Foxtel?  Isn't that part of Rupert Murdoch's empire?

Are any other countries taking Live 8 on pay TV from Murdoch's empire?

Ever heard of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)?  Know of Murdoch's connection with it?

"PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

What this brief extract doesn't say is that the Weekly Standard, the publishing medium for the bulk of the PNAC output, is run at a considerable financial loss by Murdoch - he's in it for the long game.

And that is the same Fox News that was so gung-ho for the War of Terror in general and the war against Iraq in particular.  Go to the PNAC website and you will see that war against Iraq (look at the signatories!) has been advocated since at least 1998 and aggression against Iran is now rabidly advocated (with Syria next in line).  PNAC is dominated by Zionists and oil industry people.  Murdoch also owns The Sun in the UK - the newspaper that tried to organise a victory parade for the troops coming home from Iraq.  How ironic that seems now.

Tell me it's NOT TRUE

Although I imagine Franna's right re it being a matter of $, this decision is just SO ridiculous; primarily because only a fraction of the population here (Aust) actually have pay TV.  It hasn't been taken up en masse principally because it offers little value for money (i.e. Pay TV shows a very limited amount of programs).

So this decision is UNBELIEVABLE  , because only a small percentage of people - those who have pay TV - will be able to watch Live 8, while the majority of the population won't.

Never mind the issue of the have's and have not's; indeed, having pay TV is a province of those who can aford it.

It's INSANE.  It certainly goes against the very purpose of Live 8; raising awareness.  It obviously can't fulfill that goal here if the general population are denied access to the coverage.

Re the time - Eastern Australia is 9 hours ahead of London time; Central (includes Adelaide) is 8 1/2 hours ahead; Western (includes Perth) is 6 hours ahead. Live Aid was shown overnight and it will be the same with Live 8.  It will be 11pm here (Eastern Time) when the Hyde Park show starts at 2pm.

And, I'm with SF in not finding it at all a pleasant prospect to watch such a long show on the computer.

And what about those who don't have access to the internet?

A good business decision maybe, but the results are far from the spirit of Live8.

franna wrote:

---

my U2 sources say: "and for us Aussies it will be played on Sunday the 3rd July at 8.30pm on Channel 9.live at 11pm on Tripe M radio station on Saturday the 2nd Julywoooooooo hooooooooooooo "

---

I can't help but wonder if your sources are being sarcastic ...

This is all too hideous and I'm too dejected .

FYI, if anyone's interested ...

• Currently about 1.6 million Australian homes subscribe to pay TV (of which Foxtel is one of at least four carriers), representing 25% of all homes
  
• 
  So ... 75% of Australian homes don't have pay TV (of ANY kind)
  
• 
  Of Australia's total population of roughly 20 million, 1.162 million Australians subscribe to Foxtel (that's 6% of the entire population)
  
• 
  So ... 94% of Australia's population do not subscribe to Foxtel

Re viewing via AOL, streaming of programs is not guarenteed to be stable with a dial-up connection (56K); often there is hesitation, with vision starting and stopping.  Only broadband would provide vision of the standard of TV; quality streaming occurs at speeds of 420 kps.

• 
  

  70% of Australian households had an internet connection of some sort in 2004

  
  
• 
  

  By the end of 2005, about 1 million Australian homes are expected to have a broadband connection (access speed greater than or equal to 256kps), representing 16% of all homes

  
  
• 
  

  So ... approximately 30% of Australian households do NOT have an internet connection

  
  
• 
  

  AND ... 84% of Australian homes do NOT have a broadband connection

Not to mention other obstacles to net viewing, such as internet subscribtions where the number of hours online is capped and/or the download MB is restricted. Currently, there is only one ISP that offers unlimited downloads with broadband; the others have limits between 200MB - 1500MB/month. And streaming does equal downloading.

I can only wonder whether the idiot who made this deal for Australians had any idea of these basic facts.

And how that idiot can reconcile this pathetic deal with Bob Geldof's objective for Live 8 being to achieve the biggest television audience possible, saying that his main priority was to "get eyeballs" for the concerts.

I think I'll just disappear in a puddle of despair

Just in case you thought I made all this up;

Ref's:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15404068%5E7582,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/The-Tribal-Mind/Huge-response-to-pay-TV-debate/2005/04/04/1112489402393.html?oneclick=true

http://www.telstra.com.au/communications/shareholder/docs/tls248_ttipspeech.pdf

http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/wptvanalysis.html

http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid+6705

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/broadband_competition/report/c03.htm

http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/23426/CSP_2004.pdf

Hi SF - thanks for the support.  It's great you've emailed the site ... though it's very hard to know how seriously 'the powers that be' will view our plight.

I may end up writing to the site; in terms of hoping to raise awareness of our situation - and how on earth such an inequitable deal was not only made, but condoned (I'm assuming there is some accountability re media deals). Just at the moment I'm too despondent.

franna wrote:

---

 Here's a link to an article about coverage in Australia:  http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/live8-rights-secured/2005/06/09/1118123933890.html?oneclick=&oneclick=true

---

It seems Australians did not get much information about the deal; when I contacted "The Age" (one of the dominant newspapers in Victoria) regarding what edition and what page the above article was in the paper, I was told that "this particular article was not published in the print version of The Age".  We really didn't stand a chance.

SF wrote:

---

I'm feeling really frustrated like you and it's really disenfranchising.  We're being cut off from the rest of the world with this.

---

Like you, I'm feeling frustrated - and disenfranchised too - and the worst thing is that nothing is going to change, no matter what we do.

Australia is indeed being cut off from the rest of the world.  It's hard not to wonder why this has been allowed to occur.  Is it just about "the highest bidder" - without any regard for what that bid entails?  We'll probably never know.

But what is fact is that Australia will have NO free-to-air live coverage of Live 8.  Contrast that with 13.5 hours live broadcasting, in addition to a 10 hour repeat "Live Aid Reloaded" and a 9 hour repeat "Live 8 USA" being provided by the BBC.

It just doesn't add up.

franna wrote:

---

Thoughtless?  Yes, by definition.  Heartless and calculated?  I doubt it.

I'm willing to give him (and his associates) the benefit of a doubt on the side of ignorance and haste over ruthlessness.

---

When I read this post yesterday, I was duly offended because it seemed to be saying that I'd meant that the decision re Pay TV rights was deliberately 'heartless, calculated' and done with 'ruthlessness.'

But today, I saw the ambiguity in the post, and I was duly offended by what seemed to be the implication that I might think that this disastrous decision was deliberately 'heartless, calculated' and done with 'ruthlessness.'

Let me set the record straight: I neither meant this, nor do I think this.

franna wrote:

---

I'd imagine that the powers-that-be made this deal in conformity with their own worldview, a world in which cable TV IS in the vast majority of homes.  I doubt there was any thought given to the question "how many people in Australia have cable?", as it would, from a US or UK perspective, probably be assumed that almost everyone did. 

If you assume that access to cable isn't a problem, and that's who gives you the best bid...well, you sign the contract.

---

As to the reason(s) behind the Pay TV decision, I'm sure this scenario is right.  Nevertheless, when the object is to reach as many people as possible, it seems quite idiotic to secure a deal with any unknown broadcaster without first ascertaining the potential size of the audience - even if that broadcaster makes the highest bid.

Of course this deal was made in haste, and, it would appear, with not much thought ... and dare I say, not much effort either - I found the stats easily on the net, and whoever talked to Foxtel only had to ask.  I have enough belief in the integrity of all who are behind Live8 to know that, if the question had been asked, and the answer was found to be that Foxtel subscribers account for 6% of the total Australian population, the deal would never have occurred. No matter what Foxtel's bid was.

Because Foxtel can't reach the objective.

You don't buy a cheap lemon when what you want to eat is an apple.

And the fact remains - and won't change - that the vast majority of Australians will not see any of Live8, live, nor in its entirety.  And accepting that is a bit like trying to convince yourself it's an apple you're tasting, when in fact you're just sucking a lemon.

SF wrote:

---

Channel 9 will be showing 2 hours and 15 minutes of highlights of Live8 from 8.30pm Sunday night.  Pathetic.

---

Utterly and completely pathetic!!

I've just read an article in "The Age" (print-style!) from Sunday 26 June, and it states that "The Live8 concert will be shown live on pay-TV channel Fox 8, and as a delayed broadcast on Channel Nine on July 3."

I got a *little* excited at the possibility that Channel 9 had changed its coverage since I'd last rung them. I thought there was a chance, and hey, at this stage, a delayed telecast would be heaven. So I rang Channel 9 and got the same info: their highlights will only be for 2 and 1/4 hours.

Mmmmmm.  I wonder how many ads can be squeezed in between 8:30pm and 10:45pm (Sunday Night prime time). Oh, silly me - I'm being cynical .

And how 12 and 1/2 hours covered by Foxtel can be adequately reduced to 2 and 1/4 hours is an interesting question.

Answer: It Can't

Jules wrote:

---

I thought the point of Live8 was to raise awareness, i.e. reach as wider audience as possible to spread the message. If the vast majority of Australia is not viewing the whole thing live, this is rather ineffective. Shouldn't Bob be informed of this?

---

Yes, that's exactly why I'm so upset about it!  I emailed Bob ('geldof@msn.com') on 20 June but I haven't received a response.  I'm sure he's extremely busy at the moment and I suspect that it's too late to change anything (although I'm living in hope until it's over!).  It's really, really disappointing.

It's a shocker, isn't? Thanks Jules and Meekus for your support.

Well, I have honestly felt I didn't have it in me to present the issues to Tina and Ian; but I also knew I'd regret it if I didn't try.

I've just sent off this email to them, and because I don't think anything can change (though I'm like SF - continuing to hope ...), I feel the very best outcome would be for Bob to at least become aware of the situation.

As 'the powers that be', at least Tina and Ian have been alerted to this farcical situation by SF and myself.  And although the result can't be guessed at, it's not a situation where 'those in the know', don't know .

For anyone who's interested, this is the email I sent (minus the copy of the thread!! ).

Hi Tina and Ian

I imagine you've been wading through thousands of emails, of varying importance, in the lead-up to Live8.  For that reason, it is difficult to stress the great significance of this particular email.

I realise that the passing on of material to Bob Geldof is at your discretion, and I can only hope that you will judge this information as something Bob ought to be made aware of.

I am referring to the appalling situation regarding TV coverage of Live8 in Australia.  Tina's post on Thursday 23 June was, and remains, correct:

In Australia, Foxtel will be screening the entire event on the 2nd July from 9:30pm AEST to 10am AEST. They'll also have a highlights show in the week after the event. For free-to-air viewers, the 9 network will have a highlights package on July 3rd at 8:30pm AEST.

However,  it seems obvious that the person(s) responsible for securing the deal with Foxtel (a Pay TV provider) did not first check the size of the audience that could be reached by the channel.  It also appears obvious that the size of Pay TV penetration in Australia was assumed to be analogous to that of the UK and US, such that a maximum audience could be obtained.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Only 25% of all Australians subscribe to Pay TV in general, and only 6% of the population subscribe to Foxtel. 

As a result, 94% of Australia's population (approximately 18.8 million people) will not have the opportunity to view, live and in its entirety, Live8.  There will be no free-to-air live coverage of Live8 anywhere in Australia; with Channel 9 (a commercial free-to-air channel) only offering highlights for 2 ¼ hours in Sunday Night prime time.

Although AOL is streaming the concert, it is not guaranteed to be stable with a dial-up connection (56kps); only broadband would provide vision of the standard of TV.  As only 16% of all Australian homes have a broadband connection, AOL's coverage does not provide an adequate alternative.

The result of those making these uninformed decisions is that they have succeeded in rendering the Live8 message almost non-existent in Australia.

And the most heinous aspect is that this obviously and blatantly goes against everything Bob et al are doing Live8 for; heightening awareness.

These issues are the subject of a thread in the Message Board:

The Geldof Forum -> Band Aid/Live Aid/Live8 -> Live8 TV coverage in Australia

For convenience, below is a slightly edited version of this thread, containing the relevant posts on this subject up to Wednesday 29 June 11:30am (GMT).

Although I consider it unrealistic that anything can be changed (though I live in hope …), myself and others believe this is a situation that Bob needs to be made aware of.  We hope you agree.

Cheers

Now, my task is to find some supercalifragalisticexpialodocous (try saying that after having a few) way to spend Saturday night ...

I was one of the lucky ones able to view the entire show on Foxtel. And I also saw channel 9s 2 hour (with the ads it was more like 1 hour) but I could not beleive how much was missed out! Its unbeleiveble to me that only 2 hours of a 12 hour event was shown. That is not fair.

If any of you who had to see the channel 9 version are able to get somewhere to watch foxtel this up coming Saturday night, Fox8 are showing "Live 8 Relived".