EURO 2012: Thai Court Declines To Order Broadcasts

[webfact]

Court declines to order euro broadcasts

Watchiranont Thongtep

The Nation

A distraught Saree Ongsomwang, secretary of the Foundation for Consumers, leaves the Civil Court after hearing the court

Airing matches via free-TV channels would put Kingdom in violation of international copyright rules, Civil Court says

BANGKOK: -- After a marathon hearing yesterday, the Civil Court decided not to have the operators of the three free-TV channels, namely BEC's ThaiTV3, the Royal Thai Army's TV5 and MCOT's ModernineTV, transmit unencrypted satellite signals broadcasting Euro 2012 matches to satellite TV receivers because this would violate international copyright law.

The hearing began on Tuesday after the Confederation of Consumer Organisations of Thailand and satellite TV viewers filed a complaint against GMM Grammy, the sole holder of the right to broadcast live Euro 2012 matches, and against the three free-to-air television channels. They asked the court to order the three free-to-air television channels to transmit unencrypted satellite signals carrying the live Euro 2012 matches to satellite TV receivers.

The confederation claimed that GMM Z, the satellite broadcasting unit of GMM Grammy, had to take responsibility for the more than 10 million viewers who were unable to watch the Euro 2012 matches because their television signal at home was being broadcast via satellite receivers. The confederation said this was a violation of basic consumer rights and called on GMM Grammy to provide Bt1,590 compensation for each of the 33 million individuals from 11 million households that were affected.

Meanwhile, Civil Court secretary Narat Imsuksri said yesterday that the decision was based on the benefit of both sides - the consumers and the businesses.

Under the Constitution's Article 47, which rules that transmission frequencies for radio or television broadcasting and telecommunication are national resources for the public interest, free-to-air TV operators including ThaiTV3, TV 5 and Modernine TV must be responsible for public broadcasting services.

However, these TV operators cannot provide satellite TV broadcasting service to households with satellite receivers because they were only contracted to broadcast via analogue terrestrial signal. Yet, as a public broadcasting service provider, they should place more emphasis on the effect agreements with private companies would have on key audiences, Narat said.

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

Narat added that the court's decision was also based on the 2007 Constitution's Articles 41 and 43. Article 41 is related to an individual's property rights, while Article 43 is related to an individual's liberty to engage in enterprise or an occupation that allows for free and fair competition. GMM Grammy's business contract with the operators of the three free-to-air television channels and the ownership of the rights to broadcast the Euro 2012 tournament are protected by such laws.

Though more than 10 million households are left staring at black screens during the Euro 2012 tournament, which comes to an end early on Monday morning, others are able to watch the matches via traditional TV antennas or via GMM Z satellite TV receivers.

Narat said if the court ordered the operators of the free-to-air channels to do as requested by the plaintiffs, then they would be breaking their agreement with GMM Grammy, which is the holder of the rights to broadcast Euro 2012.

Besides, if they are allowed to transmit unencrypted signals via other satellite receivers, then the Euro 2012 rights owner, the Union of European Football Associations (Uefa), might cut off the live feed of the tournament because it could be stolen by neighbouring countries.

He said that the court understands that if this happens, everybody would be affected and Thailand's reputation in relation to copyright and intellectual property protection would suffer further.

-- The Nation 2012-06-30

[theblether]

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

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

[smedly]

I disagree, this was purely a business ruling, what they failed to address was that GMM should never have been allowed to exploit "free to Air" Thai TV like they did, I would suggest this will never happen again, if GMM wants to bid for rights to certain content - they will not be allowed to use the Free TV channels as they did - effectively making them "pay TV channels" for certain viewers and certain content, they are either free or "not free" you cannot have muddled in between were depending on how you view them depends on their status, this outcome was the best solution the court coud rule even though it is fundamentally wrong, in the UK everyone has free viewing rights to watch all the terestrial channels no matter how they recieve them - there is no encryption period no matter the content, GMM were wrong and unfortunately the court ruling doesn't reflect this but at this stage there was not much the court could do about it without having 80% of the country lose the football on free TV

[Maejo Man]

Finally a Thai court making an ethical and correct ruling.

[whybother]

Correct, but unusual decision by the courts.

It's surprising that the courts in Thailand have stated that all the companies involved have to abide by the contracts that they signed.

What is this country coming to?

Sent from my shoe phone

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whybother]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whybother]

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

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

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

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

[smedly]

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

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

[whybother]

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

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

GMM had bought the rights to the football. GMM offered the rights to the free to air channels under certain conditions. The free to air channels accepted those conditions.

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Curt1591]

"A distraught Saree Ongsomwang ..."

Could you imagine if they canceled Korean dramas !?!

[whybother]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited June 30, 2012 by whybother

[smedly]

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

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

GMM had bought the rights to the football. GMM offered the rights to the free to air channels under certain conditions. The free to air channels accepted those conditions.

Then they are no longer FTA channels - which is exactly the point

These channels are FTA- THEY ARE NOT PAY TV - THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE TRUE LINEUP OF PAY TV - THEY ARE FTA - GMM HAD NO RIGHT TO HIJACK THEM - if you can't understand that then sobeit - just stop posting your same crap over and over

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[whybother]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited June 30, 2012 by Ferangled

[gregb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what you fail to address is whether or not the free to air channels legally had the right to accept to accept such a contract, and whether GMM legally had the right to offer it. I think even the judges realized this opens up a very sticky can of worms whereby the free to air channels can start showing premium content which is only available through certain access mediums. That would mean their charter, which is to show free to air programming on a non discriminatory basis, could now effectively be hijacked. But that having been said it appears they made the decision that an injunction at this stage would be even worse, so settled by simply advising the NBTC to implement new regulations to resolve this as soon as possible.

Again, the real question here is not about who signed what contract. It is about what is the definition of "free to air", and is it fraudulent for GMM to unilaterally redefine that definition to protect their own interests.

It matters not a whiff who signed what contracts in this case. It matters whether or not consumers have the right to assume "free to air" means "free to air" in all cases independent of the transmission medium.

I am quite certain that we will see these kinds of dubious contracts made illegal in the future. And note that the judges simply declined to issue an injunction. They did not rule out the possibility of lawsuits against GMM and/or True for fraudulent marketing. (e.g. stating they offered "free to air" channels when in fact the programming included something less than "free to air".) Who bears responsibility for that fraud, and how the NBTC will redefine licensing terms in the future to prevent it, is a very interesting legal question.

[NCFC]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Even FTA has to be paid for by somebody, it certainly isn't a basic human right to watch FTA TV. True opted out of paying for the rights to broadcast the football, and so quite rightly, True customers didn't get to see the games via a True feed.

The courts have to uphold the law whether it be criminal law or commercial law, to do anything else is to invite anarchy. This is the correct outcome.

I'm a True customer and have missed out on viewing the games, but that's my hard luck. I don't have any "right" to view anything that's not been paid for.

[whybother]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that there is a need for new regulations means that the current regulations allow for this to happen.

As I said, I like the Australian laws that mean that some sports can't only be shown on pay tv.

But the reality is that sport is big business. Companies pay big money for the rights and they should also be protected.

If people only have a pay tv connection, then they need to get an aerial if they want to watch the football. Would people complain if GMM didn't sell the rights to free to air? GMM are protecting their interests by not allowing other pay tv services access.

Sent from my shoe phone

[smedly]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Even FTA has to be paid for by somebody, it certainly isn't a basic human right to watch FTA TV. True opted out of paying for the rights to broadcast the football, and so quite rightly, True customers didn't get to see the games via a True feed.

The courts have to uphold the law whether it be criminal law or commercial law, to do anything else is to invite anarchy. This is the correct outcome.

I'm a True customer and have missed out on viewing the games, but that's my hard luck. I don't have any "right" to view anything that's not been paid for.

first of all - it's not a true feed - this feed is free from the satelite and can be tuned with any fre to air box, true show it as a convenience to their customers so they don't have to keep jumping in and out of tuners, it is exactly the same arrangement as Sky TV have in the UK and may even be part of their licence that they must show the FTA channels in their line up

GMM had no right to hijack the FTA national channels from any source, the operators of the FTA national TV channels had no right to make their channels subscription

you two guys are worth ignoring because you simply fail to see the obvious here, there were wrong doings here and it was not true, the court had no choice in their ruling otherwise all of thailand would have been denied viewing of the football if they had ruled that GMM was in the wrong and had to shut down the screening of the what is effectively pay TV on the FTA channels, the court made the only ruling they could make at this point but made it clear that regulations needed to be put in place (probably their already) prohibiting this ever happening again, money obviously exchanged hands as backhanders slipped into key pockets to make this happen

GMM tried to buck the system and to a point succeeded - they should have used their own network

no more to discus here so lets move on

[bigbamboo]

Amateur Hour.

[smedly]

The fact that there is a need for new regulations means that the current regulations allow for this to happen.

Well you don't know that for sure and neither do I but I'd tend to go the other way, the regulations are there and they were broken for the right sums - remember where you are - when does anyone here follow regulations if the right money is involved

[whybother]

But what you fail to address is whether or not the free to air channels legally had the right to accept to accept such a contract, and whether GMM legally had the right to offer it. I think even the judges realized this opens up a very sticky can of worms whereby the free to air channels can start showing premium content which is only available through certain access mediums. That would mean their charter, which is to show free to air programming on a non discriminatory basis, could now effectively be hijacked. But that having been said it appears they made the decision that an injunction at this stage would be even worse, so settled by simply advising the NBTC to implement new regulations to resolve this as soon as possible.

Again, the real question here is not about who signed what contract. It is about what is the definition of "free to air", and is it fraudulent for GMM to unilaterally redefine that definition to protect their own interests.

It matters not a whiff who signed what contracts in this case. It matters whether or not consumers have the right to assume "free to air" means "free to air" in all cases independent of the transmission medium.

I am quite certain that we will see these kinds of dubious contracts made illegal in the future. And note that the judges simply declined to issue an injunction. They did not rule out the possibility of lawsuits against GMM and/or True for fraudulent marketing. (e.g. stating they offered "free to air" channels when in fact the programming included something less than "free to air".) Who bears responsibility for that fraud, and how the NBTC will redefine licensing terms in the future to prevent it, is a very interesting legal question.

"whereby the free to air channels can start showing premium content which is only available through certain access mediums."

The standard available access to free to air TV is via an aerial. Some people use a pay tv service to access a better quality feed of free to air content. What happens if I don't pay for pay tv in my condo? Should I force True to give me a box, just so that I can watch free to air?

All GMM have done (and were probably forced to do by their contract with UEFA) is to stop other pay TV services from rebroadcasting the free to air content. The content is all still available if you have a aerial.

[smedly]

Amateur Hour.

not a surprise that you are always "amazed and confused" mate - you said it yourself

[whybother]

The fact that there is a need for new regulations means that the current regulations allow for this to happen.

Well you don't know that for sure and neither do I but I'd tend to go the other way, the regulations are there and they were broken for the right sums - remember where you are - when does anyone here follow regulations if the right money is involved

It was happening. The courts reviewed the situation. It's still happening. Therefore, one can assume that the regulations allow this to happen.

If the laws/regulations are changed, what will probably happen is that next time there won't be ANY free to air broadcast of the football.

[smedly]

But what you fail to address is whether or not the free to air channels legally had the right to accept to accept such a contract, and whether GMM legally had the right to offer it. I think even the judges realized this opens up a very sticky can of worms whereby the free to air channels can start showing premium content which is only available through certain access mediums. That would mean their charter, which is to show free to air programming on a non discriminatory basis, could now effectively be hijacked. But that having been said it appears they made the decision that an injunction at this stage would be even worse, so settled by simply advising the NBTC to implement new regulations to resolve this as soon as possible.

Again, the real question here is not about who signed what contract. It is about what is the definition of "free to air", and is it fraudulent for GMM to unilaterally redefine that definition to protect their own interests.

It matters not a whiff who signed what contracts in this case. It matters whether or not consumers have the right to assume "free to air" means "free to air" in all cases independent of the transmission medium.

I am quite certain that we will see these kinds of dubious contracts made illegal in the future. And note that the judges simply declined to issue an injunction. They did not rule out the possibility of lawsuits against GMM and/or True for fraudulent marketing. (e.g. stating they offered "free to air" channels when in fact the programming included something less than "free to air".) Who bears responsibility for that fraud, and how the NBTC will redefine licensing terms in the future to prevent it, is a very interesting legal question.

"whereby the free to air channels can start showing premium content which is only available through certain access mediums."

The standard available access to free to air TV is via an aerial. Some people use a pay tv service to access a better quality feed of free to air content. What happens if I don't pay for pay tv in my condo? Should I force True to give me a box, just so that I can watch free to air?

All GMM have done (and were probably forced to do by their contract with UEFA) is to stop other pay TV services from rebroadcasting the free to air content. The content is all still available if you have a aerial.

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

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

[whybother]

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

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

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

[Ferangled]

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

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

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

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

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

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