss the point, nobody is saying everyone has the right to watch football, what is being said here is that GMM should not have hijacked the free channel network causing this debacle in the first place, they should not have been allowed to take over certain aspects of the free terestrial network, if they wanted to pay for the football rights and screen them to viewers - they should have done it with their own network - that is basically what went on here and I'm pretty sure some backhanders were exchanged to allow them to do so, it was fundamentally wrong and improper - it won't happen again I'd assume once the rules have been laid out

GMM bought the rights to UEFA2012 without the means to screen it on their network UEFA were conned and so were the Thai people and those that foolishly bought GMM boxes - the whole thing was a scam from the start

But they didn't hijack the terrestrial signals,

only the PASS THROUGH signals to other satellite downlinks.

And that based on the UEFA contract to

broadcast ONLY encrypted

if it goes out of the national foot print they are contracted with.

Deals could have been made between GMM Z and any and ALL

satellite providers in Thailand for retransmission of the encrypted signals.

The little ones didn't try and True wouldn't or didn't, or whatever happened.

It's never been said once anywhere GMM was unwilling to sub-license the signal,

as long as it was encrypted to other satellite services, with the exception of the

agreed upon terrestrial stations getting it,

but NOT a freebie pass through in the clear to wide footprint satellite.

The courts when with this

If that was really the case and this is all really down to UEFA why were all cable providers also prevented from accessing the FTA channels? OR are you suggesting that somehow the cable "footprint" extends past country borders...

you do not need a true box to watch FTA satelite channels - they are unencrypted and Free - <deleted> don't you understand about this ?

go buy yourself a motorised dish system and see how many FTA chanels you can get, I have one at home and their are litterally thousands

Well, isn't that the problem that UEFA has? GMM bought the rights to Thailand. If you can get the feed via satellites throughout the region, then that will infringe on exclusivity rights bought by providers in other countries.

And so we come full circle back to the issue of GMM hijacking the FTA channels to air the tournament...

Check out some of the European countries and how the content was shared between pay TV and FTA from country to country if you are actually interested in informing yourself on how this works in a non corrupt, properly regulated fashion.

Does it not strike you as strange that literally hundreds of countries aired the tournament and didn't turn it into the fiasco that Thailand has managed to?!

yes Identifying a food vendor and taking action to shut them down would close this case and most people including tourists would move on,

Exactly, the police could easily have fitted up some small time food vendor had they wanted to, the case would be closed and Tourist fears alleviated.

Personally while I think the crime situation here could be greatly improved, I don't believe the situation is totally out of control.

I live on Phuket, have done for quite a few years now and have never been the victim of any serious crime, neither has anyone I know personally. I could not say the same for my time in the UK, France or Italy, all perceived as "safe" countries... just my personal experiences.

You are just going around in circles. No one has put forward the argument that watching football is a basic consumer right. You are either deliberately skirting over the issue or are naive to it.

"When they pay for those rights, that gives them the absolute right to say how it is used "

Not true, that is why you have regulatory bodies like the NBTC across the world, who should have prevented this fiasco from occurring in the first place. There's a quite obvious clue to this in the OP...

"The court also called on the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission to implement new regulations as soon as possible in order to prevent such problems from recurring."

If this deal didn't infringe on consumer rights and there was no conflict of interests here why would the court release that statement???

This is about FTA TV not football or sport. It's about millions of viewers being denied access to FTA TV, big business over consumer rights.

My point is, and as you have pointed out in your post, the contracts are legal, and GMM was within their right to restrict access to the football telecasts. The free to air channels accepted the conditions on the contracts.

Australia has a list of sports that MUST be shown on free to air TV by law, and can't be only shown on Pay TV. And I agree with the concept.

And if the laws are changed here to force free to air to be shown and not blocked, then I would also agree with that.

But in this case, GMM are completely within their rights to block access to free to air on the Pay TV services.

Please indicate where I have pointed that out in my post.

I've made it quite clear that I don't agree with the ruling, believe the contract should never have been allowed in the first place and action should be taken to ensure the rights of consumers to access FTA TV by any means are put ahead of corporate greed and power wrangling.

A suggestion that the NBTC should implement new regulations is hardly satisfactory in my opinion, especially when they have shown a distinct lack of impartiality in how and when they apply the existing regulations.

Your only points seem to be that you agree with anything the court decides and that you support big business deliberate greed and exploitation of the situation over basic consumer rights.

Geographical location for some - not all areas/ locations are covered by the terrestrial signal. Many people living on islands, in valleys and remote areas can't watch TV via a terrestrial antenna. For many the only way to access TV is via satellite.

Then you also have to consider all the homes that are wired for either cable or satellite and do not have terrestrial antennae. This block on FTA channels on cable and sat services put all of these people in the position of either having to buy and install a terrestrial antenna or a GMM receiver to receive essentially, free, national channels.

I find it surprising that so many on here seem to be in favour of big business strategy over basic consumer rights, especially in a country where such rights are evidently lacking.

I don't believe it's a basic consumer right to be able to watch football ... particularly European football in Thailand.

The content is irrelevant, whether it's football, baseball or a documentary on farming, it's FTA TV!!!

"It's only football" just provides people a convenient way to marginalise the fact that this is a blatant infringement of consumer rights and skip out of answering or responding to any points raised that you find difficult to respond to.

I guess that's why having answered your question in post no. 8, rather than continuing that discussion you have gone back to the "it's only football" card to cloud the real issue here. You'd make a fine Thai politician!

No where have I said "It's only football". That doesn't make it a basic consumer right. Sport on TV is big money. Networks pay big money to get the rights to sport, particularly European football. When they pay for those rights, that gives them the absolute right to say how it is used (with restraints implied in the contracts that they sign).

The free to air networks bought rights to show the football on terrestrial TV. Obviously the contract that they agreed to included conditions that they couldn't pass on their free to air feeds to pay tv networks. If they didn't like that condition, they shouldn't have signed the contract.

You are just going around in circles. No one has put forward the argument that watching football is a basic consumer right. You are either deliberately skirting over the issue or are naive to it.

"When they pay for those rights, that gives them the absolute right to say how it is used "

Not true, that is why you have regulatory bodies like the NBTC across the world, who should have prevented this fiasco from occurring in the first place. There's a quite obvious clue to this in the OP...

"The court also called on the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission to implement new regulations as soon as possible in order to prevent such problems from recurring."

If this deal didn't infringe on consumer rights and there was no conflict of interests here why would the court release that statement???

This is about FTA TV not football or sport. It's about millions of viewers being denied access to FTA TV, big business over consumer rights.

Geographical location for some - not all areas/ locations are covered by the terrestrial signal. Many people living on islands, in valleys and remote areas can't watch TV via a terrestrial antenna. For many the only way to access TV is via satellite.

Then you also have to consider all the homes that are wired for either cable or satellite and do not have terrestrial antennae. This block on FTA channels on cable and sat services put all of these people in the position of either having to buy and install a terrestrial antenna or a GMM receiver to receive essentially, free, national channels.

I find it surprising that so many on here seem to be in favour of big business strategy over basic consumer rights, especially in a country where such rights are evidently lacking.

I don't believe it's a basic consumer right to be able to watch football ... particularly European football in Thailand.

The content is irrelevant, whether it's football, baseball or a documentary on farming, it's FTA TV!!!

"It's only football" just provides people a convenient way to marginalise the fact that this is a blatant infringement of consumer rights and skip out of answering or responding to any points raised that you find difficult to respond to.

I guess that's why having answered your question in post no. 8, rather than continuing that discussion you have gone back to the "it's only football" card to cloud the real issue here. You'd make a fine Thai politician!

It is interesting to debate whether the actions of the police in this case are driven by their standard incompetence , ( Hey Sombat , stop manning the helmet checkpoint we need to check out some farang who died...) , or their actions are part of a cunning master plan to limit tourism damage.....

Sometime to understand something, you need to put the shoe on the other foot. So here goes. Lets say hypothetically the son of a wealthy and powerful political family in Thailand suddenly turns up dead in a hotel room in the same fashion as these girls. Do you really think in a million years the police are going to the hi-so family and tell them the results are inconclusive ???

I still think the link to this case is the fact of the 13 or 14 ( so many I am losing track now) people that have died in this manner ( Thailand sudden death hotel syndrome ) in Phi Phi and Chiang Mai, most have been young farang girls.

Regarding your hypothetical scenario, I think the pertinent next question would be if the results were really inconclusive and you are suggesting that under this pressure the police would provide a scapegoat to please, then why have they not so in this case? Surely following this logic that would suggest that actually the results were inconclusive in this case and there has been no deliberate cover up?

Taking the autopsy results on face value, I would think that there is a greater chance that a deliberate poisoning would leave no evidence as opposed to an accidental one; given that one of the main aims in a deliberately poisoning is to do so in a manner which leaves no trace.

@Smedly Totally agree that the current unresolved situation of this case is not doing anything to ease tourist fears in this area, that's my point. I also agree that these people linked to the case need to be located and properly questioned, if they haven't been already, even that's not clear.

If they haven't then they shouldn't have been allowed to leave the country before doing so... another potential indicator of incompetence over a cover up, surely a foreign scape goat would have been the ideal candidate for a police fit up...

It's the right and legal decision.......praise where praise is due. It's a commercial enterprise, the people who were obliged to get the free content got it, and that's it. The next time the rights come up, True will either have to buy them, or come to a re-broadcast deal with GMM, with the approval of Uefa.

I say well done to the courts in cutting through the crap and making the right decision.

"the people who were obliged to get the free content got it"

Who exactly are these people? Certainly not the millions of households that can't get coverage via a terrestrial antenna and can only watch the Thai FTA channels via satellite... effectively you mean those fortunate enough to live in an area with decent terrestrial coverage or those leveraged to buy a GMM receiver.

The court also called on the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission to implement new regulations as soon as possible in order to prevent such problems from recurring.

This says it all, this is simply a face saving ruling and nothing less, yet again money talks in Thailand while ethics walks...

What is stopping anyone from getting free to air coverage? It's in the air. All they need is an antenna.

Geographical location for some - not all areas/ locations are covered by the terrestrial signal. Many people living on islands, in valleys and remote areas can't watch TV via a terrestrial antenna. For many the only way to access TV is via satellite.

Then you also have to consider all the homes that are wired for either cable or satellite and do not have terrestrial antennae. This block on FTA channels on cable and sat services put all of these people in the position of either having to buy and install a terrestrial antenna or a GMM receiver to receive essentially, free, national channels.

I find it surprising that so many on here seem to be in favour of big business strategy over basic consumer rights, especially in a country where such rights are evidently lacking.

It's the right and legal decision.......praise where praise is due. It's a commercial enterprise, the people who were obliged to get the free content got it, and that's it. The next time the rights come up, True will either have to buy them, or come to a re-broadcast deal with GMM, with the approval of Uefa.

I say well done to the courts in cutting through the crap and making the right decision.

"the people who were obliged to get the free content got it"

Who exactly are these people? Certainly not the millions of households that can't get coverage via a terrestrial antenna and can only watch the Thai FTA channels via satellite... effectively you mean those fortunate enough to live in an area with decent terrestrial coverage or those leveraged to buy a GMM receiver.

The court also called on the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission to implement new regulations as soon as possible in order to prevent such problems from recurring.

This says it all, this is simply a face saving ruling and nothing less, yet again money talks in Thailand while ethics walks...

Considering all the earlier conspiracy theories revolving around a police cover up I think the findings, or rather lack there of, "No [illicit] drugs were found in their systems and there were no signs of what may have caused their deaths.", suggests they are not trying to hide anything.

I just can't see that they would deliberately make themselves come across so clueless in such a high profile case. The fact that no illicit drugs were found removes the suggested police favourite "scape goats" eg. mushrooms, od on recreational drugs etc

Unfortunately it seems they are now left clutching at straws and coming across as totally incompetent on an international scale. Had they found evidence of poisoning, whether by foul play or accidental incompetent act by another party, I don't see how it hurts Tourism, any more than it is being currently, to come public with this, rather than the current display of total inability to prevent similar future cases by not finding a definite cause in this one. Surely that would be the best result for Thai Tourism/ Police, for them to have been able come out and said "definite evidence of such and such poison, indicating accidental death due to pesticide"?

I just hope that such extreme symptoms, leading to not one but two simultaneous tragic deaths, would leave some trace and that in despite of any negative factors the Canadian autopsy will be able to turn up something that the Thai's haven't. I'm sure it would be of little consolation to their family but might at least provide them some possibility of closure.

I respectfully disagree. First off, a conclusive result would likely necessitate 'blaming' someone or some entity. Thai authorities don't like to blame their own. If culpability is found with an establishment (hotel, restaurant, etc) then that establishment loses face (at best) and could be held criminally liable and fined. If the evidence points to some punks who may have overdosed them on some poisonous chemicals, then the authorities would have to find and convict the punks - traslating to much added work for cops and investigators, and who's going to pay for those added efforts? Plus, all that added thinking - ouch.

An inconclusive result was the most likely outcome from the get-go, because it's the quickest way for Thais and farang to get on to forgetting the episode - and for farang to get back on the tourist trail to spending money. It's the most expedient way for Thai tourism industry to avoid losing face, relatively speaking.

I agree. Ferangled assumes the Thai authorities act in an intelligent proactive manner. I don't see it. I see nothing but apathy from Thai authorities followed by knee jerk reactions to save face when someone who can actually cause problems for them becomes the proverbial squeaky wheel.

@ Ttelise

How can you possibly gleam from my post that I believe "the Thai authorities act in an intelligent proactive manner"...??? Did you even read my post?!

Here's a few exerts from my post that would dispute your conclusion: "the current display of total inability to prevent similar future cases" , "they are now left clutching at straws and coming across as totally incompetent" , "make themselves come across so clueless"

I was just trying to add a bit of balance to this thread and point out that incompetence doesn't necessarily = deliberate cover up.

@Maidu

Appreciate your point but strange that on another high profile crime thread running here the consensus of opinion among those claiming police corruption, would have us believe that the police have provided a couple of convenient scape goats and forced them to confess. The police appear on the face of it to have reacted swiftly and done a good job in arresting the suspects so quickly. The best outcome for Thai Tourism.

Consider that and then apply it to this case, where the police are visibly looking incompetent and clutching at straws.... would it not be far easier and better for the Thai Tourism industry for them to provide a scapegoat complete with confession?

eg. We've caught the guy, he's confessed, he was cleaning the room, slipped over and poured dangerous chemical everywhere and didn't clean it up properly. No deliberate malice but we'll lock him up for a long time anyway and all can rest assured that this was an isolated case and all is safe here. Move on, nothing to see here and isn't the weather lovely for a holiday?

That would reek of a police cover up, IMHO this reeks of incompetence, nothing more... perhaps I'm wrong, let's just hope the Canadian autopsy shows up something the Thais missed and the family can get some closure.

Considering all the earlier conspiracy theories revolving around a police cover up I think the findings, or rather lack there of, "No [illicit] drugs were found in their systems and there were no signs of what may have caused their deaths.", suggests they are not trying to hide anything.

I just can't see that they would deliberately make themselves come across so clueless in such a high profile case. The fact that no illicit drugs were found removes the suggested police favourite "scape goats" eg. mushrooms, od on recreational drugs etc

Unfortunately it seems they are now left clutching at straws and coming across as totally incompetent on an international scale. Had they found evidence of poisoning, whether by foul play or accidental incompetent act by another party, I don't see how it hurts Tourism, any more than it is being currently, to come public with this, rather than the current display of total inability to prevent similar future cases by not finding a definite cause in this one.

Surely that would be the best result for Thai Tourism/ Police, for them to have been able come out and said "definite evidence of such and such poison, indicating accidental death due to pesticide"?

I just hope that such extreme symptoms, leading to not one but two simultaneous tragic deaths, would leave some trace and that in despite of any negative factors the Canadian autopsy will be able to turn up something that the Thai's haven't.

I'm sure it would be of little consolation to their family but might at least provide them some possibility of closure.

It was in GMM's contract with the FTA stations that True had to pay a broadcast fee? Don't you see anything wrong with that?!

Not particularly. GMM and True are competitors. Competing Pay TV companies don't give access to competitors for sports that they have acquired.

Do you think GMM should have given True a free ride for something that GMM paid a lot of money for?

I don't think GMM should have any say in how FTA channels are restricted.

Had GMM provided their own channels to air the tournament I would have no issue with this whatsoever.

True have done exactly this in the past and permitted access to content on selective games aired on FTA, irrespective of whether "rival" sat companies that show FTA channels had access/ paid rights or not. They know they are the main sat provider here and haven't had to resort to such underhand tactics.

GMM however have deliberately sought to deny all other sat/ cable companies access to them and even sought to blame this on UEFA.

That's my twopence worth on this subject, I've done this thread to death and feel I'm banging my head against a wall here! Have a good weekend

No. The block was down to the simple fact that TRUE did not pay for the content. It is a contractual side issue about leakage.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Why should True have to pay to broadcast free TV for which it gets no advertising revenue? The content is doesn't matter. It is free TV. Does this mean that now some Thai soap opera producer can demand that True pay if his show is broadcast on Channel 3 and it is available to True subscribers?

TH

Because that was probably what was in GMM's contract with the free to air stations ... which they accepted.

It was in GMM's contract with the FTA stations that True had to pay a broadcast fee? Don't you see anything wrong with that?!

No. The block was down to the simple fact that TRUE did not pay for the content. It is a contractual side issue about leakage.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Why should True have to pay to broadcast free TV for which it gets no advertising revenue? The content is doesn't matter. It is free TV. Does this mean that now some Thai soap opera producer can demand that True pay if his show is broadcast on Channel 3 and it is available to True subscribers?

TH

Finally someone else gets it!

Has anyone else noticed True advertising the launch of 17 HD channels next month, free for existing Platinum customers?

To my mind they are actually trying to improve their service and drag Thai Sat TV into the 21st century, about time. Personally I favour a company seeking to improve the content on offer to customers as opposed to one seeking to drag us backwards, leverage money through shady dealings and force subscription by denying other platforms FTA channels selectively

So you propose to twist an existing method that substitutes real drugs for less harmful synthetics and replace those synthetics with the real thing? Surely anyone that fancies a hit would line up and proclaim themselves a "full time junkie"... and that would simply increase demand surely?

Incidentally your last comments..."Some would argue (and be factually correct in this) that by the time you use a drug, the path of that drug to the consumed has already reaped a massive death toll, and the money paid for it goes on to reap a further path of death and destruction. Also, proportionally speaking, there is a great likihood of a drug user causing a death than a drinker or a car driver"

Are simply not facts, no matter how much you would like them to be in order to help substantiate your ravings

Where did I say synthetic? I didn't.

Your second point is the interesting one though. Are you seriously contending that at the moment you are holding a gram of cocaine in your hand that you have bought from a deal, that for that to get there. no one has died? Imprisoned? Extorted? Seriously? You believe this? Also, so the countries that grow opium, hash and cocaine plants in mass amounts; these are nice places then? Afghanistan and the Taliban all funded by a small proportion of the money a junkie pays for his heroin or a pot head pays for his Afghan gold. Your statement is only true if you grow and consume the drugs yourself.

Errr quite that's the point old bean!

Instead of synthetic "fake drugs" intended to wean addicts off you suggest the real thing, for free, coupled with free housing and security.... or a mass poisoning, depending what day it is, direction of wind, what personality you happen to be wearing on that particular day etc. It varies considerably from post to post!

As for your mute comments about weed, these days the vast majority is either home grown or grown in a controlled, legal environment in the Netherlands... showing your age mate! Afghan gold? You really are out of touch!

It strikes me that you have swallowed the US anti-drug propaganda hook, line and sinker without any real understanding of how this trade really works and those that truly profit/ suffer as a result...

And yes actually some of these countries are nice places and well worth a visit... get out a bit more you might gain a valuable sense of perspective on life and learn the valuable lesson that what you read isn't always true

My first post!

To the person who said "They should taint the drugs with some really nasty shit that causes death, and then release it into the general population with massive warnings everywhere about what they have done. Therefore, anyone buying drugs will never quite know for sure if their next childish little kick will be their last. In fact, they would actually have to do it, just say so. Wonder how quickly drug taking would decline then especially from all the weekend warrior coke sniffers."

Does that included all the perscription addicts and alcoholics and smokers too?

That is alot of people you want to kill? Does it just include them or is it any body that breaks the law or hurts people maybe armed robbers, aggravated burglary and people who accidentally kill someone (sleeping at the wheel)! Where would it stop - genocide!!! Always a good way to control the people!!

You really have a great insight into the human mind! People with such an insightful look on the world I really feel benefits us all! your children are so lucky!

Kenny Everet said "round them up, put them in a cornor and bomb the b******ds!!!"

Maybe you need to read Einstein "Peace cannot be kept by force can only be achieved through understanding"! - just incase you dont know who he is look up Albert Einstein in Wikipedia they have a little about him!!!

Good first post but careful not to make the same mistake that I have... some people just like to argue for arguments sake I'm afraid! There seems to be no reasoning with this one

So now these are FTA channels only when they want to be?!

I don't believe UEFA have said anything about extra "fees being charged" to permit Truevisions coverage. The rights were bought by GMM, the decision was theirs whether or not to share with True, as was the use of Thai terrestrial channels to air the tournament and create this situation.

I notice you keeping avoiding the pertinent question here - why, if as you suggest, this block was purely a result of a UEFA ruling about satellite coverage, were the channels not made available for cable providers, eg. Truevisions cable???

They ARE free to air. Anyone can watch them. No one is stopping them from watching the football over the airwaves.

IF you are paying to get a better free to air signal, then you don't get to watch it ... unless you have an aerial.

Clearly the laws about watching free to air don't include watching via pay tv.

If you do want to watch it without an aerial, then you have to pay GMM. That is what companies buying TV rights us all about.

Sent from my shoe phone

Buying TV rights is all about GMM making underhand deals to deny other satellite providers access to free to air content? Really...

You may have noticed that my comment above was made in direct response to another poster, suggesting that FTA refers only to traditional TV antennas and that when distributed by satellite they suddenly are no longer FTA... I am well aware how FTA works the world over, it's only the Thai interpretation of this concept that is getting confused.

Still no one willing to tackle this question I see...

"why, if as you suggest, this block was purely a result of a UEFA ruling about satellite coverage, were the channels not made available for cable providers, eg. Truevisions cable?"

Umm how do the thai people pay for FTA Tv with their taxes. They are mostly privately owned. There is only one that is run by the government and that still takes advertising revenue. <deleted>

As for this disagreement. TRUE didn't want to pay. They didn't want to encrypt the signal. More fool TRUE. GMM booked the space on FTA most if not all Thais can access this legal medium. You on the hand accessed it via an illegal internet sites. Shame on you

sent from my Wellcom A90+

Yes, apologies the <deleted> was OTT... but do you really believe there would be an issue if most/ all Thais had access to GMM receivers/ terrestrial coverage?

And, yes, apologies again, I would much prefer to watch an illegal stream with full English commentary, pre match build up etc and would have done regardless if it was shown on True, at least for the commentary!

I can't believe the whole of Thailand is deprived of HD coverage of a major sporting event in this day and age... medieval stuff!

Shame the international internet speeds from here are so decrepit or we could have all been watching illegal HD streams... then again, if GMM hadn't paid way over the odds for the rights and tried to hold True hostage, we could have watched legally in HD on TrueSports

Yes, when they are FTA,

when they are relinked back up to satellite that is a different situation

when it is on True, even if linked free it is still from satellite and over wider area

and thus contravenes the UEFA agreement unless fees are charged.

So now these are FTA channels only when they want to be?!

I don't believe UEFA have said anything about extra "fees being charged" to permit Truevisions coverage. The rights were bought by GMM, the decision was theirs whether or not to share with True, as was the use of Thai terrestrial channels to air the tournament and create this situation.

I notice you keeping avoiding the pertinent question here - why, if as you suggest, this block was purely a result of a UEFA ruling about satellite coverage, were the channels not made available for cable providers, eg. Truevisions cable???

Nice haul, Sorry for those who like drugs. 555

Shouldn't be sorry at all. So much death and destruction in the world just because these <deleted> like to have a little thrill. Stuff em!

Nah, I'm not sorry, note my laugh 555 as someones drugs get burnt. I like your idea too, the sacrifices a few make will benefit others down the line, maybe even my own kids.

Hard as it may sound, I only care about 4 people on this planet.

I'm sure your kids will really thank you when they start experimenting with drugs and drop dead because some psychotic thought it would be a good idea to poison them... anyone harbouring these sorts of archaic views should be sterilised, the thought of you raising children makes me shudder. My sympathies to your wife and children.