Moving digitised information across global distances with scant regard for previously established structures of limitation such as geographic borders and state regulations is becoming increasingly commonplace. In such an environment, the importance placed on mechanisms designed to reduce the 'slipperiness' of digital information has achieved some notoriety, especially in the context of media conglomerates who attempt to protect their exclusive rights to content. One of the primary mechanisms employed by these largely transnational corporations when state regulations fail to preserve the 'scarcity' of this content (Rowe and Hutchins 2009), is the tracking of IP addresses on consumer computers, and the subsequent activation of location-based enforcement techniques that prevents content from being accessed based on the IP address or location of a computer, commonly known as geoblocking. In the case of content rights-holders, this geoblocking is effectively enforced as a means of preventing consumers from accessing content on digital platforms, thereby channeling those consumers towards paying for access, usually on subscription or Free-to-Air broadcast television mediums. Such an approach denies the affordances of digital technology, but ensures a return on investment for the rights holder.
The practice of geoblocking is achieved with varying degrees of success in different media sectors, and in regards to different audiences. For example, Netflix utilises geoblocking in different regions according to their ownership of international rights to particular content. In Australia for example, subscribers are geoblocked from accessing the same library of Netflix content that US subscribers have.
But possibly the media industry that has utilised geoblocking to the biggest degree is live sports broadcasting, with the technique being deployed by those organisations that spend huge amounts of money to purchase the exclusive rights to broadcast a given sport. Via geoblocking, broadcasters attempt to ensure that consumers access the content either by paying for it (in the case of a pay-tv subscription), or in the case of Free-to-Air television (FTA), that the audience becomes as large and as concentrated as possible, in order to sell that aggregated audience to willing advertisers.
Although the specifics between sports may differ in terms of broadcast licenses and regions, the approach to geoblocking across the sports broadcasting industry remains largely the same. In an nut-shell, if a consumer is watching a game of live sport via an online platform where a broadcaster in the same region is also broadcasting the game, that particular game will be geoblocked on the online platform, in an attempt to force the consumer to purchase a subscription to the television provider that has the broadcast rights to that content. This can be even the case where that consumer has purchased an online or digital subscription to that content. The "NBA League Pass" of the National Basketball Association in North America is such an example.
As an international subscriber, I can watch any NBA game on my computer while I'm in Australia. But once I go into, say, Toronto, and the Raptors are playing a game which is being broadcast in Toronto on the Canadian sports network TSN, then the game will be geoblocked on my subscription, regardless of my status as an international subscriber. In North America, most 'network' television stations (the equivalent of FTA stations here in Australia) are bundled up with cable stations provided by Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributors (or MVPD's) such as DirecTV, Comcast, or AT&T (Lotz 2014) , so even if the game is on FTA, the consumer would still access the game by paying for a basic cable package from an MVPD.
This heirarchy of distribution effectively demonstrates that broadcast rights are still valued higher than online or digital rights, and the amounts paid by conglomerates in respect to those different types of licence bear that out. For example, in the last round of rights sold by the Australian Football League (AFL), television broadcasters paid roughly a combined $2 billion, while the online rights were sold for approximately one-tenth of that amount. The rights to the National Rugby League (NRL), which were purchased shortly after the AFL sale, were not remarkably different.
Coverage of the AFL more or less follows this protocol in regard to the geoblocking of games, with a few interesting wrinkles that make it a unique beast in regards to the maintenance of exclusive rights to content. Relating my own experiences as an AFL consumer in this country can assist in demonstrating the uniqueness of consuming this code of football. As an AFL fan living in regional northern New South Wales, catching a game has been a challenge at times over the years. Indeed, 15 years ago it could be a battle. With no secondary digital FTA channels, you may need to stay up late to watch the games on-delay, as they were rarely broadcast live in rugby-league-mad-NSW. Alternatively, without a Pay-TV subscription in the household, you might need to go down to the local hotel that had Pay-TV, and ask the patron to put the game on. Once the digital spectrum developed, getting to watch games live became more convenient, especially once the regulators allowed the FTA broadcaster to show games on the non-primary broadcast channel.
Under the current rights deal, up to four AFL games can now be seen live on FTA. In regional northern NSW, these games are shown on channel 7Mate, via the Seven Network affiliate, Prime7. Understandably, in this region 7Mate always carries the games of the two NSW teams (the Sydney Swans and the GWS Giants), plus the Friday night game, and another game on Saturday and/or Sunday.
However, there is a less palatable side of the AFL's broadcasting right's deal, and it's a side of the rights deal that negatively impacts any non-Swans or GWS fan in regional northern NSW, or more broadly, any fans of AFL teams that do not have a strong fan base. These teams that arguably struggle to attract an audience, especially in NSW, include North Melbourne, St Kilda, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, West Coast, Fremantle, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Adelaide and Port Adelaide.
Under the deal, the FTA broadcaster produces four games a week, while the Pay-TV operator produces the other five games. The Pay-TV provider broadcasts all 9 games live (i.e., their games plus those produced by the FTA partner), while the FTA broadcaster, as previously mentioned, show just 4 games live each week. This is a matter of simple economics - the parent company of the Pay-TV operator, News Corporation, tipped in the majority of the funds when purchasing the rights, so it is understandable that they get to offer a premium product (i.e., all games live with no advertisements during play), in an attempt to secure more paying subscribers, that allows them to recoup the funds they invested*. As such, some games are broadcast simultaneously on FTA and Pay-TV.
For some fans of the game, this presents a problem. Channel 7 has to chose four games to show out of nine total games every week. In NSW, two of those games are easy choices - the Swans game, and the GWS game. Another game will always be the Friday night game, as it typically draws large television audiences. Given its proven ability to draw large audiences, the AFL, in concert with the broadcasters, usually schedule this Friday night game to involve at least one of the 'powerhouse' teams - Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton, Geelong and to a lesser degree Essendon, Adelaide, and West Coast. As mentioned, the remaining game shown by the FTA broadcaster in regional norther NSW is on a Saturday or Sunday, and again understandably, there is a preference by the FTA broadcaster to show those games that involve the teams that are likely to draw the largest audiences. So where the problem lies is that the FTA coverage is unlikely to include those teams that are not the Swans or GWS, or one of the AFL 'powerhouse' teams,
But as is patently obvious, if you're only showing four out of nine games every week, then some teams, especially the 'small-market' teams, are rarely shown on FTA broadcasts. As Caroline Wilson reported in the Age earlier this year, fans with FTA access only may suffer further heartache, with the number of games shown on FTA next year potentially dropping to 3.5 games per week (i.e., 3 games one week, 4 games the next). This reduction comes after the FTA rights holder, the Seven Network, were unable to on-sell the rights to one game per week to another FTA provider.
This situation is clearly less than ideal for those fans living in regional northern NSW who are not Swans/GWS fans, or who otherwise support a 'small-market' team , as there is a bias in the FTA coverage away from those teams without a large supporter base, or that are from interstate.
An investigation into the games shown over the last two years on Free-to-Air television in both regional northern NSW and Melbourne draw this out. Below is a table that shows the number of games shown live on FTA television for every AFL team during the regular season. Finals games are not included:
Melbourne FTA AFL Coverage
| 2015 FTA Games | Team | 2016 FTA Games | Teams | ||
| 17 | Geelong | 17 | Collingwood, Geelong | ||
| 16 | Collingwood, Richmond | 16 | Richmond | ||
| 15 | Hawthorn | 15 | Hawthorn | ||
| 14 | Carlton, Essendon | 14 | Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne | ||
| 13 | North Melbourne | 11 | Sydney | ||
| 11 | Sydney | 10 | Essendon | ||
| 9 | Port Adelaide, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs | 9 | St Kilda | ||
| 7 | Melbourne | 8 | Carlton, Adelaide, Melbourne | ||
| 6 | Adelaide, West Coast | 7 | Port Adelaide, West Coast | ||
| 5 | Brisbane | 5 | Fremantle | ||
| 3 | Freemantle, GWS Giants | 4 | Gold Coast | ||
| 2 | Gold Coast | 3 | Brisbane, GWS Giants | ||
Regional Northern NSW FTA AFL Coverage
| 2015 FTA Games | Team | 2016 FTA Games | Team | ||
| 22 | GWS, Sydney | 22 | GWS, Sydney | ||
| 15 | Collingwood | 18 | Geelong | ||
| 14 | Carlton, Geelong | 15 | Collingwood | ||
| 13 | Richomond | 13 | Hawthorn, Richmond | ||
| 12 | Essendon | 12 | North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs | ||
| 11 | Hawthorn | 9 | Adelaide, Essendon, Port Adelaide | ||
| 10 | North Melbourne | 8 | West Coast | ||
| 9 | Port Adelaide | 7 | Carlton, St Kilda | ||
| 8 | Melbourne, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs | 6 | Fremantle | ||
| 6 | Brisbane | 5 | Gold Coast, Melbourne | ||
| 5 | Adelaide, Gold Coast | 4 | Brisbane | ||
| 4 | Freemantle, West Coast |
With few exceptions, it is clearly demonstrated in the data above, that 'big' teams get more FTA coverage in both Melbourne and the regional northern NSW markets. Some other interesting points:
- In 2015, the GWS Giants had no games shown on FTA coverage in Melbourne through the first 16 rounds of that season. In 2016, the Brisbane Lions had no games shown in that market through the first 9 rounds of that season.
- In 2015, the Adelaide Crows had no games shown on FTA coverage in the northern regional NSW market through the first 7 rounds of that season. In 2016, the Fremantle Dockers had no games shown in that market through the first 6 rounds of that season.
So what is the solution for the fans of those teams that get less FTA coverage? In the first instance, the AFL and their broadcast partners would plainly prefer those fans purchase a Pay-TV subscription that includes the Fox Footy channel. This is unquestionably part of the business model of Pay-TV: purchasing expensive television rights for sports in order to make the content exclusive, thereby charging audiences for access. It's a model that has worked with considerable success for considerable time. The Pay-TV provider structures many of its subscription packages and marketing campaigns around this exclusivity of being able to watch every game live, often in HD and uninterrupted by in-game advertising.
But this is not a cheap option for many consumers. To get the Fox Footy channel, consumers must pay for the basic Foxtel package, and then purchase the add-on 'Sports' package. Then an additional purchase is required to get the games in HD. The cost of these packages do not include the fee for installation, the fee for the Foxtel set-top box, and there is also a minimum contract in place (usually 6 months). The minimum total cost I calculated using the Foxtel 'Select and Customise' webpage was $381 for the minimum term.
Another option might be to get the Foxtel Play app. This app provides a scaled down version of Foxtel to customers that want to ‘cut the cord’, and access Foxtel content only via the internet. This app streams Foxtel content to smart TV’s, PC’s and Mac’s. But remarkably, and what makes the AFL unique in this context, is that the Foxtel Play app allows customers to stream AFL games to smart TV’s, but NOT to PC’s and Mac’s. The minimum cost of subscribing to the Foxtel Play app is $50/month, so a cumulative amount for a season would be roughly $300, and is only an option if the consumer has a smart TV - potentially an expensive proposition to begin with.
Clearly the "Get a Pay-TV subscription" answer may not be feasible for the less affluent who want to watch their (non-'powerhouse') team on a regular basis. One alternative would be to go online and watch the games via an illegal streaming website, such as First Row Sports, or what Burrows and Rugg (2014) call 'unsanctioned third-party streaming' websites.
It is not the interest of this researcher to investigate the practices, legality or morality of those that chose this alternative. This option is outside what might be called fair and reasonable access to the games. As Phillipa McGuinness identified in the recently published book "Copyfight", paying for content is not just a matter of legalities, it is also an indication of respect towards the producers of the content (in this case the athletes, administrators, and the broadcasters) in order to contribute to the product financially, so that more content may be produced. It is also assumed that many people would prefer to pay a reasonable amount to access content legally rather than risk litigation by streaming content illegally. The rise of the iTunes marketplace post-Napster is arguably evidence of this.
Another solution the AFL and the broadcast partners (especially the digital broadcast partner, in this case Telstra) would try to funnel you towards is the 'AFL Live' digital pass. For a reasonable fee of $89.99 per year, you can watch every game of AFL Live... but ONLY on hand-held devices via the AFL app. So, if you're living in regional northern NSW, and your team the Fremantle Dockers are playing Brisbane on a Saturday at the same time as a Swans game, and you don't have Foxtel, then get used to watching the game on your phone or at best on a tablet. Too bad if you want to watch the game with all your mates around at your house.
Some mobile apps, such as Netflix and the ABC's iView, allow consumers to wirelessly 'cast' the vision from their mobile devices to your television using a device such as a Chromecast dongle. The AFL has disabled this casting function. The AFL Live pass is also blocked from working on PC's and Laptops, which similarly prevents games from being cast or cabled to television sets.
So are there any alternatives for the fan of a small-market team, other than watching the game on screens no bigger than the size of an envelope? There is an alternative that does not require excessive amounts of technical knowledge, is affordable, is not illegal, and offers every game live on big screens in HD quality, and this is where geoblocking returns to the conversation.
Stemming from a concept introduced to me by Buggoughs and Rugg (2014), I became aware of Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology. For a relatively small annual fee (in my case ($39 for 12 months), purchasing a VPN changes the ‘‘address’’ of a computer to an overseas location, thereby sidestepping the geoblocking restriction. The consumer can subsequently purchase a ‘foreign’ digital subscription that allows games to be streamed onto computers, and from there, the signal can be sent to a television via a cable, or wirelessly using 'casting' technology. Fortunately, the AFL does offer such a 'foreign' subscription; the 'WatchAFL Global Pass' ($149/year).
Here is where the problem lies for broadcasters, digital partners, the AFL, and possibly regulators. It is the problem that is the focus of my research, as it represents a fundamental undermining of the existing broadcast business model based on selling subscriptions and/or advertising space to pay for expensive broadcasting rights.
In one afternoon, and without much trouble, I was able to purchase a VPN, and an AFL Global Pass, and begin watching AFL games live on my laptop. Then, I was able to purchase a Chromecast dongle, ($50) and with the Chromecast app installed on my Chrome web browser (free), I was able to send the signal to my television. For a total of $238, I was able to stream ANY game of AFL live to my television without paying for a Foxtel subscription, their streaming equivalent Foxtel Play, or a telecommunications equivalent, such as Foxtel on T-Box, or Foxtel on X-Box. This represents close to $150 worth of savings compared to a minimum 6-month Foxtel subscription with sport and HD included. This saving can be increased even further if you purchase games on the AFL Global Pass on a per-game basis ($5 per game), and use a standard RGB or HDMI cable instead of casting to the television via Chromecast.
However, receiving the game live in this way is contingent on some factors. Firstly, a high quality, stable internet connection is required. In many parts of Australia, this is still an issue. I happen to live in an area where we have an NBN connection, which meant that my picture quality was exceptional, with minimal buffering or pixelation issues. Also, the quality of the coverage is somewhat diminished in the sense that there is no -pre- or post-game analysis, and similarly, the half- and quarter-time breaks are filled with old highlights packages and unimaginative slates. lso the video player on the Global Pass app does not allow for a wide range of sztreaming speeds, only 400kbs, 800kbs, or 3600kbs. This lack of gradation in the streaming quality means that you get the picture in HD (at 3600kps), or low quality SD (400kbs or 800kbs).
There is also the question around what I am doing in a legal sense. However, the Prime Minister's own webpage says it isn't illegal, although this is in relation to Netflix streaming:
"Q: Many Australians use a VPN to access Netflix in the US. Is it illegal for me to use a VPN to access Netflix?
- The Copyright Act does not make it illegal to use a VPN to access overseas content.
- While content providers often have in place international commercial arrangements to protect copyright in different countries or regions, which can result in ‘geoblocking’, circumventing this is not illegal under the Copyright Act."
The fact that such a statement appears on the PM's own webpage potentially indicates the issue has been lobbied against by those impacted by the rise of VPN technology, and its ability to circumvent geoblocking. For example, in the domain of anti-siphoning legislation, Foxtel in the past has argued that the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires amendment, as the Act does not stop internet providers from exercising exclusive rights over an entire sport, nor does the Act require online providers to adhere to content regulations in the same way that broadcasters are compelled to do so. Foxtel obviously perceive online broadcasters (such as Netflix, but as we've more recently seen, also telecommunications players such as Optus) as potential competitors. In order to protect their exclusive right to broadcast content, Foxtel claim that broadcast and online media should be seen as the same media environment and regulated together, so that the exclusivity of content is guaranteed by the rights holder. Such a move would protect their position in the market as the preeminent provider of sport on Pay-TV in this country (Rowe & Hutchins 2016). This is counter to their previous position of arguing for the lessening of anti-siphoning restrictions.
Returning to the question of the legality of VPN's, here is more from LawPath.com:
"This area of law is viewed as an unresolved and uncertain loophole within our copyright laws. The act of streaming content through a VPN is yet to be classified as illegal in Australia and is more frowned upon than anything. So, morals aside, at current it is perfectly legal."
Similarly, from: Techly.com:
"There is a view in much of the legal community (including the Copyright Council) that geoblocking is not technically a 'Technological Protection Measure', which means it isn’t covered by the Copyright Act", Mr Paul Gordon [IP, technology and media lawyer for Finlayson’s law firm] explained. But as there has been no High Court ruling on this matter, the issue is up for grabs."
So is it illegal or not? Currently, there is no explicit law that is being broken to circumvent geoblocking.
The implications for this are considerable. At the least, it suggests that the current model of squeezing consumers into paying for a Pay-TV subscription (or a telco equavalent) operates in a restrictive and reactionary manner that prevents innovation in order to protect existing revenue models. This is similar to the concept of Path Dependency that Brett Hutchins (2016) took up in his investigation into the Optus 'TV Now' service that potentially streamed NRL and AFL games to consumers on a minimal delay via cloud servers, in such a manner as to bypass the streaming product of the exclusive digital rights holder, in that case Telstra.
This innovative use of technology by Optus was litigated against by Telstra, as they believed it encroached on their 'exclusive' rights to that content. In the sense of path dependency as described by Hutchins (2016), the industry resisted innovation until they had time to come to terms with it, realise how it could be turned into a revenue-raising vehicle, and then deployed on their own terms to reinforce their industry-leader status.
Suffice to say, the Optus 'TV Now' case, and my own example of being able to circumvent the restrictive technolgies put in place in regards to the AFL, draws attention to the fact that the model, as it currently stands, is on shifting sands. Here is where it is hoped my research will lead, as demonstrated by my research questions: “What factors contribute to the destabilising of traditional sports broadcasting models, and how sustainable are traditional models in an increasingly online viewing environment?”
In order to better understand how broadcast rights are bought and sold, an investigation is required into the choices made by the individuals at the core of the process. Understanding the meaning-making of these agents is crucial, as how they attach meaning to the world around them will influence their decision making. For example, what factors influence them, and what meaning do they attach to these factors? How do they then make choices in respect to these factors? The nature of these questions suggests a qualitative analysis is in order. These ‘factors’ may include institutions or structures such as the AFL itself, but also commercial and subscription broadcasters, government regulators, geography, technology, copyright law, contract law, enforcement procedures, and socio-cultural considerations.
The research is also important given the role of live sport as one of the remaining bastions of 'appointment television', where broadcasters can rely on the aggregation of large audiences in an environment where those audiences are otherwise fragmented, and who utilise the time-shifting capacities of video-on-demand to further erode the advertiser-driven revenue business model.
The research will attempt to do address these questions using qualitative research, and specifically the methods of semi-structured interviews and observations of participants within the relative institutions of the AFL, Foxtel, Telstra and the Seven Network. Research will also utilise document analysis, and artifact analysis including websites, to achieve triangulation. The research will utilise the theoretical foundation of Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi's Systems Model of Creativity, Anthony Giddens Structuraiton Theory, and the Paulus and Nijstad Group Creativity Model. The goal is to use these theoretical tools to frame the questions that will allow the researcher to better understand the current business model, and what shape it might take in the future.
Specifically, the methodology outlined here hopes to expose the meanings attached to the world by the agents involved, and how they construct those meanings. It will attempt to reveal if these meanings can be thought of in terms such as field, domain, agency, structure, rules and resources. It will reveal how the people involved perceive their ability to make choices, and if they perceive the structures in their world as both enabling and constraining of those decisions. And it hopes to reveal how the social actions of the agents contribute to the ongoing existence of the structures that delimit their actions, and how those structures might be altered by the actions of those agents in the future.
Ultimately, it is hoped that the research will have several possible outcomes. Firstly, it will attempt to ascertain if the actions of the people in this situation can be explained in terms of the theories mentioned, thereby validating them further in the academic community. Secondly, it will attempt to better understand how the revenue model is built. And finally, it hopes to point to how the revenue model might look in the future, and what changes, if any, may shape it.
References:
- BURROUGHS, B. & RUGG, A. 2014. Extending the Broadcast: Streaming Culture and the Problems of Digital Geographies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 365-380
- CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, M. 1988. Society, culture and person: a systems view of creativity. In: STERNBERG, R. (ed.) The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- GIDDENS, A. 1979. Agency, Structure. Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillian Press.
- HUTCHINS, B. 2016. The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same: Path dependency, sports content, and the suppression of innovation in mobile television. Telematics & Informatics, 33, 703-710
- McGUINNESS, P. (ed.) 2015. Copyfight, NewSouth Publishing, University of New South Wales.
- PAULUS, P. & NIJSTAD, B. 2003. Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
*As an aside, here we meet the concept of sports as a 'loss-leader', one that News Corp has long identified as its reason for investing so heavily in sport globally over the past 20 years. The idea here is that sport on subscription television entices or 'leads' consumers to buy the subscription TV product, even though buying the rights to sports coverage and producing the coverage of it may run at a loss, hence the term 'loss leader'. The end-game for the Pay-TV provider is to turn these sports-mad customers into long-term subscribers who may eventually purchase add-on packages to their subscription.
