Foxtel Is About To Start Selling Broadband

In a bid to be more relevant to an increasingly distracted TV audience, Foxtel is about to start selling consumer bundle plans including ADSL and NBN home broadband.

Australia's largest pay TV provider will start offering bundles to home customers that include everything from broadband internet, through to home phone plans and of course, the TV service.

Foxtel will be reselling internet and home phone services via Telstra from next year. Telstra has offered what look to be similar bundle plans for years now, so it makes sense that it lets the TV arm of the business try and pull its own weight from next year.

Interestingly, Foxtel will resell NBN services where available, hopefully putting to rest the theory that the pay TV provider is somehow intimidated by the fibre network.

The pricing will be outed closer to the release date, but in the meantime, Foxtel is taking expressions of interest. [Foxtel via TV Tonight]

WATCH MORE: Entertainment News


    hopefully putting to rest the theory that the pay TV provider is somehow intimidated by the fibre network.

    it's not a theory though

      Dont worry its just more crap journalistic bias from Luke who has no idea about the NBN or funnily enough how to be a good journalist.

      Though seriously why are people still paying for foxtel, let that old bitty die out so we can get some proper content delivery in this nation at prices that isnt 15x what the US pays and for less content.

      Last edited 02/12/13 2:33 pm

        No one cares if you think Luke is biased or a good "journalist". This argument has been going on Gizmodo for years

        complaining about it hasn't changed a thing. I like the bias, I don't always agree with it, but at least it's out there and easy to see. It's what makes Gawker media worth visiting, even if 1/2 the posts are short commentaries on something that's already floating around the blogosphere.

        Waaaaaaagh, Luke wrote something I disagree with, waaaagh.

        That's all I get here. Don't like Giz? Don't read it. Simple.

      Indeed, this certainly doesn't put that theory to rest. It does however signal that they're shifting from an "if we pretend it's not real it can't hurt us" approach to more of a "let's cover this in our monopoly slime too" strategy.

    Great. Foxtels subscription package pay tv plans, now for the internet.
    Package one: Google, facebook, youtube, twitter, CNN
    Package two: instagram, imgur, Google+,
    Package three: you get the idea.

    Its coming.

      That is what America's Net Neutrality laws hope to prevent. as far as i know there are no laws to that effect here. but we hare already seeing it. Telstra do not meter site like to their customers because they host and sponsor the NRL

        Actually, you'll find that isn't actually hosted by Telstra.

          Who hosts the site doesn't mean a thing.

          It's unmetered, that's the point.

      Starter Package: AOL, MySpace, Bebo, Yahoo, Digg
      Search add on: Google, Bing
      Social Add On: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Google +
      Media Add on: Netflix, iView, Spotify etc
      Info Add On: Wikipedia
      Sports add on: you get the gist

      Bundling our services together adds great value! You just need the $50 starter package to get going! if you want to add to this already stellar selection, each eadditional package is only $20 per month!

        And for added conveniance, our super reliable Foxtel boxes will now double as the networking hardware. It's just regular adsl/802.11x hardware, but we've tweaked our network just enough so that you can't just byo hardware. What great value!!

      But I don't wan't CNN, why do I still have to pay for it?

        Must. Resist. Urge. To. Post. South. Park. Clip.......

      Telstra are pretty strongly pro-Microsoft. Your search options will be Bing, bing or bing.

    I thought Foxtel and Telstra had to stay separate due to conflict of interests and/or monopoly laws. How are they going to be able to do this and still stay a competitive independent media provider?

      Foxtel will have to pay the wholesale rate, I assume.

      But Telstra have sold foxtel services for years. What are you talking about?

    Maybe now they'll catch up with the last decade and offer some reasonably priced video-on-demand? Probably not...

    It's hilarious that the company that is in by far the best position to offer incredible streaming TV seems totally unwilling to do it. They seem to have more sway with Australian distributors than any other content provider in Australia (look at how they lord over HBO content distribution), coupled with access to the best Australian broadband on offer, yet they still can't even offer something that compares to Quickflix! Still the same set-to-box model that they've been offering since day 1, with a few minor bells and whistles...

      Rupert subscribes to the old school business tactic of refusing to change your business model based on changes in the real world, but rather throw around weight and money to crush any opposition.

      I would say its sad and stupid, but it works for him sometimes.

    With Fuxtel Broadband, you'll no doubt see the things you looked at on you computer yesterday repeated to you again today, and tomorrow and in the middle of the night next week, each year they'll strip download quota off you, bombard you with lots of pop up adverts, then slug you with a price rise.
    Foxtel, it's what they do!

    Last edited 02/12/13 2:04 pm

    I will never be handing over a cent to either Foxtel or Telstra for broadband and/or TV services directly. With their anti-competitive practices and political backing these two companies are a scourge on our nation.

    Even now the Liberal's move to introduce new anti-piracy laws (by making ISPs accountable for their customer's activity) that will drive the uptake of Foxtel. It's nothing more than a political back-scratch for Rupert Murdoch after he helped the Liberal's win the election with his anti-Labor media propaganda. The entire system stinks, and as the population becomes increasingly tech savvy hopefully Australians will increasingly shun these two companies out of principle.

      Spot filling my hard drives as we speak with everything.i have no faith in a govt that gets essentially free advertising from a media that has no respect from its citizens,payed for by multinational corporations.yes ch 9/7 at least ch 10 has a semblance of balance ( panel vs bolt )
      Foxtel vs netflix. A joke

      Enjoy that second rate fraudband then :-)

        How will avoiding Foxtel and Telstra relegate me to second rate fraudband?

        The whole point of the NBN is that it's a wholesale only network, so ISPs like iiNet, Internode,TPG, Optus, etc will have access to the same network as Foxtel and Telstra.

        Last edited 02/12/13 8:19 pm

          Yea... Nah... I've been on a wholesale cable network before, TransACT in Canberra. MASSIVE difference between ISP's, I couldn't even stream youtube on 8meg cable with one of them. Not to mention the fact it was a POS VDSL network, not FTTP.

          I'm currently with Telstra because they're the only ISP that could get me off VDSL and onto ADSL2 at my old place, and when I moved house I didn't have to re-sign a contract. I wont be changing or signing a new contract until I can get FTTP, which will most likely be iinet, but we'll see how it goes by then..

          Last edited 02/12/13 10:40 pm

            I'm not saying that there won't be a difference between ISPs, because there will, I'm just saying that each ISP starts off with access to the same network, so not being with Telstra doesn't automatically relegate me to 'fraudband'. ISPs like Internode and iiNet make a point of purchasing backhaul in excess of what their customers need, which is just one of the reasons why they are both great ISPs, whereas budget ISPs prefer to under-subscribe to save costs, and play catch up when their customers start to complain.

            So not being with Telstra doesn't mean fraudband. I'd back Internode or iiNet to deliver me a better service than Telstra any day, especially where support is concerned. You just have to be wise in your choice of ISP. And if for some reason they each delivered the exact same service I still wouldn't touch Telstra or Foxtel out of principle due to how these companies do business.

              Internode is iinet :)

                Yeah i know, but Internode was good long before iinet bought them, so I listed them as separate examples of excellent ISPs. I use Internode myself.

              Actually each ISP doesn't start with the same network at all. Telstra cable and fibre, for instance, aren't available from anyone else, and are completely separate to what other companies can offer.

              And let's face it, in today's world if its not docsis 3 or FTTP, it is second rate fraudband. DSL is last century's tech.

              I don't know why anyone has called cheap ISP's fraudband, fraudband is liberal's shithouse NBN plan.

                The Liberal's version of the NBN should be called Whoreband, on account of the Liberal's whoring themselves out to big business as well as their corporate fat-cat buddies. It also doubles as an appropriate reference to how the Australian people are being screwed.

      "making ISPs accountable for their customer's activity"???

      That's like holding councils responsible for all the speeding and crashes! Nuhuh

    Rupert Murdoch had this planned out with the coalition all along. That greedy bastard.

      It's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect Rupert took the initiative to approach Tony Abbott with a proposition to help him win the election, and in turn Tony was to take a hard stance on piracy once elected. You don't get to Rupert's position in this world without taking the initiative. Then it's just a matter of using your handful of puppets to put on a show. And here we are.

        Yeah, it's called corruption. They will call it something else, but it is corruption.
        These assholes (politicians) are supposed to be our representatives. To do what is good for the country, not what is good for their own wallets or careers.

          OMG you have just worked out that our (&US &UK) version of democracy is a sham?

            I've known it is a sham since I was in high school. Over 20 years ago now. It's so obvious to anyone that does their research.

        Are you taking a stab at Luke with the puppet sentence? Coalition propaganda, advertising Fuktel and Telstra, bashing on the FTTH policy. Blatant bias. He should be banned from publishing on this site IMO.

          What are you talking about? Luke comments on both side of the issue, and in my opinion when he's what you'd call pro liberal, he's really just more "whatever, I guess this is what we're stuck with, might as well live with it instead of whinge about it".

          He's certainly not a liberal puppet. Ever noticed all the old fart "ZOMG govt has to SAVE SAVE SAVE, tax the poor give to the rich, sell all govt assets, create private monopolies" idiots also slam Luke for being pro Labor? Or you don't bother reading those articles?

            I try to avoid reading any sort of political propaganda. Which excludes most of Lukes articles from my reading time.
            FYI. I dislike both major parties. I have a slight swing towards Labor for wanting to do what is best for the working man\woman, not corporations or mining companies.

              I have a slight swing towards Labor for wanting to do what is best for the working man\woman, not corporations or mining companies.

              You must be speaking of another Labor then. Because the party that was voted out was a mob of idiots who were spending most of their time fighting with each other and driving the Australian economy into the ground.

              Now Labor is in opposition and are stone walling any attempt to clean the mess they made.

              You can't stay in denial forever, Funky Munky. Australians of voting age decided the government. Not Rupert Murdoch.

              But by all means, you are welcome to keep spinning that conspiracy theory. All I will say is it will not make it fact and it will not do you (anyone else subscribing to the same fallacy) any favours.

                That reply does not address any of the comments I made. Try again.
                Your denial of how the real world works is disappointing.

                Last edited 03/12/13 6:15 pm

                  I know how the real world works just fine. And I did address your comments.

                  The Labor you speak of was not the Labor in office. The Labor we had was a disorganised bunch that were so focused on fighting each other they let their projects fall the way side and decay. And also had Swan managing the budget and look at the mess it is in now.

                  And I am not getting this comment on Swan from the Murdoch presses. All I have is what I saw on TV (on ABC on fact) is his constant media releases on the state of the budget. It was sickening to see him unravel yet no-one bothered to pull him in.

                  And now, Labor has decided to hold Australia to ransom and are blocking the Coalition's attempts to put the books right.

                  And despite their bluff, I do not think we will get this double dissolution of government. That will paint the Coalition (or anyone who does for that matter) as a dictatorship. This is assuming such a thing can be allowed or if there are measure in place to prevent a dissolution from happening on a whim).

                  Last edited 03/12/13 7:03 pm

                I voted for Labor in the hope they'd keep the bastards honest. They're doing exactly what I wanted, and I hope they keep blocking Liberal's attempt to ruin the country.

          No, not Luke. I don't actually have any issue with Luke's articles even though a lot of other people give him flak. By 'puppets' I was referring more so to the Government, who it appears are willing to do Murdoch's dirty work.

            Ok. Fair enough. Banned from publishing on here is a bit harsh in hindsight. He gets some good discussions going.

        It's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect Rupert took the initiative to approach Tony Abbott with a proposition to help him win the election

        That is a conflict of interest and would not work anyway. The Australian public decided who would win.

        Rupert Murdoch, despite what the conspiracy claims, had no hand in the Coalition winning.

        Labor simply failed to live up to their promises and the majority of Australians had enough of them fighting each other rather than running the country.

          They kept far more promises than Liberal have so far, they actually did a pretty good job overall, but their infighting ruined their public image.

            I don't mean to be rude, but it's the Coalition that is in power which consists of both the Liberals and the Nationals. It's not correct to say either is in power.

            It's the same as saying 'voted for Abbott as PM'. Nobody voted for Abbott as PM, the party was voted and they selected him to act as PM.

            Irrespective, the Coalition has also been in office for only a couple of months. It's too soon to start counting the promises.

            Last edited 03/12/13 6:59 pm

              Doesn't seem too soon looking at their track record...

          Rupert Murdoch, despite what the conspiracy claims, had no hand in the Coalition winning.Where is your proof of this? Do you represent Mr Murdoch? Your argument has as much basis in truth as mine.

          Last edited 03/12/13 6:22 pm

            Where is your proof that Murdoch swayed the election?

            All that exists that proves Murdoch swayed the election is conjecture and co-incidence. There is no solid proof and if there was it would make November 1975 look like a quiet picnic.

            The honest answer is Murdoch is the convenient scape goat for those who did not want the Coalition in office. If it had been anyone else with such a huge share in the media, the blame would fall on that person instead of Murdoch.

            Australian's made their decision shortly after the 2010 election. The Carbon Tax was what sealed Labor's fate. It was put their to appease the Greens despite it having little to no effect. That coupled with the constant in fighting and no-one keeping an eye on Rudd as he continued to destablise the party.

            I know how the world works just fine. But I will apologies for one thing: I am sorry for implying you were in denial. I over stepped my bounds there.

            And in answer to your main question, no I do not represent Murdoch. Why would you ever think I was? I am critical of all sides.

            Last edited 03/12/13 6:56 pm

              I'm not trying to defend Labor at all. They fucked up, they paid for it. Rightfully so. I'm saying that it is naive to assume that Murdoch and his media corporations had no hand in the swing of votes.
              If I had my way I would sack every politician in office now and start from scratch, but that's fascism. Right now it is like watching a bunch of primary school kids argue pointlessly about stupid issues. Opposing for the sake of opposition despite what may be in the best interest of the country. Blind pride has taken priority. These are the people running our country.


              1. Murdoch makes a deal to help the coalition win the election
              2. In exchange the Coalition deliberately sabotages the NBN
              3. Murdoch starts selling the NBN when it become obvious their NBN is flawed
              4. Everybody forgets about the NBN by the next election

              To say that Murdoch is just a scapegoat at this point is just moronic. Murdoch doesn't have his hand in politics, he has his hand in business and that business just so happens to be made with the coalition.

      You keep telling yourself that. It's not going to make that Murdoch conspiracy fact.

      The Coalition and Murdoch are separate entities. The Coalition were voted into government by Australian's, not lemmings in front of a News Corp publication as many wish to believe.

        They may have voted that way but it does not mean that their opinion was not swayed by the media.

          They have provided a source of information, true. But if someone is convinced then no amount of work in the media will change that.

          If a person is swayed then the problem lies with the individual and not the paper.

          But the point of the discussion is Murdoch had decided the election and is pulling all the strings. This is not the case.

            You underestimate the power that the media holds in this country and it's ability to control what people see, hear and consequently believe to be true.

            Haha, actually the point of the original discussion was Foxtel broadband and how it will try to screw our country of our money.

    If they really want to encourage triple play take up, first they have to get their mobile application working on more than just 2 ancient phones and an ancient tablet, and allow rooted phones too.

    Plus get a unmetering deal happening with Telstra Mobile for Foxtel Play (and not the useless
    "mobile foxtel from telstra" that gives you a 4:3 letterbox view of the video instead of full 16:9 widescreen.

    Once all the issues with the mobile applications are fixed, i'll consider it. Sadly I don't think that will ever happen so i'll just continue to watch channel bittorrent. It let's me watch what I want, when I want, and it doesn't control me.

    I'm happy to pay for content, but not at the expense of convinenece.

    So Telstra will be selling Internet.... Not really surprising.

    Also minus those that are paying for sports... does anyone buy foxtel?

    Foxtel probably want to lock people into 24 month contracts, so they will have no option to cancel the Pay TV service..

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now