DStv's sport broadcasting monopoly is abnormal, says StarTimes

Sodan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
2,730
#3
Wait wait, are they only talking football, or are they also referring to Cricket, Rugby, Tennis, Formula 1 and so on?
 

assassin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
493
#4
My guess is if they can crack football, they would probably be on their way to getting most other sports.

Looks like they are focusing on football as a start.
 

JustAsk

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
2,591
#6
South Africa does not have protected sport events ,protected and categorized by law,like many other countries.This is about to change and many sport events will be available on other providers and fta.This is the single only reason SA couldn't stream the Olympics.It wasn't because monochoice bought the rights but because the olympics is a "category A" protected event in many countries.

Starsat won't responsible for that,but since they know the law is in progress and will be ready some time next year,it certainly doesn't hurt making noise.
 

Honey Badger

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
19,467
#7
What I'd like to see is sport being displayed on both Startimes and DSTV.

It will be a really khak day if I (for example) have to get DSTV for my F1 and Startimes for my cricket
 

MartyMarts

Spontaneous Interruption
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
6,254
#9
What I'd like to see is sport being displayed on both Startimes and DSTV.

It will be a really khak day if I (for example) have to get DSTV for my F1 and Startimes for my cricket
^ This. I'm all for competition, cheaper, etc. but it has to make sense. I only watch football (EPL, CL) so I don't want to have to keep Dstv to watch the EPL and then have to get StarSat to watch the CL. That's just stupid.
 

GimmeMore

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
655
#11
^ This. I'm all for competition, cheaper, etc. but it has to make sense. I only watch football (EPL, CL) so I don't want to have to keep Dstv to watch the EPL and then have to get StarSat to watch the CL. That's just stupid.
It is probably a monopoly, but the quality is good. I would rather pay extra than having StarSat getting the rights to broadcast certain sports and then not broadcast them at all or then have really crappy coverage with the broadcast suspended halfway through the match as it is time for news or something. I do remember this happening on SABC. At the critical point of the Cricket ODI, it is time for the soapie and goodbye cricket.

All for competition, but I do like to have my cake and lick it.
 

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
5,138
#12
It is probably a monopoly, but the quality is good. I would rather pay extra than having StarSat getting the rights to broadcast certain sports and then not broadcast them at all or then have really crappy coverage with the broadcast suspended halfway through the match as it is time for news or something. I do remember this happening on SABC. At the critical point of the Cricket ODI, it is time for the soapie and goodbye cricket.

All for competition, but I do like to have my cake and lick it.
The picture quality on some of the TopTV/StarSat channels (in particular movie channels) recently degraded to the point where the picture breaks up every few seconds any time of the day/night and without a cloud in the sky, I suspect the same fate will befall the rest of the channels as well.
 

McT

The Humble Scot!
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
35,442
#13
StarTimes is ready to work with the South African people and government to change this situation and create a digital TV market that is fair, competitive, and healthy, Xinxing said.
I find this incredibly ironic. The Chinese have usually swamped and killed competition in most industries... wait, actually in virtually all industries they enter and compete in around the world. However, here they actually want competition? Or is this sour grapes because they cannot get their own way? How can we take you seriously, dude! :rolleyes:
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,817
#14
Hoo boy.

DStv's monopoly is not a coercive one but arises from them putting in the most attractive bid to the rights holders.

The last thing we need is further government meddling in broadcasting. Sports financing and sports TV coverage in SA would suffer if the police were brought in to force the parties into contracts they wouldn't otherwise enter into. (Police are the enforcement arm of the executive branch, remember.)

Yes, DStv is expensive. But that's mainly because advertising revenues are very limited in Multichoice's main markets, and the only other revenue tree they can pluck is subscriber fees. Us.

As anyone who has travelled widely and watched sports TV elsewhere will corroborate, we in SA with DStv probably have the best sports coverage in the world. Not just local and regional sports, but even of major global events like the Olympics, or Football World Cup, and so on.

If you knew what the average Brit or Frenchman or German or American could get of these events you'd be shocked.

The State's hand is already too heavy by 'regulating' broadcast licences - it dishes them out only on receipt of preposterously exorbitant "licence" fees, and then only to lackeys and the politically safe. Multichoice got its ticket under the Nat regime, and the same outrageously restrictive policy has been followed by our current overlords.

At the end of the day sports event owners, ie those who sell the broadcast rights to their events to the TV companies, will require the same nett return. If the SARB or SACB or PSL want say R10m per game broadcast, then compelling any broadcaster to share the rights with others will inevitably mean less revenues for them and therefore less investment in the game broadcast, equipment and infrastructure required. Quality and width suffers, and we the viewers get less and less as the same pie is forcibly sliced up according to government decree, ie the whims of politicians.

Please, I am not defending a monopoly. I am defending liberty of contract. The government should ease off on the legal restrictions on broadcasters, lower the legal and fees barriers to entry, and allow broadcasters to bid freely.

May the best man win. Government meddling and control - always in the name of fairness and equality, take note - only destroys and never helps. And it is totally contrary to the whole spirit of sport, which is one if the few domains left in the world where State intrusion is still quite low.

The State is not our saviour!
 
Last edited:

j4ck455

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
5,138
#15
But that's mainly because advertising revenues are very limited in Multichoice's main markets,
Explaino pleaso me no understando.

Or is this sour grapes because they cannot get their own way? How can we take you seriously, dude! :rolleyes:
The guy's name also sounds a lot like Ka-chingKa-ching, he's upset that MonoChoice is coining it and he is not.
 
Last edited:

Rinkhals

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
495
#16
Explaino pleaso me no understando.
He means that the vast bulk of the advertising content that DSTV carries is actually for DSTV. Which doesn't raise much in revenue and is mostly received by people who have DSTV anyway.
The guy's name also sounds a lot like Ka-chingKa-ching, he's upset that MonoChoice is coining it and he is not.
Not yet.

SABC3 always used to carry Proteas games which, AFAICS, is one reason that cricket has become more popular among the black population.

It's stopped doing so now and one wonders why.
 

freematrix

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
561
#17
I hope competition is on the cards and that this is for real. We need this urgently as sport for DSTV is all about money and ensuring their monopoly.
 

killadoob

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
46,576
#18
I hope competition is on the cards and that this is for real. We need this urgently as sport for DSTV is all about money and ensuring their monopoly.
No you don't. Maybe for people who don't watch sport, competition is fine but i really don't want to have 2 or 3 networks to watch cricket, f1, soccer, rugby, tennis etc.

DSTV is not expensive if you are into sport, if you are not into sport don't cry and just ignore dstv but sport costs i would imagine billions for supersport to show all the sport they, they are the biggest single sport network on the planet, there isn't another network that shows as much sport as dstv does. Supersport covers redbull cliff diving FFS.

I don't care what anyone says but for people who love multiple sporting events, dstv is not expensive. 700 rand is nothing considering the sport they cover. I can spend that over the course of a weekend, if the lads decide to go to a strip club that money in gone is one night.

So no we hope no sporting competition comes along because we will end up paying more for sport. DSTV for the average person who doesn't watch sport i agree with you but i only pay for dstv to watch sport, i don't watch anything but sport on dstv o and the news networks and boy does sport entertain me, i cannot buy that sort of entertainment for 700 in a month. 8-15 hours a week. So let's say i watch 40 hours of sport a month. What can i do with 700 rand in a month that could entertain me for that amount of time and 40 hours is a low estimate.
 
Last edited:

Wall

Sports Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
30,704
#19
He means that the vast bulk of the advertising content that DSTV carries is actually for DSTV. Which doesn't raise much in revenue and is mostly received by people who have DSTV anyway.

Not yet.

SABC3 always used to carry Proteas games which, AFAICS, is one reason that cricket has become more popular among the black population.

It's stopped doing so now and one wonders why.
Actually SABC carries all home games of SA cricket on a national level and they always get coverage of the WC.
 

Wall

Sports Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
30,704
#20
No you don't. Maybe for people who don't want sport competetion is fine but i really don't want to have 2 or 3 network to watch cricket, f1, soccer, rugby, tennis etc.

DSTV is not expensive if you are into sport, if you are not into sport don't cry and just ignore dstv but costs i would image billions for supersport to show all the sport they, they are the biggest single sport network on the planet, there isn't another network that shows as much sport as dstv does. Supersport cover redbull cliff diving FFS.

I don't care what anyone says but for people who love multiple sporting events, dstv is not expensive. 700 rand is nothing considering the sport they cover. I can spend that over the course of a weekend, if the lads decide to go to a strip club that money in gone is one night.

So no we hope no sporting competition comes along because we will end up paying more for sport. DSTV for the average person who doesn't want sport i agree with you but i only pay for dstv to watch sport, i don't want anything but sport and boy does that entertain me, i cannot buy that sort of entertainment for 700 in a month. 8-15 hours a week
I agree 100%. Supersport's coverage is amazing. I mean they even started covering sport NFL and NBA. The last thing I want is to watch cricket on Star Times and Soccer on DSTV.

Another thing, DSTV actual coverage of any sporting event is world class. ( I'm talking about picture quality etc)
 
Top