Blank Screens For TrueVisions Subscribers But Suspicion Lingers Over UEFA Call

[jonw8uk]

GMM bought the rights and can do what they like with the signal. Uefa sell to the highest bidder and that's just how it is.

The problem in Thailand is that the regulators need to bring in some policy where for certain events considered to be 'for the good of the nation' the screening rights must be given/sold to the FTA providers.

I dont know the full details, but this is what they have in the UK; for the euros, the world cup, the Olympics and some other events, and hence is why they are always shown on the terrestrial channels.

If there was no policy, Sky TV (the UK's satellite monopoly) would have snapped up the rights to these events long ago......

[volk666]

GMM bought the rights and can do what they like with the signal...

But can they order free TV channels to put restrictions on who can watch free to air TV and with what hardware? No other company has ever done that before.

The True's fiasco has nothing to do with Grammy per se - it's about their ability to rebroadcast free TV content.

Right not NBTC takes the position that free TV cannot restrict how people watch their channels and True must show whatever is on free TV.

Grammy, however, says True has no right to do so.

Who's the boss here? Grammy or NBTC?

[whybother]

...

Who's the boss here? Grammy or NBTC?

That depends on the contract that the free-to-air channels signed with Grammy.

[volk666]

Once the initial shock and knee jerks are over there could be a massive lawsuit in the works. Government is already looking for blood and I bet it will hurt everybody involved.

Can free channels restrict who can view their broadcasts just because Grammy says so? Can Grammy enforce its right over free to air broadcast restrictions? Normally the answer would be no and so True can tell Grammy "see you in court" but now that UEFA is involved True needs to play nicely with the foreigners - it's not the last competition with rights on sale.

Let the government or NBTC to sort this out and True will bid for the next batch of EPL rights citing Grammy as a troublemaker.

I'm more worried about upcoming Champions League, whoever owns the rights might do "Grammy" again - the precedent has been set.

[whybother]

Once the initial shock and knee jerks are over there could be a massive lawsuit in the works. Government is already looking for blood and I bet it will hurt everybody involved.

Can free channels restrict who can view their broadcasts just because Grammy says so? Can Grammy enforce its right over free to air broadcast restrictions? Normally the answer would be no and so True can tell Grammy "see you in court" but now that UEFA is involved True needs to play nicely with the foreigners - it's not the last competition with rights on sale.

Let the government or NBTC to sort this out and True will bid for the next batch of EPL rights citing Grammy as a troublemaker.

I'm more worried about upcoming Champions League, whoever owns the rights might do "Grammy" again - the precedent has been set.

Grammy bought the rights. It seems they sold the rights to free-to-air on the provision that True didn't rebroadcast. Whether that was a Grammy clause or a UEFA clause, who knows, but the free-to-air channels accepted that provision.

[volk666]

Grammy bought the rights. It seems they sold the rights to free-to-air on the provision that True didn't rebroadcast. Whether that was a Grammy clause or a UEFA clause, who knows, but the free-to-air channels accepted that provision.

Yeah, they accepted it, but anyone who thinks his rights to free to air TV were denied might sue them for that. The case is so unprecedented that no one is sure what could be legally done about it but both NBTC and the government are sharpening their knives already.

[whybother]

Grammy bought the rights. It seems they sold the rights to free-to-air on the provision that True didn't rebroadcast. Whether that was a Grammy clause or a UEFA clause, who knows, but the free-to-air channels accepted that provision.

Yeah, they accepted it, but anyone who thinks his rights to free to air TV were denied might sue them for that. The case is so unprecedented that no one is sure what could be legally done about it but both NBTC and the government are sharpening their knives already.

No one is stopping anyone from viewing free-to-air. They are just being stopped from doing it through a pay TV service.

[brewsterbudgen]

I do not care who is right and who is wrong. The bottom line is that we the paying public are not getting what we should reasonably expect to see. No more, I cancelled my subscription with True Visions yesterday and I will not be co-erced / blackmailed by Gmmy into buying one of their boxes either. Alternative options do exist!

Nonsense. Why should you expect to see Euro 2012? Don't you understand how commercial sports rights work? You want to watch it, buy the Grammy box or watch it on terrestrial TV. True cannot be expected to buy everything; they're a commercial organisation and buy what they think makes good business for them. The Euros didn't. Coercion and blackmail doesn't come into it. It's called the free market.

[dindong]

Isn't it about time everone caught on to this overpriced True monopoly.

I have cancelled and have asked everyone I know to do the same. Vote with your feet and maybe they will listen. Cancel now plaese

[volk666]

No one is stopping anyone from viewing free-to-air. They are just being stopped from doing it through a pay TV service.

NBTC's view is that free to air should be free on any platform. I don't know if they have a legal basis for this rule but that's how it's been in Thailand since forever.

[volk666]

Isn't it about time everone caught on to this overpriced True monopoly.

I have cancelled and have asked everyone I know to do the same. Vote with your feet and maybe they will listen. Cancel now plaese

Some people still like to watch foreign TV programs. They cancel True and then what? Once True engineers come around and collect their satellite dishes that Grammy box will be absolutely useless. Then they would have to buy a new dish, and they they can watch Japanese football and whatever it is that is shown on ASN.

Not really a choice, is it?

[Jayman]

There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what free-to-air actually is. There are only a couple of FTA channels offered on Thaicom 2 KU band and 3,5,7,9 are not any of them. They are encrypted by TRUE and as such you must pay for a subscription to view them.

Now on the other hand, Thaicom 5 C-band does carry many FTA channels and 3,5,9 are included in those. No encryption nor subscription is required. You will not however receive these on your standard TRUE dish as this dish is too small and only has a KU LNB.

Anyone is free to go out and point a dish (with a C band lnb) to the THAICOM 2 sat and view all the FTA channels without paying anyone. This has nothing to do with TRUE as 99% of the TRUE channels are NOT FTA.

Here are the TRUE channels http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/truevisions.html

and here are the channels on the Thaicom 5 sat.. many of which (not the TRUE ones) are FTA http://www.lyngsat.com/Thaicom-5.html

[reenatinnakor]

As another poster has correctly said....how is this True's fault?? It's clearly the fault of GMM and Ch3, 5, 7 and 9. True already would have paid annual fees or other dues to Ch3, 5, 7 and 9 in order to broadcast their signals via their boxes. It's unlikely that they would not pay something for this. So if Ch3 then decides to negotiate with GMM and get the Euro's they can't go back to True and say we're not giving you this. True can't monitor everything that Ch3 does in their day to day business.....they would just assume that anything shown on Ch3 would be shown on their boxes too. Why would they think otherwise?? So a new soap comes on Ch3 and True have to double check if they are getting the signal to show it?

[pipo1000]

UEFA are not at fault here, they have issued the Thai rights to GMM, end of story.

As Beano pointed out True transmissions could/would interfere with other countries arrangements.

True viewers should stop bleating and accept the fact that TV rights are a competitive market.

There's no way Thai TV companies are going to run rings around UEFA

You've lost the plot big time buddy. It would have been no problem if GMM decide to show the matches only on their net work, but they decide to put it on FREE (unrestricted)TV!!!

Once a program is on FREE tv, it should be open to every one.

The free to air stations also broadcast the adverts that come with the matches,so allowing GMM to demand a higher price for them.

Knowing True,they would block the adverts, and replace with advertising of their own or just blank screens, so not much into it for GMM

[whybother]

No one is stopping anyone from viewing free-to-air. They are just being stopped from doing it through a pay TV service.

NBTC's view is that free to air should be free on any platform. I don't know if they have a legal basis for this rule but that's how it's been in Thailand since forever.

It seems that True is not allowed to pick and choose what it rebroadcasts from the free to air channels. But, the free to air channels can pick and choose what True can rebroadcast. In this case, (once again, it seems) the agreement that the free to air channels made with Grammy stop them from providing the feed to True.

It's not True's fault. It's not anyone's "fault". It's just commercial negotiations and agreements.

[Jayman]

As another poster has correctly said....how is this True's fault?? It's clearly the fault of GMM and Ch3, 5, 7 and 9. True already would have paid annual fees or other dues to Ch3, 5, 7 and 9 in order to broadcast their signals via their boxes. It's unlikely that they would not pay something for this. So if Ch3 then decides to negotiate with GMM and get the Euro's they can't go back to True and say we're not giving you this. True can't monitor everything that Ch3 does in their day to day business.....they would just assume that anything shown on Ch3 would be shown on their boxes too. Why would they think otherwise?? So a new soap comes on Ch3 and True have to double check if they are getting the signal to show it?

It really comes down to the contacts that all parties have entered in to. I'm sure that if TRUE is not getting the content agreed to then they can bring a lawsuit against the party that has broken the contractual agreement.

[Jayman]

It's not True's fault. It's not anyone's "fault". It's just commercial negotiations and agreements.

not sure i agree with this. if true told their customers they would have programming and then didn't secure the licensing to follow through then it's their fault.

[whybother]

The free to air stations also broadcast the adverts that come with the matches,so allowing GMM to demand a higher price for them.

Knowing True,they would block the adverts, and replace with advertising of their own or just blank screens, so not much into it for GMM

Are the free to air stations showing their own ads or broadcasting Grammy's ads? I don't know as I haven't watched any of it, but I would assume that free to air wouldn't buy the rights to show it if they couldn't recoup some of their costs through their own advertising.

[whybother]

It's not True's fault. It's not anyone's "fault". It's just commercial negotiations and agreements.

not sure i agree with this. if true told their customers they would have programming and then didn't secure the licensing to follow through then it's their fault.

IF True told their customers ...

Did True tell their customers that they would be showing EURO 2012? I just looked at the magazine and there is nothing in there about free to air, let alone about EURO 2012.

I doubt that True would advertise what was going to be on free to air anyway.

[Jayman]

It's not True's fault. It's not anyone's "fault". It's just commercial negotiations and agreements.

not sure i agree with this. if true told their customers they would have programming and then didn't secure the licensing to follow through then it's their fault.

IF True told their customers ...

Did True tell their customers that they would be showing EURO 2012? I just looked at the magazine and there is nothing in there about free to air, let alone about EURO 2012.

I doubt that True would advertise what was going to be on free to air anyway.

I said "if" cause I have no idea. I don't pay true for their content.

[reenatinnakor]

As another poster has correctly said....how is this True's fault?? It's clearly the fault of GMM and Ch3, 5, 7 and 9. True already would have paid annual fees or other dues to Ch3, 5, 7 and 9 in order to broadcast their signals via their boxes. It's unlikely that they would not pay something for this. So if Ch3 then decides to negotiate with GMM and get the Euro's they can't go back to True and say we're not giving you this. True can't monitor everything that Ch3 does in their day to day business.....they would just assume that anything shown on Ch3 would be shown on their boxes too. Why would they think otherwise?? So a new soap comes on Ch3 and True have to double check if they are getting the signal to show it?

It really comes down to the contacts that all parties have entered in to. I'm sure that if TRUE is not getting the content agreed to then they can bring a lawsuit against the party that has broken the contractual agreement.

Yes. Depends what was agreed. But can you imagine Sky in the UK checking their signal all the time in case ITV or BBC aren't giving them the signal for the snooker, tennis, rugby or Eastenders that people watch thru the Skybox? Only in Thailand I guess.

[manarak]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Edited June 14, 2012 by manarak

[whybother]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Except you have to pay to receive True, so "free to air" is no longer "free to air".

[manarak]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Except you have to pay to receive True, so "free to air" is no longer "free to air".

You also have to pay for a TV and you have to pay for the power...

If the game was broadcasted on the internet, you would have to pay for the modem, the router and the monthy subscription.

The content was to be broadcasted for free on the True network, and since every True subscriber owns a TV and is thus able to view the conventional signal too, the subscribers are automatically (in all logic) legally entitled to see the broadcast, and for me it does not matter how the signal reaches the public for which the license already has been paid - paid by another company, but still paid.

I'm looking for a good analogy to make my point more clear.

Edited June 14, 2012 by manarak

[Jayman]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Except you have to pay to receive True, so "free to air" is no longer "free to air".

You also have to pay for a TV and you have to pay for the power...

If the game was broadcasted on the internet, you would have to pay for the modem, the router and the monthy subscription.

The content was to be broadcasted for free on the True network, and since every True subscriber owns a TV and is thus able to view the conventional signal too, the subscribers are automatically (in all logic) legally entitled to see the broadcast, and for me it does not matter how the signal reaches the public for which the license already has been paid - paid by another company, but still paid.

I'm looking for a good analogy to make my point more clear.

Sounds like the basis for a lawsuit.

[whybother]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Except you have to pay to receive True, so "free to air" is no longer "free to air".

You also have to pay for a TV and you have to pay for the power...

If the game was broadcasted on the internet, you would have to pay for the modem, the router and the monthy subscription.

The content was to be broadcasted for free on the True network, and since every True subscriber owns a TV and is thus able to view the conventional signal too, the subscribers are automatically (in all logic) legally entitled to see the broadcast, and for me it does not matter how the signal reaches the public for which the license already has been paid - paid by another company, but still paid.

I'm looking for a good analogy to make my point more clear.

Subscribers have every right to view free to air channels, they just don't have the right to view it on a paid service. What they do have a right to do is to get an aerial to pick up the free to air broadcast.

Sent from my shoe phone

[volk666]

There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what free-to-air actually is. There are only a couple of FTA channels offered on Thaicom 2 KU band and 3,5,7,9 are not any of them. They are encrypted by TRUE and as such you must pay for a subscription to view them.

Now on the other hand, Thaicom 5 C-band does carry many FTA channels and 3,5,9 are included in those. No encryption nor subscription is required. You will not however receive these on your standard TRUE dish as this dish is too small and only has a KU LNB.

Anyone is free to go out and point a dish (with a C band lnb) to the THAICOM 2 sat and view all the FTA channels without paying anyone. This has nothing to do with TRUE as 99% of the TRUE channels are NOT FTA.

Here are the TRUE channels http://www.lyngsat.c...ruevisions.html

and here are the channels on the Thaicom 5 sat.. many of which (not the TRUE ones) are FTA http://www.lyngsat.com/Thaicom-5.html

I'm not sure what you are saying because the first link shows all "free" TV channels on Thaicom 5, not Thaicom 2.

Also, you saying that True encrypts their "free" channels - part of Grammy's argument is that everyone can watch True broadcast of those channels from India to Cambodia.

You should straighten that out a bit before volunteering to educate the public. The links are much appreciated anyway, thanks.

Do you know how exactly signal travels from Ch3 and 5 to True boxes? Do they beam them up to the satellite themselves? Does True get their terrestrial signal on their rooftop antenna before sending it up? Does True get them via some sort of a cable?

Also, I said that earlier - True promised to show free TV channels on the premise that they stay free. Now that anyone can charge any price for anything they show on "free" channels True might want to reconsider that commitment.

[Jayman]

There seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what free-to-air actually is. There are only a couple of FTA channels offered on Thaicom 2 KU band and 3,5,7,9 are not any of them. They are encrypted by TRUE and as such you must pay for a subscription to view them.

Now on the other hand, Thaicom 5 C-band does carry many FTA channels and 3,5,9 are included in those. No encryption nor subscription is required. You will not however receive these on your standard TRUE dish as this dish is too small and only has a KU LNB.

Anyone is free to go out and point a dish (with a C band lnb) to the THAICOM 2 sat and view all the FTA channels without paying anyone. This has nothing to do with TRUE as 99% of the TRUE channels are NOT FTA.

Here are the TRUE channels http://www.lyngsat.c...ruevisions.html

and here are the channels on the Thaicom 5 sat.. many of which (not the TRUE ones) are FTA http://www.lyngsat.com/Thaicom-5.html

I'm not sure what you are saying because the first link shows all "free" TV channels on Thaicom 5, not Thaicom 2.

Also, you saying that True encrypts their "free" channels - part of Grammy's argument is that everyone can watch True broadcast of those channels from India to Cambodia.

You should straighten that out a bit before volunteering to educate the public. The links are much appreciated anyway, thanks.

Do you know how exactly signal travels from Ch3 and 5 to True boxes? Do they beam them up to the satellite themselves? Does True get their terrestrial signal on their rooftop antenna before sending it up? Does True get them via some sort of a cable?

Also, I said that earlier - True promised to show free TV channels on the premise that they stay free. Now that anyone can charge any price for anything they show on "free" channels True might want to reconsider that commitment.

Sorry for the confusion. Thaicom 2/5 is the same satellite. Different providers can lease out transponder space (frequencies) from the satellite. TRUE is responsible for the uplink to their transponders. This means that TRUE is provided content and they beam it up to the sat and it is beamed back down. Anyone in the sat's footprint can access the signal. TRUE encrypts 99% of the feeds it sends to the sat. If you look at the bottom of that 1st link you will see the color coding key. All the unencrypted (FTA) channels are in the lighter tan color. All of the channels being discussed here (3,5,7,9) are encrypted. You can not decrypt them without a TRUE subscription card in their receiver (they can be illegally hacked like anything). And then you will only decrypt the channels you pay for. If you are receiving the TRUE sat feed from Cambodia then you will not be able to view the content without a TRUE subscription (or via illegal hacking). Only like 3 channels on TRUE are actually free (nothing we are discussing here is FREE).

As for how does TRUE get it's content that is rebroadcasts I don't think every channel is received the same way. Many come from a sat. Some might even come via high speed internet.

[Hellhound66]

It's not True's fault. It's not anyone's "fault". It's just commercial negotiations and agreements.

not sure i agree with this. if true told their customers they would have programming and then didn't secure the licensing to follow through then it's their fault.

How many times does this need to be explained before you actually "get it"?? True have a "pass through" agreement with the Thai FTA (Free to Air ) stations. A pass through agreement is exactly what it says-The FTA channels pass through exactly what they broadcast to True who air it -Ads and all. They cannot tamper with the feed. A pass through agreement is a worldwide standard-I am surprised you don't know this with all the apparent expertise on satellites you are posting.

It has NEVER happened before in Thailand that an FTA channel has encrypted its signal to block content on a "pass through" . The conditions of "pass through" in Thailand are policed by the NBTC.

What True failed to realise is that GMM with their influence and connections could neuter the NBTC and create this unheard of situation. The letter from UEFA is a total blag- GMM bought the rights and would have decrypted the signal had True paid. Since they didn't, GMM got the letter from UEFA to cover their a$$.

NBTC has already stated today that they will put in laws to govern this situation shortly. In most civilized countries this is done with a "must carry" agreement which means if True have a pass through agreement with the FTA channels nothing or nobody can interfere with that signal whether UEFA or our friends at GMM.

One would imagine although I cannot confirm this that the FTA channels pay True to pass through to the True decoders.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Hellhound66

[manarak]

Certainly Thais TV broadcasting corporations have their part of responsibility for not proactively securing the legal guarantees for retransmission of the UEFA matches from the free channels,

BUT: the root cause of all these shenanigans is the UEFA.

Once the signal ends up on a free channel, for everyone is Thailand to receive for free, the viewing license for every watcher in Thailand should be deemed paid, regardless of how the signal reaches the viewers at the end.

Why oh why can't a free TV channel be re-broadcasted on a cable or satellite network within the same distribution area?

This is nonsense by UEFA bureaucrats.

Except you have to pay to receive True, so "free to air" is no longer "free to air".

You also have to pay for a TV and you have to pay for the power...

If the game was broadcasted on the internet, you would have to pay for the modem, the router and the monthy subscription.

The content was to be broadcasted for free on the True network, and since every True subscriber owns a TV and is thus able to view the conventional signal too, the subscribers are automatically (in all logic) legally entitled to see the broadcast, and for me it does not matter how the signal reaches the public for which the license already has been paid - paid by another company, but still paid.

I'm looking for a good analogy to make my point more clear.

Subscribers have every right to view free to air channels, they just don't have the right to view it on a paid service. What they do have a right to do is to get an aerial to pick up the free to air broadcast.

Yes, that's what's UEFA is saying, but it is plain stupid and doesn't make sense.

It's the same as saying everyone in Thailand is free to listen to a broadcast on the radio, but it is illegal if I call you on the phone within Thailand and let you listen to the free broadcast through the paid phone communication. Doesn't make sense at all.

Edited June 14, 2012 by manarak