Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said the television companies’ legal threat was “simply protectionism of old content distribution models”.
“While they may argue that this is not about taking action against consumers, it’s exactly consumers who will end up paying more because of this,” Chetwin said. “Consumers will always look for the best deal, and if that isn’t offered by a New Zealand company then they shouldn’t be stopped from looking overseas for a better deal.”
In his insightful blog about the geo unblocking debate Hadyn Green from Consumer NZ says “When you look at it like that, it’s very hard to see this action from the plaintiffs as anything but protectionism, herding consumers back into old models.
Consumer says “It’s like a tax simply for living in New Zealand. Remember these overseas services are subscription-based, consumers are paying for them. No one is getting anything for free, but consumers are always looking for the best deal, and right now, that is not from a New Zealand-based service.”
“Should this legal challenge be successful, it’ll be a huge blow to consumer choice. What is available overseas is just as fast, more accessible to those with impairments, in many cases easier to use, cheaper, and often of equal or higher quality to what is offered here. Why should New Zealand consumers be lumped with inferior products?”