Grammy Seeks Renegotiation With Uefa

[animatic]

Plenty of locations in Thailand do not have all available terrestrial stations,

so it's not that much of a loss to give a revenue sharing deal to those few markets,

that are charging advertising rates, particularly for preshow air time.

The majority of homes and businesses have dishes of some flavor.

GMM has plenty deep pockets, and their obvious game plan is to get set top box numbers up asap.

They have to have a long term view of "using loss-leaders to gain customer base increases",

and then add more content with an greatly expanded base.

True has had a monopoly for 10 years or so,

and there is a lot of customer dissatisfaction with them as a company, in how they deal with their customers. Grammy is adroitly poaching customers from True with a high profile marque event, even if they lose some money short term.

And shutting down True broadcasting this for free is logical, why should Grammy pay for True to get a freebie that their customers get charged for as part of their monthly fees? Make True pay if they want it for their customers, or eat dust in public for not getting it done. Put up or shut up.

Tellingly, it is not Grammy that is getting fined 20,000 baht a day for not making a deal in time.

It's not the amount that counts, but the face lost in this case.

I agree with you about True being a monopoly but it is not enough a reason to blame them for this mess. True is being fined (a pittance) because the NBTC has no power to fine Grammy.

Grammy has been less than honest about what they are allowed to do by EUFA. There was no reason to block the relaying of the signals from the free-to-air channels which was done quite freely by those channels with the Champions League broadcasts - which they had obtained from EUFA. Well, the real reason was money & an attempt to hold True to ransom.

More 'negotiation' with EUFA is just smoke & mirrors. I'd love to see an alternative to True but Grammy is no better in terms of customer service - maybe worse.

ESPN doesn't just hand ASN their game feed they licensed just because ASN asks for it.

Grammy bought a product, that product came with rules about satellite network double coverage

and cut off dates for making deals, one being June 1st.

Grammy is, was, and should never be under any obligation to

'deliver their product to a competitor' on the competitors terms,

that they don't agree with. This has been glaringly the case.

True never offered enough to Grammy to water down their business plans logic.

Which is; Cover a duplicated customer area with a product that only they have,

or if duplicated, then for a suitable fee to be compensated from their footprint loses.

No doubt some free lancers with a few GMM boxes are sticking it to bar owners

caught flat footed with no Sky-1 box. TIT, this is how they roll here,

But I doubt GMM Grammy has anything to do with this scam.

They really are far to big to bother with this chump change stuff.

The boxes could be bought for 1,500-1,700 baht outright ready to roll.

I know I paid 1,500 baht for one. Seems the bar owners got twice taken,

by Trues promises, and then by the usual collection of con-job scam artists,

who see a short term market and go for the green.

Edited June 16, 2012 by animatic

[khunken]

Plenty of locations in Thailand do not have all available terrestrial stations,

so it's not that much of a loss to give a revenue sharing deal to those few markets,

that are charging advertising rates, particularly for preshow air time.

The majority of homes and businesses have dishes of some flavor.

GMM has plenty deep pockets, and their obvious game plan is to get set top box numbers up asap.

They have to have a long term view of "using loss-leaders to gain customer base increases",

and then add more content with an greatly expanded base.

True has had a monopoly for 10 years or so,

and there is a lot of customer dissatisfaction with them as a company, in how they deal with their customers. Grammy is adroitly poaching customers from True with a high profile marque event, even if they lose some money short term.

And shutting down True broadcasting this for free is logical, why should Grammy pay for True to get a freebie that their customers get charged for as part of their monthly fees? Make True pay if they want it for their customers, or eat dust in public for not getting it done. Put up or shut up.

Tellingly, it is not Grammy that is getting fined 20,000 baht a day for not making a deal in time.

It's not the amount that counts, but the face lost in this case.

I agree with you about True being a monopoly but it is not enough a reason to blame them for this mess. True is being fined (a pittance) because the NBTC has no power to fine Grammy.

Grammy has been less than honest about what they are allowed to do by EUFA. There was no reason to block the relaying of the signals from the free-to-air channels which was done quite freely by those channels with the Champions League broadcasts - which they had obtained from EUFA. Well, the real reason was money & an attempt to hold True to ransom.

More 'negotiation' with EUFA is just smoke & mirrors. I'd love to see an alternative to True but Grammy is no better in terms of customer service - maybe worse.

ESPN doesn't just hand ASN their game feed they licensed just because ASN asks for it.

Grammy bought a product, that product came with rules about satellite network double coverage

and cut off dates for making deals, one being June 1st.

Grammy is, was, and should never be under any obligation to

'deliver their product to a competitor' on the competitors terms,

that they don't agree with. This has been glaringly the case.

True never offered enough to Grammy to water down their business plans logic.

Which is; Cover a duplicated customer area with a product that only they have,

or if duplicated, then for a suitable fee to be compensated from their footprint loses.

No doubt some free lancers with a few GMM boxes are sticking it to bar owners

caught flat footed with no Sky-1 box. TIT, this is how they roll here,

But I doubt GMM Grammy has anything to do with this scam.

They really are far to big to bother with this chump change stuff.

The boxes could be bought for 1,500-1,700 baht outright ready to roll.

I know I paid 1,500 baht for one. Seems the bar owners got twice taken,

by Trues promises, and then by the usual collection of con-job scam artists,

who see a short term market and go for the green.

You say ESPN licenced the fees to ASN - ok. Who licenced it to the free-to-air channels? The free-to-air channels licenced(?) it to True to just relay it. All this for the Champions League. With EURO 2012 Grammy licenced the broadcast to the free-to-air channels who have an agreement with True. Grammy instructed the F-T-A channels to block their normal feed to True & saying that EUFA disallowed the True feed is simply not true. Grammy didn't ask UEFA about a relay to True (they wouldn't say what they asked) and they forced the F-T-A channels to break their agreement with True.

What next? Soaps & talk shows being blocked because of another arrogant company - or the same one - demanding fees for a relay that has no advert benefit to True.

True had no obligation to pay fees to Grammy. I can't help wondering if the anti-True attitude is colouring many of the responses to this thread.

[smedly]

the simple truth is that this football should never have been broadcast on the 3x free channels, it should have been exclusive to GMM but I suspect they could n't do that because they don't have the sat transponders available and would have cost a lot more to rent them, the real question here is why was this ever to be broadcast on the 3x free channels, uncover that one and you'll find out what is really going on here.

UEFA obviously agreed to screen the matches country wide on free TV - right ?

[Hellhound66]

the simple truth is that this football should never have been broadcast on the 3x free channels, it should have been exclusive to GMM but I suspect they could n't do that because they don't have the sat transponders available and would have cost a lot more to rent them, the real question here is why was this ever to be broadcast on the 3x free channels, uncover that one and you'll find out what is really going on here.

UEFA obviously agreed to screen the matches country wide on free TV - right ?

GMM sold the rights to the 3 x free channels. The free channels in turn sell in programme advertising to sponsors to try and make a profit from their purchase. I would estimate each channel paid between 60-80 million Baht to GMM for the rights.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Hellhound66

[smedly]

In the UK Sky TV show all the free to air channels as a convenience BBC ITV C$ etc, if you stop your subscription to sky tv these channels continue uninterupted because they are not actually part of the sky package, I have a motorised system in the UK and can also recieve all the same free to air channels that sky shows and more, in thailand are the 3x free channels part of the true subscription ? i.e. if you remove the card do they become scambled ? if not then they are bot part of the true subscription and are free to air either through terestrial TV or from a sat transponder - how people choose to receive these free to air channels should be up to them just like in the UK - if all the above is correct then this really has nothing to do with true as such

[Hellhound66]

In the UK Sky TV show all the free to air channels as a convenience BBC ITV C$ etc, if you stop your subscription to sky tv these channels continue uninterupted because they are not actually part of the sky package, I have a motorised system in the UK and can also recieve all the same free to air channels that sky shows and more, in thailand are the 3x free channels part of the true subscription ? i.e. if you remove the card do they become scambled ? if not then they are bot part of the true subscription and are free to air either through terestrial TV or from a sat transponder - how people choose to receive these free to air channels should be up to them just like in the UK - if all the above is correct then this really has nothing to do with true as such

Whatever the delivery method you are right. True most likely however receive the channels via fiber optic feed and send them up encrypted with their other channels. This would be done for quality purposes. It would be the way it is done in most other countries but as I say I am not 100% on this being how it is done here.

[smedly]

In the UK the upload feeds of FTA channels to 28deg east are nothing to do with sky TV - like I said they simply provide them as a convcenience to customers in fact they may even be obligated to do so as part of their licence, anyone can throw up a dish and use a standard FTA Sat reciever to tune in these FTA transponders - there are about 120 in the UK alone including all the BBC ITV CH4-5 News channels etc, if I knew the name of the satelite true use I could check it

[colind88]

In the UK the upload feeds of FTA channels to 28deg east are nothing to do with sky TV - like I said they simply provide them as a convcenience to customers in fact they may even be obligated to do so as part of their licence, anyone can throw up a dish and use a standard FTA Sat reciever to tune in these FTA transponders - there are about 120 in the UK alone including all the BBC ITV CH4-5 News channels etc, if I knew the name of the satelite true use I could check it

http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/truevisions_chno.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueVisions

Thaicom 5

[smedly]

well it seems that these are indeed FTA channels and nothing to do with true, anyone with a dish (old true dishleft behind by someone) and a cheap FTA Sat reciever can tune in these stations as they would do with a TV tuner and arial - this leaves me wondering what on earth this whole dispute is actually about - if grammy sold off the rights of the footy to FTA national TV then I fail to see the issue with people recieving it through a true sat reciever as long as it is not being shown on any of their package channels, which ch3-5-9 are not.

ch3-5-9 Owned by MCOT and operated by Bangkok Entertainment Co. Ltd.

nothing whatsoever to do with true

Edited June 17, 2012 by smedly

[ratcatcher]

Currently watching Euros on channel 3 through my 'coathangers and music stand' aerial.

Ukraine vs France game suspended due to weather conditions.

I am sure glad I didn't go out and buy a Grammy box though. The program, Football Mania, that they are currently broadcasting is absolute dross and not worth paying a baht for. Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny.

Only a couple of hours to go now though - Engerlaand, Engerlaaand, Engerlaaand!

Currently watching Euros on channel 3 through my 'coathangers and music stand' aerial.

Ukraine vs France game suspended due to weather conditions.

I am sure glad I didn't go out and buy a Grammy box though. The program, Football Mania, that they are currently broadcasting is absolute dross and not worth paying a baht for. Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny.

Only a couple of hours to go now though - Engerlaand, Engerlaaand, Engerlaaand!

"Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny."

I totally agree, but when you think about it, the real Three Stooges were actually funny.

These three bozos have to rely on ridiculous clothes,bells, whistles squeakers and honking horns to get across what I can only assume is some kind of humor that Thais appreciate. I don't think you'd see that in a western sports program.

If that is the level of entertainment Grammy espouses, I'll stay with True, as bad as they can sometimes be.

[animatic]

EDIT out other earlier posts.

You say ESPN licenced the fees to ASN - ok. Who licenced it to the free-to-air channels? The free-to-air channels licenced(?) it to True to just relay it. All this for the Champions League. With EURO 2012 Grammy licenced the broadcast to the free-to-air channels who have an agreement with True. Grammy instructed the F-T-A channels to block their normal feed to True & saying that EUFA disallowed the True feed is simply not true. Grammy didn't ask UEFA about a relay to True (they wouldn't say what they asked) and they forced the F-T-A channels to break their agreement with True.

What next? Soaps & talk shows being blocked because of another arrogant company - or the same one - demanding fees for a relay that has no advert benefit to True.

True had no obligation to pay fees to Grammy. I can't help wondering if the anti-True attitude is colouring many of the responses to this thread.

Grammy licensed UEFA content to the free to air stations, in limited markets, for their free to air use.

FOR A FEE... a revenue sharing deal.

It did not licence it as an automatic pass through to Truevisions for profit satellite broadcast.

This is the point. There is NO automatic pass through license unless specifically stipulated by contract.

They need not make deals for their competitors benefit. So they did NOT.

Both Grammy and UEFA contract details apply.

Makes no difference if Grammy asked UEFA or not, True knew Grammy had the rights

and it was up to True to make a deal early enough with Grammy.

Just as True licensed content FROM the terrestrial stations, for it's customers,

it had NOT generally cross licensed TRUE CONTENT back to those terrestrial stations.

That would be a separate contract for content.

The bottom line Grammy licensed for it's own GMM Satellite Distribution, and limited terrestrial use ONLY,

and not for it's competitor True to get it, unless TRUE paid an access fee, or revenue sharing deal.

True balked at paying, maybe figuring to leverage it for free later. They obviously have lost that bet.

UEFA maintains some rights to the usage of their content.

True has none because they didn't BUY ANY RIGHTS.

"True has no obligation to pay",

but then Grammy has no obligation to GIVE True it's licensed content.

It makes no difference how popular the content potentially is, arrogance is not a valid issue,

they OWN the RIGHTS. They can do as they wish with them, within the UEFA contract stipulations.

As to ESPN and ASN, and other sports stations, they often make cross market deals for exclusive content,

but almost never in the same market place unless the content licensor stipulates this is a must.

This means only one production team, but an expanded market, cash income, and viewer base for the

PRODUCING company.

Each deal is done individually, not as an automatic gimme.

Edited June 17, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

Currently watching Euros on channel 3 through my 'coathangers and music stand' aerial.

Ukraine vs France game suspended due to weather conditions.

I am sure glad I didn't go out and buy a Grammy box though. The program, Football Mania, that they are currently broadcasting is absolute dross and not worth paying a baht for. Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny.

Only a couple of hours to go now though - Engerlaand, Engerlaaand, Engerlaaand!

Currently watching Euros on channel 3 through my 'coathangers and music stand' aerial.

Ukraine vs France game suspended due to weather conditions.

I am sure glad I didn't go out and buy a Grammy box though. The program, Football Mania, that they are currently broadcasting is absolute dross and not worth paying a baht for. Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny.

Only a couple of hours to go now though - Engerlaand, Engerlaaand, Engerlaaand!

"Absolute rubbish with three stooges with no football knowledge trying to be funny."

I totally agree, but when you think about it, the real Three Stooges were actually funny.

These three bozos have to rely on ridiculous clothes,bells, whistles squeakers and honking horns to get across what I can only assume is some kind of humor that Thais appreciate. I don't think you'd see that in a western sports program.

If that is the level of entertainment Grammy espouses, I'll stay with True, as bad as they can sometimes be.

It is the Thai way, treat it like their soaps and variety shows, because they believe this is what sells here.

We don't matter, our market share is far to small to matter.

[animatic]

the simple truth is that this football should never have been broadcast on the 3x free channels, it should have been exclusive to GMM but I suspect they could n't do that because they don't have the sat transponders available and would have cost a lot more to rent them, the real question here is why was this ever to be broadcast on the 3x free channels, uncover that one and you'll find out what is really going on here.

UEFA obviously agreed to screen the matches country wide on free TV - right ?

UEFA agreed to provide a license to a company that 'could provide coverage over Thailand'.

Having a Satellite down feed ensures this is possible.

There is no blanket responsability to provide every domicile or business a receiving station.

True can not, nor Sky, nor any terrestrial station. 100% coverage doesn't exist.

65 million peopleTrue has 2 million set top subscribers

If they have 4 persons per TV watching that is only 8 million persons.

10 persons per every single TRUE set top box, still only 20 million heads,

47 millions not covered... not even close to 100% is contractually possible.

I dislike True, but I am also a True customer.

I am happy True is getting some competition, because they are the arrogant ones,

as shown to their customers on a regular basis. This really is just one more instance

of True acting true to form.

Edited June 17, 2012 by animatic

[volk666]

Check out the other paper, there's a nice explanation there from NBTC perspective. They are going after Grammy to protect general consumer rights as there's a loophole in the law that Grammy has abused.

It looks like if Grammy doesn't let people watch football via True boxes they will never see NBTC license in their lives even if NBTC can't do anything to Grammy in this particular case. Still, there's a government enquiry and DSI has expressed interest, too. There's even a talk about criminal charges.

True is largely irrelevant in this dispute, it's the right of Thai people to watch national channels on any platform that is the issue.

[Sharp]

UEFA will not be impressed by this shambles. It's a complete and utter embarrassment for the Thai business community.

By the way, I'm Scottish, and I'm delighted England won 3-2. For the first time in my life I'm rooting for them as they have gone into this tournament with their backs to the wall. The pub I was in tonight in central Glasgow went ballistic when England scored the winner. Excellent stuff.

Moral of the story for England? Play with your feet and not with your mouths and you'll find far more

support across the World than you could ever imagine.

Quite unbelievable. Please make it a habit. Believe it or not I was more than happy to see you Jocks overcome Fiji. Maybe the first step back towards the top of the rugby world?

Sad to see the sorry state of Scottish football now and the Rangers crisis. Hope things improve for you soon.

Well said sir ....

Sent from my GT-N7000B using Thaivisa Connect App

[smedly]

Check out the other paper, there's a nice explanation there from NBTC perspective. They are going after Grammy to protect general consumer rights as there's a loophole in the law that Grammy has abused.

It looks like if Grammy doesn't let people watch football via True boxes they will never see NBTC license in their lives even if NBTC can't do anything to Grammy in this particular case. Still, there's a government enquiry and DSI has expressed interest, too. There's even a talk about criminal charges.

True is largely irrelevant in this dispute, it's the right of Thai people to watch national channels on any platform that is the issue.

exactly what I've been saying - FTA national TV is free, nothing to do with True or Grammy and in this case it seems grammy tried to exploit it, if they had kept their mouths shut and not made a big song and dance about true then may have come to nothing, what grammy did was duped people into buying their sat reciever, I've been saying this from the start of this fiasco.

[colind88]

EDIT out other earlier posts.

You say ESPN licenced the fees to ASN - ok. Who licenced it to the free-to-air channels? The free-to-air channels licenced(?) it to True to just relay it. All this for the Champions League. With EURO 2012 Grammy licenced the broadcast to the free-to-air channels who have an agreement with True. Grammy instructed the F-T-A channels to block their normal feed to True & saying that EUFA disallowed the True feed is simply not true. Grammy didn't ask UEFA about a relay to True (they wouldn't say what they asked) and they forced the F-T-A channels to break their agreement with True.

What next? Soaps & talk shows being blocked because of another arrogant company - or the same one - demanding fees for a relay that has no advert benefit to True.

True had no obligation to pay fees to Grammy. I can't help wondering if the anti-True attitude is colouring many of the responses to this thread.

Grammy licensed UEFA content to the free to air stations, in limited markets, for their free to air use.

FOR A FEE... a revenue sharing deal.

It did not licence it as an automatic pass through to Truevisions for profit satellite broadcast.

This is the point. There is NO automatic pass through license unless specifically stipulated by contract.

They need not make deals for their competitors benefit. So they did NOT.

Both Grammy and UEFA contract details apply.

Makes no difference if Grammy asked UEFA or not, True knew Grammy had the rights

and it was up to True to make a deal early enough with Grammy.

Just as True licensed content FROM the terrestrial stations, for it's customers,

it had NOT generally cross licensed TRUE CONTENT back to those terrestrial stations.

That would be a separate contract for content.

The bottom line Grammy licensed for it's own GMM Satellite Distribution, and limited terrestrial use ONLY,

and not for it's competitor True to get it, unless TRUE paid an access fee, or revenue sharing deal.

True balked at paying, maybe figuring to leverage it for free later. They obviously have lost that bet.

UEFA maintains some rights to the usage of their content.

True has none because they didn't BUY ANY RIGHTS.

"True has no obligation to pay",

but then Grammy has no obligation to GIVE True it's licensed content.

It makes no difference how popular the content potentially is, arrogance is not a valid issue,

they OWN the RIGHTS. They can do as they wish with them, within the UEFA contract stipulations.

As to ESPN and ASN, and other sports stations, they often make cross market deals for exclusive content,

but almost never in the same market place unless the content licensor stipulates this is a must.

This means only one production team, but an expanded market, cash income, and viewer base for the

PRODUCING company.

Each deal is done individually, not as an automatic gimme.

Sorry but you are wrong. This has nothing to do with GMM and True or the rights that GMM bought. This has everything to do with the deal that is in place between the FTA channels and True for the pass through of the FTA channels onto the True system. The way it is in most countries around the world is that if you have a pass through of FTA channels into a cable or satellite system then the content of the FTA channels cannot be altered by either party. This is how NBTC envision it as well but as they have said there is a loophole exploited by GMM that clearly have not allowed NBTC to penalise either the FTA channels or GMM for tampering with the signal.

That is what this is all about and nothing more.

[volk666]

It's not about UEFA either, as Euros and Champions League have been broadcast on free channels via True system for a decade already.

From the consumer advocate perspective Grammy's behavior is atrocious - they cut off True with the sole purpose of stealing some True customers without any concern for consumers themselves. This might not be exactly illegal in this case but this blatant disregard for consumers is probably punishable anyway.

I don't know what paying advertisers think of cutting off two million prime viewing households from watching their ads.

It doesn't look like a wise decision business wise, too. Grammy sold a million boxes, made by Samart and marketed by Tesco and 7-elevens, how much money they made on that? Those are not paying customers either, Euros are free to watch on Grammy box and these people still pay their monthly dues to True and should they decide to cancel their True subscription they will lose their True dishes and what are they going to do with Grammy boxes then? Spend several thousand baht to install another Samart made antenna and pay 350 baht per month to Grammy to watch Japanese football? Like that is going to happen, assuming Grammy's satellite business won't be shutdown by regulators by then. And then they'll need to buy another box AND a cable subscription if they want to watch football in HD, something many of them got used to on True.

True is shaking in their boots...

[animatic]

You can replace a True dish for about 1,500 baht or less installed.

True is charging up to 2,470 baht PER MONTH, not 350... by the way.

With incomprehensible packaging plans that often duplicate services,

but still charge more. Even their staffs have little understanding of the plans.

You seem to be buying into the line True is trying to use.

Forget the rights of a purchaser to market their content as they see fit,

but trying to leverage that content for free from another,

using the public good argument, if they can piss enough people off.

Sounds like classic Red Shirt intelectual property manipulation arguments.

Forget who owns the rights, we want it, give it to us now.

Will I be surprised that the rights of the content owners get taken from them for free,

TIT, not at all, but I doubt it will match the law, more likely, the loop holes bent another way,

the Thai way. Money talks.

Edited June 17, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

Check out the other paper, there's a nice explanation there from NBTC perspective. They are going after Grammy to protect general consumer rights as there's a loophole in the law that Grammy has abused.

It looks like if Grammy doesn't let people watch football via True boxes they will never see NBTC license in their lives even if NBTC can't do anything to Grammy in this particular case. Still, there's a government enquiry and DSI has expressed interest, too. There's even a talk about criminal charges.

True is largely irrelevant in this dispute, it's the right of Thai people to watch national channels on any platform that is the issue.

If there is a loophole in the law, then this is legal.

But of course;

everything a Thai official says to the press before the final decisions are made,

is always 100% correct, right? How many times has this axiom proved true?

All the usual suspects think there's money to be made hassling either or both sides.

The sharks smell the chum in the water.

Will it mean much, unlikely.

[GentlemanJim]

So what is going to happen now with the next potential cluster f***, the coverage of the Olympics?

[smedly]

the key here is ......free TV....national free to air TV, I rekon whoever came up with this plan at grammy is on the run, if he isn't he needs to be, and as for the national broacasting federation or whatever they are called - the numpty there needs to take a deep breath and hold it until the footy is over, never seen the like of it, only in Thailand - jesus get that hanger out of the back of the box i need it for me smalls........gmmmmmmmmmmm

[Ferangled]

You can replace a True dish for about 1,500 baht or less installed.

True is charging up to 2,470 baht PER MONTH, not 350... by the way.

With incomprehensible packaging plans that often duplicate services,

but still charge more. Even their staffs have little understanding of the plans.

You seem to be buying into the line True is trying to use.

Forget the rights of a purchaser to market their content as they see fit,

but trying to leverage that content for free from another,

using the public good argument, if they can piss enough people off.

Sounds like classic Red Shirt intelectual property manipulation arguments.

Forget who owns the rights, we want it, give it to us now.

Will I be surprised that the rights of the content owners get taken from them for free,

TIT, not at all, but I doubt it will match the law, more likely, the loop holes bent another way,

the Thai way. Money talks.

You seem to have an axe to grind with both True and the red shirts, and I feel are deliberately miss representing "facts" here to hide the real issue. As others have stated - it is the right of the Thai people to watch free to air Thai national channels on any platform.

No company should have the right to "switch off" a national broadcast simply because they have failed to leverage money from their competitor for broadcasting rights to a competition that they are airing on channels that their competitor has an existing contract to broadcast...

If you buy a True receiver and dish you get free access to the "free content" with absolutely no subscription to True. I bought a True PVR receiver years ago that my wife uses to watch the free to air Thai content. It is 100% free. It is not 2450 baht a month.

I pay for a True subscription on a separate HD PVR receiver to view "paid content". The subscription costs are levied to pay for the 100s of channels that are not provided free to air eg. True sports, Discovery, HBO, Fox, Nat Geo, BBCE, Bloomberg, CNN, BBCW, CNBC, etc etc.

You'll find satellite subscriptions for such content costs similar in the UK & Europe. Actually to watch all of the English premiership games in England would cost considerably more as you would need full Sky subscription + additional bolt on packages (Sentana, Prem Plus etc). I'm not even sure that you can watch every single game even with these...

Is there an alternative service provider in Thailand that airs all the premiership football games, world news channels, main stream movie channels and provides HD content and the ability to record that HD content to HDD?

GMM have deliberately tried to hold True to ransom over Euro 2012, viewers be damned, by exploiting a legal loophole. They had no platform to air Euro 2012 on without True or the Thai free to air channels. The only dodgy business practices here are being demonstrated by GMM Grammy. This has been a crude way to force consumers to buy their receivers or miss out on the competition.

Although pretty irrelevant, you also seem to have your political ties mixed up a bit here, is it True or GMM that are sympathetic to a certain colour of shirt...?

On September 12 and 13, Thailand’s largest entertainment conglomerate GMM Grammy Public Company, bought over 32% of shares in Matichon and over 23% of shares in the parent company of the Bangkok Post, making it the largest shareholder in both enterprises. The Bangkok Post is one of Thailand’s two leading English-language newspapers and is widely read by the local international community, and Thailand’s well-educated elite. Matichon runs several of Thailand\’s leading Thai-language newspapers including their namesake paper, Matichon. GMM also reportedly plans to buy up at least an additional 43% of shares in Matichon. The total cost of yesterday\’s buying spree amounted to 2.7 billion baht ($US 66 million) The President of GMM, Mr. Paiboon Damrongchaitham, is known to have close ties with the Thaksin administration and his GMM company has often been used to do publicity for the administration.

[animatic]

I am not a fan of either company.

Grammy the paternalist pop star mill, nor True the abusive media and telecom purveyor.

But I am a fan of True being given a strong competitor, because of their abusive practices.

And that is in the public's best interests.

From ownership data above it seems that the other papers pronouncements

about all this might be best taken with a grain of salt.

True could have done a deal with Grammy for rights that they didn't win, they didn't.

The loophole is someone elses fault, not Grammy's for making use of it.

Or we look at True for not doing a deal in a timely fashion.

There was a deal on offer, did they expect it to favor True over Grammy?

That would be a foolish assumption.

What was obvious from the pictures is that the two company heads,

can't even look at each other while sitting side by side.

Did personalities and issues of face control negotiations?

There are 420 million installed DTH and set top systems in Asia,

This is a fight over less than 2 million at most, or 0.5% of the max market for footie.

Sorry, I don't see the RIGHT to view ALL football matches on TV enshrined in any constitution.

Edited June 18, 2012 by animatic

[Ferangled]

I am not a fan of either company.

Grammy the paternalist pop star mill, nor True the abusive media and telecom purveyor.

But I am a fan of True being given a strong competitor, because of their abusive practices.

And that is in the public's best interests.

From ownership data above ut seems that the other papers pronouncements about all this might be best taken with a grain of salt.

True could have done a deal with Grammy for rights that they didn't win, they didn't.

The loophole is someone elses fault, not Grammy's for making use of it.

Or True for not doing a deal in a timely fashion.

What was obvious from the pictures is that the two company heads,

can't even look at each other while sitting side by side.

There are 420 million installed DTH and set top systems in Asia,

This is a fight over less than 2 million at most, or 0.5% of the max market for footie.

Sorry, I don't see the RIGHT to view ALL football matches on TV enshrined in any constitution.

I don't think anyone is claiming a right to watch all football matches, or that this right is "enshrined" in any constitution. That is simply being overly dramatic.

The fact remains however that Truevisions have given viewers the opportunity to view all premiership games and even shared some of those games with Thai terrestrial channels in the past.

The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True.

Your point about viewing figures in Asia is also mute in this fiasco, as it is purely focused on viewing within Thailand. What say have either True or Grammy about satellite services or the distribution of Euro 2012 in any country other than Thailand? None.

Grammy have focused specifically on denying Truevisions subscribers the right to view Thai terrestrial content when it contains content that Grammy have paid for, when the reverse can not be said for True.

Do you really think that Grammy present themselves as a viable competitor to Truevisions?! They have used Euro 2012 as a way of forcing viewers to consider their service while offering no sort of comparable level of content.

The receivers they have sold off the back of this shady carry on don't even support HD, no HDMi connectors... not even component video connectors <deleted>! They're selling redundant technology, taking us back 20 years in viewing quality and you see that as healthy competition? Demanding attention for an inferior product by buying up broadcast rights at hugely inflated prices and then monopolising the use of Thai terrestrial channels, to prevent their competitor's airing channels that they have done for years previously without complaint?!

Great, let's look forward to all major sporting events being split across a number of different satellite providers, so we can all juggle a multitude of subscription services and pay several times over for what we used to get on a single platform... progress, Thai style!

[animatic]

"The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True."

Please point out when True actually gave other pay TV Satellite services their paid for content?

That is the gist of your argument, that True never denied another competing satellite company their feeds for free.

[Ferangled]

"The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True."

Please point out when True actually gave other pay TV Satellite services their paid for content?

That is the gist of your argument, that True never denied another competing satellite company their feeds for free.

You seem to miss the point.

In the past, True have bought the rights for premiership games, shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels.

These Thai free to air channels can be watched a number of ways, via a terrestrial antenna or via a True receiver/ dish or via a number of 3rd party receivers/ dishes.

They have never sought to deny any other satellite services the rights to receive these Thai free to air channels while showing Premiership content paid for by True, on the basis that the other services haven't paid for the content.

That is exactly what Grammy has done.

Prior to Euro 2012 you could use a 3rd party satellite receiver to pick up Thai terrestrial TV and watch premiership content, bought by Truevisions, but viewable for free. True have not sought to prevent the airing of Thai terrestrial TV by other satellite providers, Grammy have.

[animatic]

"The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True."

Please point out when True actually gave other pay TV Satellite services their paid for content?

That is the gist of your argument, that True never denied another competing satellite company their feeds for free.

You seem to miss the point.

In the past, True have bought the rights for premiership games, shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels.

These Thai free to air channels can be watched a number of ways, via a terrestrial antenna or via a True receiver/ dish or via a number of 3rd party receivers/ dishes.

They have never sought to deny any other satellite services the rights to receive these Thai free to air channels while showing Premiership content paid for by True, on the basis that the other services haven't paid for the content.

That is exactly what Grammy has done.

Prior to Euro 2012 you could use a 3rd party satellite receiver to pick up Thai terrestrial TV and watch premiership content, bought by Truevisions, but viewable for free. True have not sought to prevent the airing of Thai terrestrial TV by other satellite providers, Grammy have.

Has, I repeat, since you've evaded the direct question;

'Has True ever given a direct competetor their paid for content in the same market for free?'

That is the only issue here.

The terrestrial stations were not blocked, they paid a revenue sharing fee,

only a free pass through to a direct competitor in the same market was blocked.

You say " .. True have bought the rights for premiership games,

shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services

but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels."

A number of these games or all of those games?

Was True selective in which games it gave terrestrial deals to?

Edited June 18, 2012 by animatic

[Ferangled]

"The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True."

Please point out when True actually gave other pay TV Satellite services their paid for content?

That is the gist of your argument, that True never denied another competing satellite company their feeds for free.

You seem to miss the point.

In the past, True have bought the rights for premiership games, shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels.

These Thai free to air channels can be watched a number of ways, via a terrestrial antenna or via a True receiver/ dish or via a number of 3rd party receivers/ dishes.

They have never sought to deny any other satellite services the rights to receive these Thai free to air channels while showing Premiership content paid for by True, on the basis that the other services haven't paid for the content.

That is exactly what Grammy has done.

Prior to Euro 2012 you could use a 3rd party satellite receiver to pick up Thai terrestrial TV and watch premiership content, bought by Truevisions, but viewable for free. True have not sought to prevent the airing of Thai terrestrial TV by other satellite providers, Grammy have.

Has, I repeat, since you've evaded the direct question;

'Has True ever given a direct competetor their paid for content in the same market for free?'

That is the only issue here.

The terrestrial stations were not blocked, they paid a revenue sharing fee,

only a free pass through to a direct competitor in the same market was blocked.

You say " .. True have bought the rights for premiership games,

shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services

but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels."

A number of these games or all of those games?

Was True selective in which games it gave terrestrial deals to?

Errr.. actually I have made it abundantly clear and answered this question numerous times!!!

I'll try to make it very simple for you...

True buy rights to Premiership. True show some Premiership matches on Thai terrestrial channels. These Thai terrestrial channels can be watched by a number of 3rd party satellite receivers... True make no attempt to block this.

Grammy buy rights to Euro 2012. Grammy show Euro 2012 matches on Thai terrestrial channels. These Thai terrestrial channels can be watched by a number of 3rd party satellite receivers but Grammy seek to and successfully block the distribution of the Thai free to air terrestrial channels by any satellite service bar their own.

What is there not to understand here? One has tried to force the other to pay for channels it normally airs for free, the other hasn't.

[thaihome]

"The big difference between True and Grammy, regarding this, is that True have never stooped to the level of seeking to deny any other satellite services the rights to air those Thai terrestrial channels showing premiership games... The rights to which were paid for exclusively by True."

Please point out when True actually gave other pay TV Satellite services their paid for content?

That is the gist of your argument, that True never denied another competing satellite company their feeds for free.

You seem to miss the point.

In the past, True have bought the rights for premiership games, shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels.

These Thai free to air channels can be watched a number of ways, via a terrestrial antenna or via a True receiver/ dish or via a number of 3rd party receivers/ dishes.

They have never sought to deny any other satellite services the rights to receive these Thai free to air channels while showing Premiership content paid for by True, on the basis that the other services haven't paid for the content.

That is exactly what Grammy has done.

Prior to Euro 2012 you could use a 3rd party satellite receiver to pick up Thai terrestrial TV and watch premiership content, bought by Truevisions, but viewable for free. True have not sought to prevent the airing of Thai terrestrial TV by other satellite providers, Grammy have.

Has, I repeat, since you've evaded the direct question;

'Has True ever given a direct competetor their paid for content in the same market for free?'

That is the only issue here.

The terrestrial stations were not blocked, they paid a revenue sharing fee,

only a free pass through to a direct competitor in the same market was blocked.

You say " .. True have bought the rights for premiership games,

shown them on their own channels, via their own satellite services

but they also distributed a number of these games for airing on Thai terrestrial channels."

A number of these games or all of those games?

Was True selective in which games it gave terrestrial deals to?

There is not enough "Thai terrestrial channels" to show all the EPL matches. From what I have seen, theThai terrestrial channels show the most popular ones, i.e. Liverpool, Man Utd, or Chelsea matches.

TH