Guest fountainhall Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Don’t you just love it when on the same day one newspaper says one thing and the other the complete opposite? That happened this morning with the print editions of the Bangkok Post and The Nation - on the front pages, to boot! The Post informed readers that True Visions subscribers will be able to watch the upcoming matches in the European Nations Cup Championships that start this evening. The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission has ordered TrueVisions to let its subscribers view the European football championship on free-TV channels via their set-top boxes. TrueVisions is duty bound to broadcast normal, over-the-air TV programmes without interruption under its terms of service and subscription advertisements, the NBTC's broadcasting committee said. http://www.bangkokpo...uro-2012-footie The Nation, on the other hand, under the headline “True Visions denied access to live Euro matches” informed readers – TrueVisions subscribers will remain without access to live broadcasts of 2012 Uefa European Football Championship (Euro 2012) matches, despite negotiations hosted by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) aimed at finding a solution to the dispute over live coverage of the prestigious tournament. http://www.nationmul...s-30183758.html The dispute could have led to huge embarrassment for True, for competition is finally arriving and its monopoly over satellite TV channels is no longer guaranteed. True has built itself from a company aimed primarily at expats and richer Thais into a full-service Thai company, thanks partly to its winning the rights to show the English Premier League (EPL) soccer matches. On the back of the soccer, it was able to market a huge number of special packages to the Thai market. Trying to get a share of True’s pie, Grammy is the largest entertainment conglomerate in the country with what wikipedia claims is a 70% share of the market. It does not like True encroaching on its territory, especially with the success of local programming like the Academy Fantasia series which has enabled True to start up an entertainment agency and local production company. So Grammy entered the bidding for the Euro soccer FInals – and won, leaving True with egg on its face. True knows that Grammy is also bidding for the next 3-year license for the EPL and is extremely worried. If it fails in its bid, it is likely to lose a huge number of its subscribers to Grammy. Grammy’s problem is that not many households have its satellite receivers. So it has also bought space on 3 local terrestrial channels to show the Euros. But understandably it wanted to ensure that True satellite subscribers, who get the local channels as part of their True package, could not show the Euro matches. Now we know that Grammy efforts have failed – this time. And The Nation got it all completely wrong! The good thing about Grammy entering the satellite TV market is that a greater variety of programming is likely to be available quite soon – including more US sports.
Guest fountainhall Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 It is so typically, f--king Thai!! Everything is left to the last possible minute, and then when agreements cannot be reached, everyone disappears with absolutely no sense of urgency, only agreeing to meet again a few days later. Despite a contract with its subscribers which guarantees access to the local terrestrial channels, despite the NBTC ordering Grammy to make its signal available to True Visions subscribers, I tuned in to watch the opening game between Greece and Poland and found - blank screens with a message that True could not broadcast the match! It turns out that True and Grammy could not reach agreement on the fee True had to pay, and so just an hour or so before the match, negotiations were called off pending another meeting early next week! No matter that True subscribers will now miss 8 or more matches. F--k the subscribers! We're going to hit the golf course to enjoy our week-end! Of course, I realise that there are complicated contractual issues at stake between Grammy and UEFA. But what mightily pisses me off is that True and Grammy have known about this situation for months - months! And did anyone in either organisation sit down that long ago and think: "Hey! Just a minute! There's a problem looming here and people are going to get mightily pissed off. Shouldn't we sit down now and try to reach a solution?" But then, of course, that is just not the Thai way. Thais wait until the floods are at the city suburbs before mobilising into action. Well, Grammy executives will no doubt be crowing because True is now in a bucket of shit. They have broken their contract with their 2 million subscribers and laid themselves open not merely to complaints to the relevant regulatory bodies, but also to law suits for breach of those contracts. If any good comes out of this mess, it will be, I trust, that True's monopoly position is very quickly thrown out of the window and other competitors permitted to operate satellite services. I'll bet the Minister and his aides are rubbing their hands. The amount of tea money flooding in will obviously rise exponentially
bkkguy Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 in the whole time that UBC and TrueVisions have been operating not one content provider that supplies programs to the free-to-air channels has ever tried to charge UBC/TrueVisions an additional license fee for fullfilling its government contractual obligation to re-transmit the free-to-air channels as part of its satelite/cable service so now GMM negotiates a flawed contract for the football, wants to milk as much money out of it as it can and wants to get market share for its new settop box. Not content with the license fees it has got from the free-to-air channels it wants to screw its competitor TrueVision and its subscribers and demands an additional fee this places TrueVision in an impossible situation - it can fullfil its contractual obligation and re-transmit the games and get sued by GMM, it can block the games and the government can potentially take away its license to operate because it has not fulfilled its contractual obligation, or it can cave in and pay the fee to GMM and leave itself vunerable to unlimited excessive demands for license fees from every other content provider because GMM has now shown they can get away with this when the games are not available to TrueVision subscribers the government says TrueVision must supply them (but refuses to tell GMM to alow this and refuses to comment on whether fees should be paid for this), the consumer rights bodies tell TrueVision subscribers to make claims against TrueVision, TrueVision customers claim TrueVision is hopeless and they will cancel their subscription and buy a GMM settop box GMM is the one who has engineered this situation in the name of "free market competition", and GMM is the one who is trying to screw TrueVision and its subsbribers, and GMM is the one who does not want to see this issue resolved, but everyone seems to think it is up to TrueVisions to fix a problem they did not create I am no TrueVisions fanboi but mark me up as one falung who will never understand "Thai ways"! Grammy’s problem is that not many households have its satellite receivers. So it has also bought space on 3 local terrestrial channels to show the Euros. But understandably it wanted to ensure that True satellite subscribers, who get the local channels as part of their True package, could not show the Euro matches. I can "understand" wanting to maximise profits but there is such a thing as unacceptable business practices - but let the "free market" (LOL) decide, and in Thailand that seems to favour GMM! despite the NBTC ordering Grammy to make its signal available to True Visions subscribers where did you read this - because the only report I saw in the Bangkok Post was the NBTC ordering TrueVisions to supply the content to its subscribers! If any good comes out of this mess, it will be, I trust, that True's monopoly position is very quickly thrown out of the window and other competitors permitted to operate satellite services. and that competitor should be GMM? GMM is the one who forced TrueVisions to be "in a bucket of shit. They have broken their contract with their 2 million subscribers and laid themselves open not merely to complaints to the relevant regulatory bodies, but also to law suits for breach of those contracts." bkkguy
Guest pumpkin Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Personally could not care less if no sporting event were held again before I die but I am sorry for those who are fans.
bkkguy Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 If any good comes out of this mess, it will be, I trust, that True's monopoly position is very quickly thrown out of the window and other competitors permitted to operate satellite services. GMM and its parent Grammy have been legally trying to compete with True in satellite services for years - it is not the government that is stopping them from overtaking TrueVisions in the market! and there are a number of other players in the satellite and now the IPTV market have a look at GMM's set-top box and compare it with TrueVisions' standard and HD boxes and make your own decision. Have a look at GMM's web site and try to understand what programs and channel packages they offer at what prices and compare that to the information on TrueVisions' web site and make your own choice! GMM greatly improved their chances of success when they recently moved from using a C-band satellite to a KU-band satellite thus allowing them to use the same dishes as TrueVisions GMM greatly improved their chances of success when they out-bid TrueVisions for Euro 2012 and then put their set-top boxes in 7-11, PowerBuy and everywhere else however not being able to sell enough set-top boxes they took their contract with UEFA that did not allow re-broadcast and made deals with the free-to-air channels that did not allow re-broadcast - yet TrueVisions is legally obligated to re-broadcast free-to-air transmissions! all innocent - butter would not melt it its warmest orifice - GMM claim they have paid good money for these rights, why should they give them to TrueVisions for free, and everyone drinks the Kool-Aid and cancels their TrueVisions subscription and buys a GMM box all innocent - butter would not melt it its warmest orifice either - the NBTC tells TrueVision they must transmit the games but completely avoids the issue of how. But according to the Nation today NBTC is in the background busy trying to draw up a legal framework to define what satellite providers must re-broadcast, what deals channels can make with content providers and what satellite viewers must expect to pay extra for on re-broadcast channels. everyone seems quite happy to cast TrueVisions as the villian in the piece here, but the Nation today is the first I have seen that is game enough to say that TrueVisions viewers are being held hostage - and like them I think the only good thing that will come out of this is the legal framework will be clarified and this type of situation will not arise again!
Guest fountainhall Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 where did you read this - because the only report I saw in the Bangkok Post was the NBTC ordering TrueVisions to supply the content to its subscribers! I have been away for four days and have not been following this on-going saga. Without going back through all the articles, I do appear to have drawn an inaccurate assumption from the first Bangkok Post quote in my first post. GMM is the one who has engineered this situation in the name of "free market competition", and GMM is the one who is trying to screw TrueVision and its subsbribers, and GMM is the one who does not want to see this issue resolved, but everyone seems to think it is up to TrueVisions to fix a problem they did not create I agree wholeheartedly that GMM is trying to screw TrueVisions and its subscribers. But surely the free market was perfectly free when both companies bid for the license? The fact that GMM won is merely because they bid more than True. I cannot see any issue on that score. The same thing happens in broadcasting all over the world. And those who lose out on being able to screen big events inevitably moan and groan about it. GMM, having bid more, is perfectly entitled to say “no way” to anyone who wants a piece of what has become their pie, unless they either pay the price GMM wants for that piece and/or there is a legal necessity to do so, which presumably would have been known to GMM at the time they made their successful bid. According to The Nation article, GMM did offer to sell the broadcast rights to TrueVisions! I can "understand" wanting to maximise profits but there is such a thing as unacceptable business practices - but let the "free market" (LOL) decide, and in Thailand that seems to favour GMM! I don’t quite understand. The free market did operate in precisely the way it is intended, with a rights holder holding an auction and the winning bid gaining the prize? I am a TrueVisions subscriber and interested in soccer, but I also accept the ‘winner takes all’ principle. Granted, in this particular case there is the complication of the terrestrial channels being carried on True’s signal, but GMM is hardly going to permit a competitor to broadcast events for which it owns the rights without ‘screwing’ them! You would have virtually the same situation, I believe, is almost every other country. I don't see that GMM has done anything unacceptable. Had TrueVisions been more aware of the potential competition from GMM (and perhaps less arrogant?), they could have entered a higher bid and avoided the present problems. The only people that have forced TrueVisions into a bucket of shit is TrueVisions themselves. . . . they took their contract with UEFA that did not allow re-broadcast and made deals with the free-to-air channels . . . I have no information about GMM’s contract with UEFA. I have nowhere read this prohibits rebroadcast on terrestrial free-to-air channels – according to the media, rebroadcast is only prohibited on satellite transmission. in the whole time that UBC and TrueVisions have been operating not one content provider that supplies programs to the free-to-air channels has ever tried to charge UBC/TrueVisions an additional license fee for fullfilling its government contractual obligation to re-transmit the free-to-air channels as part of its satelite/cable service I cannot comment on this as I just do not have any facts. But I entirely agree with your comment at the end of your 2nd post about the need for the legal framework to be clarified. The present situation is untenable. I suspect – mere speculation – that the original reason True and its predecessors have to provide subscribers with the signal for terrestrial channels is purely a practical one – to avoid the need for aerials and set-top boxes. The situation may have become complicated when True was permitted to charge for advertising, but that again is speculation.. Whatever, I still believe TrueVisions comes out of this a lot worse than GMM, and that whilst GMM and the government may not have entirely clean hands, True deserves to be in the shit.
bkkguy Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 I agree wholeheartedly that GMM is trying to screw TrueVisions and its subscribers. But surely the free market was perfectly free when both companies bid for the license? The fact that GMM won is merely because they bid more than True. I cannot see any issue on that score. yes the free market worked perfectly when GMM out-bin TrueVisions - but that is not the problem, the problem only came about when GMM did deals with the free-to-air channels! GMM, having bid more, is perfectly entitled to say “no way” to anyone who wants a piece of what has become their pie, unless they either pay the price GMM wants for that piece and/or there is a legal necessity to do so, which presumably would have been known to GMM at the time they made their successful bid. According to The Nation article, GMM did offer to sell the broadcast rights to TrueVisions! yes, as I understand it GMM initially did offer to license the matches to TrueVisions - and if TrueVisions wanted to show the matches on its own sports channels with its own packaging and promotion and advertising and even pay-per-view pricing then yes they would need to negotiate a price with GMM to do so, but TrueVisions rejected GMM's terms, as it has the right to do the critical issue is the "legal necessity" - TrueVisions is legally required to re-broadcast the free-to-air channels content. I find it hard to believe that GMM and the free-to-air channels did not understand the legal implications of this when they signed deals not allowing re-broadcast but either way a legally impossible has been created - not by TrueVisions yet they are the ones being castigated for this! Granted, in this particular case there is the complication of the terrestrial channels being carried on True’s signal, but GMM is hardly going to permit a competitor to broadcast events for which it owns the rights without ‘screwing’ them! You would have virtually the same situation, I believe, is almost every other country. but in most other countries where there is a requirement for satellite/cable suppliers to re-broadcast free-to-air channels there is a legal framework in place that defines exactly what must be re-broadcast, what type of deals the free-to-air channels can negotiate and when consumers can expect to pay extra to receive the "re-broadcast" of some content on satellite/cable services indeed while the NBTC is publicly castigating TrueVisions they are in the background drawing up exactly such a framework! this is Thailand so any talk of stable doors and horses bolting is a waste of time! I don't see that GMM has done anything unacceptable. Had TrueVisions been more aware of the potential competition from GMM (and perhaps less arrogant?), they could have entered a higher bid and avoided the present problems. The only people that have forced TrueVisions into a bucket of shit is TrueVisions themselves. yes they could have out-bid GMM or licensed the content from them but it probably was not commercially viable (and the very reason GMM went to deals with the free-to-air channels was because they were not going to make enough out of sales of their own set-top boxes!), but GMM and the free-to-air channels and the government are the ones who have created this situation - TrueVisions' only fault is their lack of response! as soon as the contracts were signed TrueVisions should have been in court seeking injunctions to atop them, they should have been petitioning the NBTC to resolve the issues, they should not have been leaving GMM to claim the moral high ground with such dubious claims as "we have paid for this, why should we give to True for free?" I have no information about GMM’s contract with UEFA. I have nowhere read this prohibits rebroadcast on terrestrial free-to-air channels – according to the media, rebroadcast is only prohibited on satellite transmission. GMM’s contract with UEFA allows "broadcast" on terrestrial free-to-air channels but does not allow "re-broadcast", hence GMM's contract with the terrestrial free-to-air channels says the games cannot be "re-broadcast" the government's contract with TrueVisions says they must "re-broadcast" the free-to-air channel content this is not rocket science - who is responsible for the problem here? TrueVisions? Whatever, I still believe TrueVisions comes out of this a lot worse than GMM, and that whilst GMM and the government may not have entirely clean hands, True deserves to be in the shit. I will beg to differ and I can't agree that "True deserves to be in the shit" - as I said above their major fault was allowing this to turn into a PR/customer/legal disaster for them. The NBTC is now making veiled threats about remembering this incident when licenses come up for renewal - and if TrueVisions suffers more then GMM then this is another example of when this falung will never understand "Thai ways"
Guest fountainhall Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 yes the free market worked perfectly when GMM out-bin TrueVisions - but that is not the problem, the problem only came about when GMM did deals with the free-to-air channels! And what is wrong with that - provided it is permissible in the contract between UEFA and GMM? GMM purchased the rights and has the right to do whatever deals it wishes. If that then results in a legal problem in Thailand, that is a separate issue. in most other countries where there is a requirement for satellite/cable suppliers to re-broadcast free-to-air channels So? This is Thailand, not other countries! I am only aware of the UK where a few sports events are designated as in the public interest (or words to that effect) and must be made available to terrestrial channels. I am not aware of the situation in the USA. I'd be interested to hear if there are major international sporting events where rights have been purchased by a cable channel which also have to be made available on free-to-air. Are there any? yes they could have out-bid GMM or licensed the content from them but it probably was not commercially viable I find that totally implausible! Soccer is the most popular sport in this country. The amount of advertising revenue accruing to broadcasts of some international soccer, especially European soccer, is huge. With the increase in TrueVisions subscriber base and the huge new inflow of advertising revenues over the last few years, my guess is it is far more likely that they simply sat back and put in their bid, not having done their homework on the potential opposition. Perhaps you have not read the Paper “Mapping Digital Media: Thailand” dated 23 December 2010. Here are two excerpts UBC became a monopolist in the national pay-TV market. According to a report by a subcommittee of the Trade Competition Committee, it had increased subscription fees many times by moving premium programs, such as English Premier League football, from cheaper to more expensive packages. As a result of these price increases, the cost of subscription television became much higher than comparable services in Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Its popular reality show, “Academy Fantasia”, is only open to True Move subscribers. Boosted partly by the show’s success, True Move’s subscribers soared to 1.4 million after the end of the program’s third season. True Corporation also adopts a ‘triple play’ strategy by bundling its offer of Pay-TV, mobile and fixed telephony, and broadband internet services into one package. All these strategies may be good for True’s shareholders, but can have the effect of creating unfair competition in the media and telecom market. http://www.soros.org...nd-20110610.pdf if TrueVisions suffers more then GMM then this is another example of when this falung will never understand "Thai ways" Agreed we will never understand. But TrueVisions deserves to - and should - suffer a great deal more than GMM.
bkkguy Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 And what is wrong with that - provided it is permissible in the contract between UEFA and GMM? GMM purchased the rights and has the right to do whatever deals it wishes. If that then results in a legal problem in Thailand, that is a separate issue. but it does result in a legal problem in Thailand, and that is the real issue here! The games are being broadcast on free-to-air Channel 3 - and Thai people expect that if they can receive the Channel 3 signal they should be able to watch the games. Now if you hook up a regular aerial that can receive the Channel 3 signal you can watch the games, if you hook up a GMM box that can receive the Channel 3 signal you can watch the games, if you hook up a TrueVisions box that can receive the Channel 3 signal you can't watch the games! Why? TrueVisions is legally required to re-broadcast the Channel 3 signal so why can't you watch? Because the contracts signed by GMM, UEFA and Channel 3 do not allow re-broadcast! so TrueVisions is in an impossible situation - they can show the games and get dragged through the courts by GMM and UEFA for re-broadcasting material that do not have permission to re-broadcast, or they can not show the games and get dragged through the courts by their customers and have the government take their license away for not re-broadcasting material they are legally required to re-broadcast the government obviously recognises this is an impossible situation because, while publicly castigating TrueVisions and making threats about how this may impact their license renewal, it is in the background rushing to finalise new rules about what satellite service providers do and do not have to re-broadcast, what content deals free-to-air channels can enter into and what types of content viewers using satellite re-broadcast should expect to pay extra for! I find it hard to believe that a company like GMM did not understand the legal implications of the contracts it had signed, but as soon as it became an issue they then went public with statemets like "We paid for the rights, TrueVisions wants them for free" and "TrueVisions is using legal loopholes to hold thier customers to ransom" - the sheeple fell for it, bleated their venom at TrueVisions and canceled their subscriptions and flocked to buy GMM boxes. Somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes here - but it is certainly not TrueVisions! you can go off on whatever tangents you want about whether they should have out-bid GMM for the rights at the start, or whether they are abusing their monopoly position with the content, packaging and pricing decisions they make but I doubt you will find a satellite/cable service anywhere that does not face constant complaints from its subscribers about such issues. Personally I couldn't care less if they never showed any sport or Acadamy Fantasia - but that gets into personal opinions and preferences and is not related to the legal issue here but if you want to see GMM come out ahead in this issue, then as the Thai's would say "up to you" bkkguy
Guest fountainhall Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes here - but it is certainly not TrueVisions! That is an extraordinary statement to make when you have never seen any of the contracts (neither have I, for that matter) and admitted earlier that farang "will never understand Thai ways"! But I’ll not prolong this thread much further. There is, however, a very interesting front-page headline article in today’s Bangkok Post about the news that UEFA has killed any hope that TrueVisions might be able to broadcast Euro matches. The key sentence seems to be this – Sompan Charumilinda, executive vice-chairman of True Visions . . . said True Visions would have bid for the Euro broadcast rights directly from Uefa in the first place if it had known this dispute could arise. http://www.bangkokpo...rebroadcast-bid The key word is surely “IF”. Assuming that this is an accurate report of what was actually said, contrary to what I have always assumed, it appears that True did not even bother to put in a bid when the rights were up for sale. And if that is the case, then I think it becomes pretty clear that True was both arrogant and careless in simply assuming that whoever won the rights, True subscribers would automatically be able to watch the matches on the terrestrial channels - only because this is what had happened with previous EURO championships. True is perfectly well aware that having won the rights to the English Premier League almost three years ago, it did not make these matches available to free-to-air channels. This was a change from the policy of ESPN Star which had the rights to several countries (including Thailand) prior to True winning the rights. True made sure that the only way to watch was to subscribe to a True package. Additionally, this is not the first time that True has found itself in this situation. We know from The Nation’s article on 3 June that World Cup matches two years ago were available on terrestrial channels but not to True subscribers. This means TrueVisions subscribers cannot watch the (Euro) matches - even if they are aired on free TV. Their TV screens will go blank during the matches. Soccer fans suffered the same problem during World Cup tournament two years ago. http://www.nationmul...t-30183389.html So how anyone can have any sympathy at all with True Visions in this mess is beyond me!
bkkguy Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 But I’ll not prolong this thread much further. There is, however, a very interesting front-page headline article in today’s Bangkok Post and there are even more interesting articles in the Bangkok Post today: CPB hopes for 'favour' from Uefa in footie row and the Nation Today: Grammy seeks renegotiation with Uefa UEFA contract change urged on blackouts DSI may get involved in dispute over Euro matches but yes, let us not prolong this thread much further - let us leave it to others to follow the story as it evolves and form their own conclusion! So how anyone can have any sympathy at all with True Visions in this mess is beyond me! I am sure if I were to comment on things that were beyond you I would just get banned again! bkkguy
Guest fountainhall Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 I am sure if I were to comment on things that were beyond you I would just get banned again! Sorry, that is beyond me. But your lack of response to most of my points is noted.
bkkguy Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 But your lack of response to most of my points is noted. it should also be noted that if we are not going to continue this debate forever then someone has to stop responding to points sometime - I just beat you to it! bkkguy
Guest fountainhall Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 The case involving the broadcasting/non-broacasting of the Euro 2012 Championships was aired at four days of meetings of the Civil Court last week. On Friday, the Court decided – - not to have the operators of the three free-TV channels, namely BEC's ThaiTV3, the Royal Thai Army's TV5 and MCOT's ModernineTV, transmit unencrypted satellite signals broadcasting Euro 2012 matches to satellite TV receivers because this would violate international copyright law . . . (Civil Court secretary Narat Imsuksri) added that the court's decision was also based on the 2007 Constitution's Articles 41 and 43. Article 41 is related to an individual's property rights, while Article 43 is related to an individual's liberty to engage in enterprise or an occupation that allows for free and fair competition. GMM Grammy's business contract with the operators of the three free-to-air television channels and the ownership of the rights to broadcast the Euro 2012 tournament are protected by such laws . . . Narat said if the court ordered the operators of the free-to-air channels to do as requested by the plaintiffs, then they would be breaking their agreement with GMM Grammy, which is the holder of the rights to broadcast Euro 2012. Besides, if they are allowed to transmit unencrypted signals via other satellite receivers, then the Euro 2012 rights owner, the Union of European Football Associations (Uefa), might cut off the live feed of the tournament because it could be stolen by neighbouring countries. He said that the court understands that if this happens, everybody would be affected and Thailand's reputation in relation to copyright and intellectual property protection would suffer further. http://www.nationmul...s-30185233.html All of which is now rather pointless because the Final Match of the Championship took place last night. Let's hope that the authorities will now set about drafting a new set of regulations to ensure this mess does not recur.
bkkguy Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 we can both quote selectively from this article However, these TV operators cannot provide satellite TV broadcasting service to households with satellite receivers because they were only contracted to broadcast via analogue terrestrial signal. Yet, as a public broadcasting service provider, they should place more emphasis on the effect agreements with private companies would have on key audiences, Narat said. and truevisions has already addressed the issues of signal leakage beyond Thailand's borders, but the terrestrial channels and other satellite broadcasters have not - which is conveniently ignored in most of these reports! The court also called on the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission to implement new regulations as soon as possible in order to prevent such problems from recurring. yes - name me one other country in the world that requires satellite/cable services to re-broadcast free-to-air transmissions while allowing these channels to sign contracts prohibiting re-broadcast but as you keep claiming that most of these issues are "beyond you" then there is little point in continuing this discussion! bkkguy
Guest fountainhall Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 there is little point in continuing this discussion! Which is precisely why I quoted the article without any comment whatever, other than to express the hope that this mess will not happen again. You, though, decided to continue the discussion. As far as I am concerned, please go ahead. Enjoy!
bkkguy Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Which is precisely why I quoted the article without any comment whatever, other than to express the hope that this mess will not happen again. of course one does not need to directly "comment" to express an opinion or continue a discussion - as media moguls and news editors have always know, selective quoting of sources is an effective tool to influence a discussion while appearing to remain "neutral" and "balanced" - but I am not in any way trying to imply that the choice of paragraphs you selected to quote here where influenced by your own personal opinions and were an attempt to influence the opinions of others who may or may not have read the full original source or the various other reports on this issue recently - butter does not melt in my warmest orifices either! bkkguy
Guest fountainhall Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I am not in any way trying to imply that the choice of paragraphs you selected to quote here where influenced by your own personal opinions and were an attempt to influence the opinions of others who may or may not have read the full original source or the various other reports on this issue recently Why ever not? For that is precisely what you are implying. And - although this may sound strange! - you are correct! The whole point of quoting short extracts is to highlight those parts which bolster one side of a discussion or the other - without having to bore readers with the whole article. Most of us always insert the link so that those who may wish to read to whole article may do so. And if anyone takes opposing views in any discussion, I would assume that they would read it and quote sections contrary to the views expressed - or provide links to articles that take the other view. And this is precisely what you and I and others do when we selectively pick out sentences or sections of posts made by others - to highlight points we are about to make. It has nothing to do with your orifices!
Rogie Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 People's opinions and comments are the bread and butter of Message Forums like this one; it would rapidly die without the active participation ot its members. How people respond varies widely based on many factors. Some people only post or comment on issues focussing on their interests. No problem about that. Others enjoy the challenge presented by a post about a topic they might not have realised would interest them until they get thinking about it and then their contribution can be very rewarding as whatever viewpoint they adopt it's likely to be based on a careful weighing of the facts. Another often very interesting area is topics that discuss an event that happened, but for reasons unknown or unclear. Those kind of stories are likely to proliferate in the media as everybody likes a good scandal or mysterious event. In that situation if I am looking for an article to quote from I will try and choose one that reflects my view on the matter. Others can choose to pick holes in the article or my comments (if I made any). No problem with that. A good example of this would be the various snippets taken from articles and expert opinion quoted in the Black Boxes thread in the Beer Bar. That sort of 'mystery' invites all kinds of conjecture until the moment arrives, in this case three years later, when a definitive conclusion is reached. For someone like myself, utterly ignorant of aircraft and the psychology of cockpit interaction, it was a fascinating eye-opener.
bkkguy Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 The whole point of quoting short extracts is to highlight those parts which bolster one side of a discussion or the other so the discussion had died, you re-opened it with selective quotes from a news item, I countered with selective quotes from the same item, you countered you were not trying to re-start the discussion but were just quoting from a news story, I countered that selective quoting is trying to continue or influence the discussion - which you now seem to agree with, so there is even less poiint in continuing this meta-discussion about disscussions! bkkguy
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 How clever! Clever? Perhaps. But like the Samsung Galaxy 10, not cool.
