Kiam Siap, Channel 5 and CNA


Status
Not open for further replies.

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,733
0
0
Piss off with Channel 5, Channel News Asia's 'still' footages of Euro 2004. So kiam siap! cannot afford 'moving' footages.
 

reachme2003 said:
Piss off with Channel 5, Channel News Asia's 'still' footages of Euro 2004. So kiam siap! cannot afford 'moving' footages.

SCV has exclusive rights of Euro 2004, the broadcasters are at the mercy of the rights owner in terms of what they can and cannot show. Without knowing their rights agreement it would not be fair to give them labels.

ps: I don't work for any of these broadcasters but in a somewhat related industry.
 

lol...subscribe to cable lor :bsmilie:
 

Totally agree. Sports is a thing which everyone should be allowed to watch FREE!

The act by SCV means that no money, no sports. How to improve the level of participation like that? How can Singapore enter World Cup in 2010, if most of us cannot watch soccer and support them? :thumbsd: :thumbsd: :thumbsd:

I'm sure a lot of us, me included, do not subscribe to cable at home. This means that we can only go to bed early, and wake up early to get the latest news from the web. :cry:
 

again I do not work for SCV or any of the broadcaster. I would however like to point out that sports on TV, like any other programming, is a commercial affair, not national education. SCV paid a horribly large sum of moola to obtain the rights, you think they're just going to broadcast it free to air? They're not a charity nor government funded. They are funded by those who paid a premium subscription (which incidentally I do not) for the privilege of watching such premium programs.

You could go to your neighbourhood kopitiam with a super sports channel subscription.
 

It's very frustrating indeed!

I am in Oz and Fox has also got the monopoly over Euro 2004. Tonight, the free-to-air sports channel SBS going to telecast and interview Why they didn't managed to get the rights, and how the broadcasting authority "favoured" Fox.

No Kopi tiam to watch the Euro here. Wanted to sign up for cable, but it's so darn expensive and I probably need a satellite dish as well.
 

hwchoy said:
SCV has exclusive rights of Euro 2004, the broadcasters are at the mercy of the rights owner in terms of what they can and cannot show. Without knowing their rights agreement it would not be fair to give them labels.

ps: I don't work for any of these broadcasters but in a somewhat related industry.
For the consumers, I think for news programmes, clips are not too much to ask. Two issues: First, SCV's monopolistic situation. I wonder how the much anticipated anti-competition legistration will change anything.

Second. I watch them live on Malaysian's TV3 or Indonesian channel, free-to-air too.
 

hwchoy said:
again I do not work for SCV or any of the broadcaster. I would however like to point out that sports on TV, like any other programming, is a commercial affair, not national education. SCV paid a horribly large sum of moola to obtain the rights, you think they're just going to broadcast it free to air? They're not a charity nor government funded. They are funded by those who paid a premium subscription (which incidentally I do not) for the privilege of watching such premium programs.

You could go to your neighbourhood kopitiam with a super sports channel subscription.

I do not understand why, in Singapore, many aspects of our life are plagued by 'must pay' basis?? Our neighbouring countries are airing free-to-air Euro 2004 matches. I assumed it to be the case as I am able to tune to their frequencies from here.
 

reachme2003 said:
For the consumers, I think for news programmes, clips are not too much to ask. Two issues: First, SCV's monopolistic situation. I wonder how the much anticipated anti-competition legistration will change anything.

Second. I watch them live on Malaysian's TV3 or Indonesian channel, free-to-air too.

It's not a monopoly per se, it is sort of open bidding and the highest and most attractive offer wins. If MCS figured they could sell enough advertising they could well outbid SCV for the exclusive rights.

If Malaysia TV3 has the rights, the reason would be that they're the rights owner for Malaysia and they have outbid everyone else there, including Astro. Remember free to air is not free, just that someone else is paying instead of YOU!
 

reachme2003 said:
I do not understand why, in Singapore, many aspects of our life are plagued by 'must pay' basis?? Our neighbouring countries are airing free-to-air Euro 2004 matches. I assumed it to be the case as I am able to tune to their frequencies from here.

see my previous post. free is not really free, so says confucious :)
if no one is paying, where do you think Beckham's gonna get his fat paycheck?
 

let's not get philsophical here. The fact is I am not prepared to pay and am not paying to watch. In the absence of free to air channels, I just do not watch. Does not hurt me that much!
 

Tune to Indonesia's channel and get to watch it for free. They have always telecast live matches for free. Not everything is about money.
 

True, i found that they sometimes come with Indonesian narration and last night, with original English narration. I get clearer reception from Indonesia than Malaysia, though TV3 comes with English narration.
 

guys, do u know that mediacorp is also a shareholder of starhub.
so u do the maths yourself on why channel 5 and CNA is showing only still photos instead of actual footage of goals.
 

so, anti competition legistration may apply here? i wonder if media industry, specifically, paid channels are excluded? Or should it be excluded at all?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.