Seems we’re not the only ones to cop a regulatory high tackle. Foxtel recently announced the Footy Channel will shut up shop at the end of the season, citing regulatory uncertainty and the anti-siphoning rules.

Foxtel Chief Executive, Kim Williams, is right call for tougher “use-it-or-lose it” criteria for anti-siphoning rules:

• TV reforms must stop hoarding: Foxtel boss (theaustralian.news.com.au)
  AAP, 12 September 2006

“Anti-siphoning” relates to the list of sports events that must be available free-to-air, introduced when pay TV came was switched on. Mr Williams quoted industry statistics showing that only 16 per cent of sports coverage reserved exclusively for free-to-air was broadcast.

• Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (www.comlaw.gov.au)
  The “Anti-siphoning” list of sports events that must be available free-to-air

Anti-siphoning rules cover an array of events in 12 sporting codes, meant to ensure sports fans don’t have to pay to see icon events. But would even the most avid tennis fan know that the Adidas International is ON the list?

The Minister for Communications has announced that, from the beginning of next year, the anti-siphoning rules that govern the televising of sport will be amended to include a “use-it-or-lose-it” clause.

However, it is yet to be determined, following industry consultation, what “use” means in “use-it-or-lose-it”.

• New Media Framework for Australia (www.minister.dcita.gov.au)
  Media Release, Senator the Hon Helen Coonan
  13 July 2006

Are people prepared to pay to see their sports? Would sports be better off if there was more competition from pay TV for broadcast rights?

Is it possible that some sports would rather have the breadth of coverage available on pay-TV than less-free-to-air time, but to a potentially wider audience?

Let us know what you think by contributing to our Broadband Australia discussion forum.