Harold Mitchell has batted away the latest delivery from Foxtel after boss Richard Freudenstein opened the new anti-siphoning series between the pay TV and free TV lobby.
Freudenstein's speech to the American Chamber of Commerce set out the pay TV broadcaster's case for an end to the current anti-siphoning list. He said free-to-air TV networks should not receive special government protections such as the right to Tier A sports including the AFL and NRL grand finals, the Australian Open final and the Olympic Games.
The call rachets up the pressure from Foxtel, whose household penetration rate may arguably struggle to rise without more exclusive access to additional premium sports content (although its user base could grow significantly via Foxtel Go).
But Free TV is having none of Freudenstein's argument.
“It's no surprise to see pay TV out there crying foul over television sporting rights,” said Free TV chairman Harold Mitchell. “It's more of the same from an industry that is about one thing – making people pay for stuff they would otherwise get for free.
“Calls for the current framework to be replaced by a 'dual rights' scheme where free-to-air and pay rights for listed sports would be sold separately is nothing more than a pea and thimble trick that will see sports disappear from the television screens of ordinary Australians.
“It is simply a fantasy to imagine that the same content can be sold to two competing platforms. That scheme is simply the latest strategy devised by pay TV to achieve their ultimate goal – exclusive rights to premium sporting content.”
Free TV also said free-to-air networks are some of the most regulated and taxed in the world. It also reinforced its argument Foxtel should pay retransmission fees to the FTA networks, which Freudenstein said in his speech was not in the interest of the consumer.
Freudenstein used his speech to call for an immediate review of cross media limitations, anti-siphoning regulations and restrictions on access to spectrum, arguing that they distort business decisions and stifle innovation.
In a thinly vield dig at the likes of Google, which owns Youtube, Freudenstein said it would be "absurd to extend them to new entrants such as emerging IPTV and other broadband service providers (even ones who pay very little tax). Therefore they should not apply to existing players."
He called for more generic principles such as those that apply under general competition law. "This will create a technologically neutral level playing field for business to thrive in, while the resulting competitive environment will provide benefits for consumers."
Free to air networks could not "have it both ways", he said.
"They are arguing that they should have their licence fees largely eliminated. We don’t have a view on that, except to say that if they are to have their regulatory obligations reduced then they cannot expect to continue to have the regulatory benefits that they have enjoyed. The current anti-siphoning system is a standout in this regard."
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.
Have something to say? Send us your comments using the form below or contact the writer at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.