EU Paramount/Sky ruling may end geoblocking within Europe | Hacker News Reader

EU Paramount/Sky ruling may end geoblocking within Europe

thestack.com

30 pointsMaurizioP28 comments

"It may be no coincidence that in the last two weeks Paramount has struck a deal with Netflix to stream new episodes of the much-awaited 2017 Star Trek reboot globally within 24 hours of network broadcast."

Er, it certainly would be a coincidence, since the EU investigation began some time before the Star Trek reboot was even conceived, and additionally since no such distribution deal between Paramount and Netflix exists, since Star Trek in its TV form is a CBS property.

additionally since no such distribution deal between Paramount and Netflix exists, since Star Trek in its TV form is a CBS property.

They seem to be confusing Paramount Pictures (the studio in question) with Paramount Television (which was absorbed by CBS).

They are probably actually confusing Paramount Television (which was a name retained by CBS after the CBS/Viacom split through 2009, when the unit was renamed CBS Television Studios) with Paramount Television (the unit of Paramount Pictures, which resurrected the unit name in 2014 or so.)

As part of the push towards a digital single market the EU has looked at geoblocking for a while. It will probably still take a while for geoblocking (in the EU) to end but it's only a question of when and not if. I don't think it's too far fetched to assume that some companies are already accepting that instead of fighting against it.

Can anyone with knowledge on the issue comment on whether this will affect state-run entities, like BBC and RTE? It seems unlikely that nationally-funded organizations will be made to cover bandwidth to stream outside their countries.

I wouldn't classify myself as having in-depth 'knowledge' but I believe both of them already have plans to stream worldwide. BBC considering charging a fee for it and RTÉ have an international player already offering free and paid services.

> It seems unlikely that nationally-funded organizations will be made to cover bandwidth to stream outside their countries.

I have been listening for years and from all around the world to FIP, BBC Radio 2/3/4, RAI Radio 2/3, Deutschlandradio Kultur and NPR. I do not see why TV should be treated differently.

Maybe Europe just needs to ask the EBU (European Broadcasting Union) to focus more on Internet and set up a state-run/sponsored network of multicast/unicast servers that can take care of broadcasting radio and TV over IP. The pan-european university network GÉANT is based on a similar concept and has been working very well (much better than commercial operators) for decades.

As have I, but that is thanks to the largess of the those organisations, not any legal directive (as far as I'm aware).

It's pretty common for state-funded media to support audio streaming. However, video is much less common. If a person outside the UK (using a plain-old internet connection) tries to access BBC video online they are told they can't due to their location. This includes locations within the EU; I am presented with this message from Dublin.

Given that people in the UK and Ireland (and maybe elsewhere) pay annual fees to support the BBC and RTE and pay for production, licensing, etc. with those fees, it that they shouldn't be mandated to provide that service to people in other countries.

The BBC is changing their rules as regards the requirement to have a TV license to stream their content. All they then need to do is allow people to buy TV licenses for non-UK addresses and they turn into a normal-looking streaming video service.

Awesome! Love EU I must say

Is this why Murdoch wants the UK to leave the EU?

it is most likely a contributor. Sky pursued a pub owner through the courts nearly a decade ago because she got a Sky satellite subscription in Greece (much cheaper than the UK) and then brought the device and the CAM (the Sky card) back to the UK to show to her patrons. She argued that the EU has free flow of goods and services (which it does), but it doesn't (yet) have unified licensing. She wound up winning her case. Cases like this have forced the EC to have a look at the issue with more vigour.

If the UK decides to stay in the EEA (European Economic Area) then the chances are very high that these rules will still apply to the UK; i.e. get a Sky subscription from Greece or Cyprus and watch it in the UK. It would also force Sky to pay much much more for Europe wide exclusive movie deals.

Wasn't he the one that said that when he goes to downing street they listen, but when he goes to Brussels they only take notice ?

It seems to me the only reason why we have different countries having different distributors for the same content (therefore why geoblocking is needed) is a relic from the days where terrestrial broadcasting was the only distribution mechanism, and hence limited range (because each broadcaster owned the infrastructure in each place)

In this day and age where digital distribution means automatic global reach, is there any reason why this business model continues to exist?

It makes more money.

Poor Netflix, all those subscribers lost FOR NOTHING.

Hope this means the blockade will end soon. Will be better for both us consumers and Netflix.

This is welcome, but I wonder how Brexit will affect all this in the long run.

Not so much I guess for memberstates excluding Britain, because since this is a conclusion made by the EC it can be used as precedence in any other member state even though it has been brought up in the UK pre-Brexit.

The situation in Britain however could be overturned the moment article 50 gets activated and its no longer a EU member state (and thus no longer falls under its legislation).

Unfortunately, ending geoblocking also means ending regional pricing :/

Which to me is a good thing.

How so? Sounds irrelevant for rich countries and terrible for poorer ones.

Your assuming pricing will be based on the rich-country market. I think that will be true at first, but people in poorer countries now have the option to pay if they value the content/platform. They can also continue to pirate until companies pull their head out of their asses.

I personally think it's a good thing, because it simplifies and moves it to a global-economy model. You are probably right that poorer countries will suffer in the short term.

Frankly, I just don't see why would they ever charge a lower price. If they can get 25€/head from a population of 80M Germans, why lose more than half of that to get the 10M Portuguese?

A global economy sounds good, but the problem is that media content is not like most products in the sense that there's no real competition; each studio has a monopoly on its films. Coupled with high wage disparities inside the EU (e.g. minimum wage in Germany: 1470€, Bulgaria: 184€), it simply doesn't work like a regular market.

Because people will eventually start to get it for the lower price. The global economy isn't some far off concept, it's already here, we just haven't adjusted our economic model to fit with that fact yet. Digital goods aren't like physical goods where you need to charge more because of local pricing, we've just arbitrarily made it that way. Eventually it will even out.

Why? They can still charge different amounts based on the country of the card that's making a purchase. Spotify is an example of this.

Sure, but it also means that people can use a card from a different country to buy the much cheaper version to watch at home.

Yes, in fact I do that myself. But a credit/debit card from a different country requires that you have or have had in the past residence there, generally speaking and once you have addresses in multiple countries there's very little that can be done to control that.

Well, yes. That's what "single market" means. The EU has gone to great trouble to get rid of physical customs barriers and is not going to like people erecting virtual ones instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com