Global Mode dead


Will it actually change anything

geek_directorylist, Jun 25, 1:01 pm

Good. Copyright, broadcasting rights and licensing are all there for a reason.

geek_suicidemonkey, Jun 25, 1:04 pm

Nothing you can't fix with a subscription to one of the many DNS/VPN services out there.

geek_pyro_sniper2002, Jun 25, 1:08 pm

But definitely not "good" when they're (ab)used to facilitate protectionism / price-fixing by reducing global trade in goods and services.
It's the digital equivalent of stopping free international goods trade by banning ships and airplanes.

geek_mm12345, Jun 25, 1:23 pm

What will change will be the increase in forehead-bruising on those who changed ISPs because they didn't want to faff around with VPN/DNS shagging.

Global mode was never going to last and it looks like Sky sent the heavies around.

geek_mikep, Jun 25, 1:24 pm

Sounds like conspiracy theories to me tbh.

The TV broadcast companies bid for the rights to air certain content. They pay for that. Something like global mode allows users to bypass those rights.

I don't see how that's fair on the broadcasters when they have to follow the law and purchase the content.

I'm sick of the "big corporations are evil" attitude. It's the users that are evil IMO. No one cares about the law anymore. It's pretty disgusting.

Screw the content creators and the companies that buy the content. Just bypass everything and watch it for free. Who cares, right?

geek_suicidemonkey, Jun 25, 1:33 pm

Actually its not free - paying to stream ,paying the bypass ppl and if the broadcasters stopped broadcasting the same crud year in year out there wouldnt be a need for bypassing anything

geek_trade_menow, Jun 25, 1:39 pm

So by your reckoning, parallel importing should be illegal?
or buying books/ clothing from overseas?

geek_sheltie08, Jun 25, 1:55 pm

He's invoked "conspiracy theory" as basis for arguing against the obvious.
Should be informally banned - like "Godwins", a last resort by morons on the interweb who aren't capable of robust debate.

geek_mm12345, Jun 25, 2:22 pm

You're mean when you're hungry.

You spouted a lot of "facts" with no source (price fixing is a pretty big accusation), hence my "conspiracy theory" comment. Give me a source and I'll happily give you a debate. Otherwise it's hearsay.

Also don't appreciate the unnecessary flaming. This isn't the forum for that, and "formal" bans aren't unheard of.

geek_suicidemonkey, Jun 25, 2:27 pm

Well for starters, a "secret negotiation" held between interested parties, where the outcome can only be presumed to favour the commercial interests of some of those parties, at the expense of other, the dispute untested by law, the details of the agreement not being disclosed.
It will cause harm to consumers who were able to legally access content from US Netflix at a lower cost than the cost to access the same content from NZ providers. You might cry that "it wasn't legal" - but that's not the way the law works.
If it smells like a pig and looks like a pig - it's probably a pig - not a "theory" that it might be a pig.
I'd like to see a complaint lodged with CommComm. If official import agents of products colluded and reached a secret agreement with a parallel importer (or a shipping company) to stop them from operating, then they'd be flayed alive if caught.

geek_mm12345, Jun 25, 2:45 pm

suicidemonkey, what exactly is evil about viewing content? Especially if that content is available to others and its only limited by geography ?

Nobodies denying that sky, etc are paying for the right to broadcast content. They are also profiting immensely from it. Thats their motivation to protect their profits. And they want to do this by keeping their captive audience captive. As for pricing I wouldn't call it fixing. For years they've made large profits being the sole provider and charging anything they could get away with. No with the web based providers getting a look in we the public get to see the same content, for a fraction of the cost.

Who wouldn't feel exploited by this ? Sure its only entertainment, its not life or death. But theres a justified feeling of animosity towards sky.

geek_black-heart, Jun 25, 3:04 pm

All fair points tbh. I got nothin'.

geek_suicidemonkey, Jun 25, 3:30 pm

Yes they can.

Google "Popular free VPN service, Hola, discovered to have malware-like behavior"

geek_gibler, Jun 25, 5:02 pm

geek_morticia, Jun 25, 5:24 pm

geek_suicidemonkey, Jun 25, 5:27 pm

Is it correct that MyRepublic has Global Mode and are not affected by this ruling?
I have been told that MR are global ISP and can still provide Global Mode legally in NZ.
Anyone know?

geek_cjohnw, Jun 25, 6:23 pm

No one will care when Sky goes out of business. Their audacity is amazing that they are (expensive) pay TV with the same amount of ad content as their free counterparts.

geek_-mung-, Jun 25, 7:17 pm

Global mode doesn't stop you from having to pay for content, it just allows you to buy the content from a provider outside of NZ which may have access to more variety of content.

I am paying to use US Netflix, the content creators are still getting the same money that they would be getting if I paid for NZ Netflix.

Stopping global mode is as stupid as stopping people from buying on online because the store isn't located in NZ. Global mode is the equivalent of unlocking the region on your DVD player so you can watch the DVD's you legitimately brought overseas.

geek__drdee_, Jun 25, 7:46 pm

What's the best alternatives for iPad/ smart TV?

geek_sheltie08, Jun 25, 8:04 pm

What reason is that?

geek_paora-tm, Jun 25, 8:36 pm

I hope this backfires and that SKY go out of business, i feel no remorse for them after ripping NZ off for all these years. The consumer are the ones being hurt, not the big corporations earning millions from ripping off NZer's, its got to stop.

geek_nzoomed, Jun 25, 11:40 pm

MR stopped global mode 3 weeks ago.

geek_fishb8, Jun 26, 7:56 am

They've already lost my account.

geek_pestri, Jun 26, 8:08 am

Their shareholders will probably care. They must have gotten all excited yesterday - their shares rose 6 cents. I hope they go out of business too.

I was thoroughly unimpressed with Sky's "Neon". Subscribed only to watch GOT - to "do the right thing". $20/month is high. Streaming quality was poor - it looked like standard definition to me - which was very disappointing as GOT is a show best seen in full HD. Streaming was always very very slow to load - 10 second or more delay to start. It's my opinion that they've hobbled "Neon" either because they're too cheap to pay for bandwidth, or perhaps to make their HD satellite service look good.

Netflix (NZ) starts effectively instantly for us. Their adaptive streaming seems to be able to deliver content at HD definition at all times - no problems.
I did subscribe to Lightbox for one month (+1 free) to watch Better Call Saul. They had bandwidth issues for the first few episodes - if you tried to watch for the first hour or so after a new episode was available - but they managed to get that sorted out. They had another serious issue with their server software setup identifying a single device on an account multiple times (it would register a new device each time the browser updated and eventually lock people out of their accounts). Their excuse was "the studios make us do this" - which was a very bizarre claim, as other streaming services didn't have that problem.

geek_mm12345, Jun 26, 8:44 am

They are a long way from going out of business, last year they lost 700 subscribers dropping their subscriber level to 856,400 households.

Net profit rose to $180 million for the year. They are a bit like trademe. competition has come and gone but its still the major player

geek_jon9, Jun 26, 8:47 am

Competition has hardly even started. The % of NZ households using streaming services is low, fibre uptake is low so far.
The only real competition they've had has been from Freeview (satellite) potentially taking viewers from them who were out of range of terrestrial FTA TV so relied on Sky, but that Freeview service is hobbled.

They are too close to government (TVNZ) IMO. Arrangements to "share" the market between govt and private companies are fraught with risk.
Pays to remember that with free to air TV, as with most "free" things on the internet, you aren't getting the product for free - you are the product (being sold to advertisers).

geek_mm12345, Jun 26, 9:02 am

Excatly my point they are not going away within the next 5 to 10 years.

geek_jon9, Jun 26, 9:21 am

There has not been a ruling. It didn't go to court

geek_loose.unit8, Jun 26, 9:23 am

Exactly. It's a global market out there. This type of geo-blocking won't last. They need to adapt or they will fail.

geek_loose.unit8, Jun 26, 9:26 am

Suicidemonkey still wont answer the question whether or not he thinks that parallel imports are OK or not.

I bet he is posting off a parallel imported smartphone or tablet!

geek_nzoomed, Jun 26, 9:38 am

I'd be hesitant to guess what the (TV/streaming) market will be like in 2 years - let alone 5 or 10.

geek_mm12345, Jun 26, 10:22 am

Im guessing it will be greater than SKY. They have jumped on too late with NEON, its crap, and as others have said its expensive and poor quality. You'll be surprised how many are already using netflix and lightbox etc. I see alot of customers who are using it and need help setting up.

geek_nzoomed, Jun 26, 10:36 am

If you parallel import a bunch of ipads does that devalue the ipads distributed by apple?

If the content distributors want x amount for the rights to broadcast in NZ is it still worth it if consumers can easily stream it from the US etc?

geek_jeremy_74, Jun 26, 3:59 pm

I think Sky will start to lose customers faster and faster from now on, Sky just increased their prices again, and even neanderthals like me are realising that you can subscribe to several different online services and still come out far cheaper than Sky.
My internet is pretty rubbish, usually 5-10MBps but Netflix works well and picture quality is at least as good as most Sky content.

geek_brapbrap8, Jun 26, 6:25 pm

Netflix is really good; trialling now and I am sold on it. Great UI, content and performance.

Can't see why people would pay for Sky Movies anymore. Basically, for movies and high quality TV series, I think Sky can't win.

But if you want sport like rugby or league. Sky have those all locked down, which is very annoying. I would much rather pay for sports I want to watch rather than Sky + Sports channels which costs far more than internet services.

geek_gblack, Jun 26, 10:24 pm

Sports is the only thing really keeping sky going and even then they are slowly loosing contracts to other online streaming services.

geek_nzoomed, Jun 26, 11:05 pm

It will be if the TPPA goes ahead.

geek_puddleduck00, Jun 26, 11:48 pm

It is all about protecting old business models. When cars came out, makers of horse and carts did the same sort of thing by trying to make it hard for car manufacturers. It is just history repeating itself.

geek_juliew3, Jun 27, 12:38 am

But Netfix is a service not a product.
I dont see how you can parallel import a service which you wont own at the end of the day?

geek_jeremy_74, Jun 27, 7:02 am

What part of the analogy don't you understand? End user views the content he pays for, doesn't care who provides the content, wants the best deal obviously. Why do you care so much about sky tvs well being ?

geek_black-heart, Jun 27, 8:29 am

Yes. In the NZ context you can probably nail it down further to say it's mainly rugby union keeping sky going.
Now you can consider why they'd want geoblocking enforced - as eventually this content will be available live-streaming.
An audience of 5 million in NZ, some of whom are very passionate and might be happy to pay say $10 for an online streaming pay-per-view rugby test. I would at times - and I'm no great fan.
But the rights holder - and the rugby union aren't going to get many pay per view sales at $10 per pop in most markets overseas - but they're still going to want to sell the rights and collect what revenue they can from free/ad supported or low-cost subscription services, say from North America. 100 times larger potential audience who are perhaps on average 100 times less interested, but if even a million wanted to watch at say $1 a pop, that's a million bucks the NZ rights holder can get for nothing, vs probably close to nothing if they try to sell rights at NZ prices. It's also exporting content - selling NZ content overseas - which is good. So it's a problem if it's available live and cheap from say a US service - if everybody in NZ can access that stream - which of course they would do if they could.
So, should the global price for all content be set at the price which is viable in the regional market with least demand? (Because without geo-blocking, that's inevitably what will happen).

geek_mm12345, Jun 27, 9:11 am

which is not importing anything, just using a service that's not intended to be used in this country according to their own t & c.

geek_jeremy_74, Jun 27, 9:18 am

Agree with what you're saying but it puts both the NZ media companies and NZ consumers at a disadvantage.

The model they are using doesnt work and needs to change.

geek_directorylist, Jun 27, 9:34 am

It is importing something. You're paying someone overseas to use a service that they're providing for "delivery" to NZ - even if that's not allowed by their T&C (which aren't enforceable in NZ).

In the case of Netflix (NZ) not charging or paying GST, then while that's their right to do so - it's taunting the cr@p out of NZ government - who are also no doubt very concerned about the existing profit shifting / use of overseas tax havens by corporations selling services in NZ.
Inevitably, something's going to have to change - unfortunately "knee-jerk" reaction (ie applying GST to OS credit card transactions) is fraught with problems - you could just get an OS credit/debit card, pay by bitcoin etc to evade GST.
Eventually something is going to have to have to change. Hopefully it will be reasonably simple and not draconian, but I have doubts.

geek_mm12345, Jul 19, 4:27 am

Share this thread