In short, for years Foxtel has charged its satellite customers the same as its cable customers for significantly less services. For example, satellite customers don't receive the Olympics on their TVs.
I believe the authorities should protect the satellite customers from this lazy pricing by the 50% Telstra-owned Foxtel monopoly.
What do you think?
But isn't that because the Olympics part of an extra add on for $18 a month (the Sports pack)?
No, I have "Platinum" which includes the sports pack.
Are you sure it isn't just you?
I have Foxtel via satellite. We subscribe to the Sports package. We have 8 channels of Olympic goodness.
It's not the responsibility of the authorities. Foxtel is a discretionary service, you pay what you negotiate with them to pay, so you can't directly compare your pricing with your mate who has cable.
I've heard numbers as low as $40/month for sport with HD, and as high as $129/month
Tip: Ask to speak to the manager
i hate satellite because when it rains you cant watch tv!
In WA if you have Satellite you don't even get Free to Air channels, if you have cable you do.
I have platinum and I complained that I was getting a lesser service for the same amount of money that I used to when I had cable and they pretty much told me stiff biscuits.
And what have foxtel done to fix this problem, nothing. I am sure if it impacted a larger market like Sydney they would fix it though.
Well you live in WA, everyone in WA earns 250k + a year at the mines, and you already have foxtel platinum, so I'm sure can you afford a $99 FTA antenna?
So I have to switch tv inputs to view FTA and also get some other form of recording device to record, rewind & Pause FTA TV. Wow what a bargain and I will also need universal remote so I don't fill up my coffee table with remotes, but if your on the east coast you don't have to. Sounds fair.
If all the money is in WA wouldn't a smart company try and focus on pleasing that market over the impoverished eastern states ?
Well instead of blaming Foxtel you could call and complain to:
Channel 7 Perth http://www.7perth.com.au/view/contact/
Win corporation perth
http://www.9perth.com.au/
or Ten
http://ten.com.au/
And ask them why they refuse to pay for satellite transponder lease costs for WA. They are the ones who pay to have their channels available via Foxtel, not the other way around.
(Hint: the answer will be because it's very expensive)
But not too expensive over east ? Just too expensive in WA ?
Seems unfair to me but hey I just prefer to boycott their rubbish programming, I happily live without FTA TV, aside from the cricket in Summer and occasionally the local news I just don't bother turning it on anymore.
If it weren't for the anti-siphoning laws I would probably never watch FTA again so disgusted I am with their ads, their years of delayed 'live' sport and general disregard for satellite viewers out west.
The longer these FTA channels do it the worse off they will be in the long-run, there is really nothing on FTA TV that is good enough to sit through the ads for.
One guy complaining to these stations is going to do sweet F All and you know that, but Foxtel or advertising sponsors putting pressure on them may have an impact.
Population of NSW: >7,300,000
Population of VIC: >5,500,000
Population of QLD: >4,500,000
Pop. of WA? : >2,300,000
Simple maths bud.
I sincerely empathise with your horrible position of having to use a SECOND REMOTE (gasp) to change the input of your expensive flat screen, from that of your >$120 pay TV subscription service to the primitive Free-to-air service.
You do realize people are struggling to pay bills and losing their jobs these days? That electric and gas prices have increased 8-20% in the eastern deregulated states, compared to WA which is regulated?
No sympathy from me for silly complaints like this.
Actually google has told me there is an alternative!
You just have to front the funds for an unencrypted open trasnmission satellite (as well as the costs to launch it into orbit) and have all the networks agreed to pay the costs of transmitting and broadcasting via this satellite.
Surely it couldn't cost more than a $99 DSE digital antenna?
It would probably be easier that getting 7,9 and 10 to give Satellite foxtel viewers in WA coverage.
Let me call up my local Satellite launching guy and see what he can do.
we should consider there is great cost in putting sattelites in space for a small market like australia also the free to air channels like to protect there content as they show different shows at different times in each state and they are still suffering from the days when people cracked the system and you could watch free to air channels from different states. foxtel currently uses 2 sattelites in the one geo stationary position one is owned by optus so they pay for the bandwith that goes through the sattelite so re brodcasting the free to air channels does have a cost to foxtel. were as the cable system has low on going cost other than maintanece and network extension which has all but stopped
Apparently it also depends on the wiring. Foxtel tell me that the wiring in these units is "old" and that's why I don't get any free to air channels via them (I get them all via an antenna). No Olympics channels either.
So what you miss out on as a satellite customer depends on where you live geographically and the wiring. I was told I also don't get some "+2" (time delayed) channels.
Stephen Conroy and ACCC get off your backsides please.
I've never thought about it, because I didn't know there was a difference. I've had satellite for years. If what you say is true then I agree, I'm getting a dud deal here.