Court To Decide On Consumer Body's Plea Against GMM: Euro 2012

[Ferangled]

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

[whybother]

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

[webfact]

UPDATE:

Trial over Euro 2012 dispute continues

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Civil Court trial filed by Foundation for Consumers chief Saree Aongsomwang and others against TV channels 3, 5, 9 and GMM Grammy continued unabated yesterday. The lawsuit was filed over the GMM GrammyTrueVisions dispute that has left satellite and digital subscribers unable to watch the football competition Euro 2012.

In a move to protect consumers' right to watch free TV and demanding a compensation of Bt1,590 per head for those affected, the plaintiffs are also asking for a court order for a disclosure of the concession contracts, especially those between Channel 3 and the MCOT.

The dispute between Grammy, the sole holder of broadcast rights for Euro 2012 matches in Thailand, and cableTV operator TrueVisions resulted in people being unable to watch free TV channels via the True platform during the live games. Only those who bought the Bt1,590 GMMZ signal box were able to unscramble the signal.

The Foundation for Consumers, which had earlier campaigned for a boycott of Grammy's products, also issued a statement explaining their move. The statement said the plaintiffs, wishing to act on behalf of 11 million households whose basic right to watch free TV via satellite devices was violated, had to file this lawsuit because the Consumer Case Procedure Act BE 2551 did not allow them to sue on behalf of consumers. The foundation can file cases with the Administrative Court or on behalf of consumers in relation to the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act BE 2551.

Saying that the protection of broadcast rights should not violate consumers' right to access information, the statement said that Grammy had done this to make profit from selling GMMZ boxes. It added that at least 800,000 boxes worth Bt1.272 billion had already been sold, not to mention the money earned from sponsors, advertisers etc.

The statement also cited that from June 8 until the lawsuit was filed on June 24, they had campaigned for related agencies, including 302 consumer rights organisations, to perform their duty by helping the public have access to free TV services. The foundation has also tried to discuss this matter and submitted two letters demanding solution with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission.

-- The Nation 2012-06-29

[rubl]

In a move to protect consumers' right to watch free TV

Is this by constitution, additional law, other concept?

Read this wiki article for some interesting aspects on 'free TV'. It's probably a farang omission that Thailand is not mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia....evision_licence

[Ferangled]

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?"

[thaicbr]

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?"

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+

[chotthee]

Sue EURO2012 for 1000000000 Zillion EUROs.

They action are against Thai constitution.

[FOODLOVER]

I think it's a commandment. Thou shalt have free football. Fell short of the top ten though.

[thaihome]

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

[Ferangled]

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

[whybother]

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.

[Ferangled]

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?!

[whybother]

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?

[Ferangled]

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

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ferangled

[gregb]

The question here is whether it was legal and correct for GMM to license the broadcast rights to Channel 3, etc. and simultaneously place restrictions on which mediums could transmit the game. It is obviously OK to license the games to Channel 3, etc. and allow all mediums that normally broadcast the channels to see it. It is also obviously OK for GMM not to license the games to the free stations and require anyone who wants to see it to buy a set top box from them, That is what they did for the Superbowl after all, and there was no court battle over it.

The problem comes from their particularly confusing decision to license the games to only a subset of the viewers of the free to air stations. As has been pointed out before, the argument that this was due to contractual issues is nonsense, because they also didn't allow TrueVisions cable subscribers to see the game. So clearly this was about money, and had little if anything to do with signal leakage.

So was this very confusing contract proposed by GMM legal and proper under Thai law? GMM may have paid money for the license, but that does not give them carte blanche to do whatever they want if it causes confusion and anger among Thai consumers who legitimately believed when they purchased True that they would receive all free to air coverage. In this sense, there is a legal argument that they were defrauded. Now it simply comes down to who defrauded them. Was GMM within their legal rights to propose a restrictive contract to the free to air stations like they did? Or were they required when inking the deal to allow every medium that normally carries the free to air stations to broadcast the signal? Was GMM really allowed to redefine the term "free to air" as they did without consulting with the NBTC? I can certainly see why GMM's contract could cause confusion among the public as to the meaning of "free to air", and therefore may be considered fraudulent, just as any misleading statements on consumer items can be considered fraudulent.

That is the question the court has to address.

[Pseudolus]

• Did GMM buy exclusive rights to show the footie?
  
• Did GMM do this because some people, who might want to watch the matches in good quality as opposed to TV ariel style might venture out and buy their digiboxes (of which there are still 1000 for sale in my local Big C)?
  
• If they gave this feed free to a competitor that in doing so would detract people from buy their set top boxes?
  
• If so, why would they then unless True pays a price to compensate GMM for loss of profits resulting from not selling the boxes?
  

Seem pretty simple to my simple head. Face saving manoeuvres from piss poor True as usual. Think everything is going their way; well don't bid that much because we will get it free anyway; then Oh no! GMM turn it off! How dare they; we have already falsely told our customers we will be showing it! Hmm let's blame GMM and sue them so that our customers think it is not our fault.

It's only wendyball anyway; not that important.

[webfact]

to continue:

EURO 2012: Thai Court declines to order broadcasts

Full story:

//CLOSED//