FA Cup

[Deutsch Wolf]

You could make all the same points about sky over the last few years (with possible exception of quality).

In the long run having a non-Murdoch operated competitor to the sky monopoly can only be a good thing.

Odd to loathe them, but like sky. Murdoch, his media monopoly and disgusting behaviour is possibly one of the worst outcomes of the 20th century.

I don't necessarily like Sky (I certainly don't like Murdoch). Plenty of stuff I'd chuck at them. But previously it was a binary choice. Pay for subscription TV and you get everything, or don't pay it and there is some sport on terrestrial TV. Now you pay for subscription TV, don't get everything unless you pay again and there's far less available FTA.

Theoretically breaking up a monopoly is good for the consumer, in this instance, in practice it isn't. It means the consumer loses out massively. It is highly unlikely that there will be a set of circumstances where Sky and BT unilaterally lower their prices so that everyone pays less, it is only going in one direction.

I can't see any way how the situation in 2017 is better for football fans than what was around in say, 2011.

Incidentally: when Sky got the Champions League rights (2004?) it made no difference at all to the FTA consumer. There was one game a week on ITV pre-2004 and there was one game a week on ITV post-2004. BT have come in and made the situation worse for *everyone* because only their subscribers can see the games. So there's one way they're worse straightaway.

 

[Tredman]

I don't necessarily like Sky (I certainly don't like Murdoch). Plenty of stuff I'd chuck at them. But previously it was a choice. Pay for subscription TV and you get everything, or don't pay it and there is some sport on terrestrial TV. Now you pay for subscription TV, don't get everything unless you pay again and there's far less available FTA.

Theoretically breaking up a monopoly is good for the consumer, in this instance, in practice it isn't. It means the consumer loses out massively. It is highly unlikely that there will be a set of circumstances where Sky and BT unilaterally lower their prices so that everyone pays less, it is only going in one direction.

I can't see any way how the situation in 2017 is better for football fans than what was around in say, 2011.

Incidentally: when Sky got the Champions League rights (2004?) it made no difference at all to the FTA consumer. There was one game a week on ITV pre-2004 and there was one game a week on ITV post-2004. BT have come in and made the situation worse for *everyone* because only their subscribers can see the games. So there's one way they're worse straightaway.

It's not an instant win though is it, competing against a monopoly is not a quick solution it takes times to create a worthwhile competitor - it could be years before having BT only is a decent proposition, but they do have to start somewhere.

The FTA is a different thing, if sports want to be on FTA (as they should) then they should offer up an FTA bundle of games etc.

I say this as a Sky subscriber and not a BT subscriber, but I would really, really like to not be a Sky subscriber (the B/B thing is a moot point, since it's all BT but with different resellers and margins)

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Maybe someone should break up Openreach's monopoly, eh

You are a massive cricket fan - you can't be happy with the prospect of having to pay an additional subscription to watch the Ashes later this year?

I do think the quality aspect is a big thing too, if you pay for Sky then at least you know you are getting a very good product in return on the whole. I don't think you get that with BT at all, they're absolutely miles off. It's like ditching your Wolves season ticket and going to watch Hednesford every week for marginally less money.

 

[Tredman]

Maybe someone should break up Openreach's monopoly, eh

You are a massive cricket fan - you can't be happy with the prospect of having to pay an additional subscription to watch the Ashes later this year?

I do think the quality aspect is a big thing too, if you pay for Sky then at least you know you are getting a very good product in return on the whole. I don't think you get that with BT at all, they're absolutely miles off. It's like ditching your Wolves season ticket and going to watch Hednesford every week for marginally less money.

It's not a monopoly though, it's physical cables which they install and maintain - the only phallacy was allowing others to use them in the first place. If anyone else wants to compete properly they should put their own cables in, as virgin. It would be easy enough to a duct share I'd imagine.

I've not watched much on BT other than the rugby, which seems way better than sky and a lot less like an item to be pushed to the side in favour of 'merseyside vs Manchester' or some other shite.

I'll probably get a BT subscription later this year for the cricket, I'd really like them to succeed and help get our media consumption out of the hands of a nut case fascist.

 

[The Bear]

I didn't realise the Ashes had gone to BT. That is annoying.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I didn't realise the Ashes had gone to BT. That is annoying.

It's just Australia's home games, hence their series vs SA/Pakistan being on there this winter. Conveniently enough that includes whenever they play England at home.

All England home games are signed up to Sky until at least 2019, as yet BT haven't shown any interest in bidding for any other overseas rights - which tend to go on a series by series basis in theory but in practice Sky are the only bidder so it's just about how much they end up having to pay the host broadcaster (lots for India, not so much for anyone else).

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Presumably there should be some form of sneaky way to get hold of the host broadcaster coverage from channel 9?

 

[The Bear]

I see, cheers. Well I probably wouldn't be staying/getting up to watch the ones in Oz anyway.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Presumably there should be some form of sneaky way to get hold of the host broadcaster coverage from channel 9?

There's sneaky ways of doing anything if you look hard enough

 

[arklowolf]

Probably a daft question as I'm basically a technophobe, but can we not just get unlimited broadband and stream anything?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Probably a daft question as I'm basically a technophobe, but can we not just get unlimited broadband and stream anything?

Depends on your moral compass really

But yeah, if you do want to acquire it all without paying a penny then it isn't overly difficult, you just have to deal with flaky reliability. I can't be arsed with faffing around too much so I just pay for Sky. But that's me (and I appreciate that I'm fortunate enough to be able to make that choice either way, some people aren't). BT holds no value for me as the price is too high, I'm not often in when they show their one PL game a week, I'm not interested in domestic rugby or US sport and as I say, I fundamentally object to paying twice anyway.

The issue of streaming is one that broadcasters seriously need to think about next time a deal comes up for renewal, I think given we're rapidly approaching the third decade of the 21st century it's time to do away with archaic crap like not being able to watch any PL game you choose - German viewers have been able to watch any Bundesliga game since at least 2001 when I was living there FFS - and the ridiculous rule that no live football can be shown at 3pm on a Saturday. The authorities genuinely are analogue folks living in a digital world.

I wouldn't like to put a price on it right now but if you offered me a package where I could subscribe and watch all Wolves away games then I'd almost certainly be in.

 

[Tredman]

Yeah as long as you are happy with piracy, as DW said above you can basically get anything on TV sneakily if you are happy with that.

 

[arklowolf]

Thing is, what DW says is spot on and things are different here to the UK maybe. Ie. We pay sky about €70 a month for their package Inc. Sport (but no movies). On top of that (because there is no broadband where we are I'm paying €45 a month for satellite broad bad (sic) for so many megabytes or whatever a month. If we pay €71 a month I can get unlimited broadband, get a 'box' and view any channel (so I'm told). Loads are doing it over here because the broadband coverage is crap, the old fashioned TV signal is 'patchy', satellite TV is expensive and we're having to pay for it all. There are companies here advertising 'boxes', satellite installations, packages etc. Only problem seems to be that you can't record. Point is surely; providers need to drop their prices (here) because they are not competitive and aren't giving value for money. End of the day, I want to watch The Ashes but everything has a price.

 

[arklowolf]

Combined, our phones (mobiles and land-line), satellite TV, and broadband are costing us approx €230.00 pcm. And I can't watch the ashes and half the PL games and wifey can't see the movies? And the coverage is dodgy on the phones. FFS. Piracy? I should feel guilty?

 

[arklowolf]

Sorry didn't mean to take over the thread with our personal grievances but everybody here just seems to be going down the same route (openly) so I just wondered where the providers were coming from.

 

[BillyDee]

Breaking up the Sky 'monopoly' would have been all well and good if the competition were showing the same games. Instead having an alternative broadcaster has just created an additional monopoly instead of real choice.
I think club by club season passes as an option, as available in other countries and other sports, are the future and the way forward.

 

[Tredman]

Sorry didn't mean to take over the thread with our personal grievances but everybody here just seems to be going down the same route (openly) so I just wondered where the providers were coming from.

It's a piece of cake to crack sky if you really want to, but if everyone did that then there would be nothing to watch

 

[arklowolf]

Are we not paying over the odds though? Everything has its price. I'd pay €50 a month to see all the wolves games. €100? Probably not. Well I might but it wouldn't be worth the earache.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

We are paying over the odds, but as long as TV deals keep increasing in value...it's us that pick up the tab.

I've given up saying that the bubble will burst soon as I first said it about a dozen years ago and quite obviously I was wrong :icon_lol: Eventually there will be a tipping point but it's anyone's guess when that will be or what eventually will be the deciding factor. Though as I say, operating in broadly the same fashion as a quarter of a century ago given all the technological advances since isn't sustainable. Surely.

 

[The Bear]

The problem nowadays is that if Football clubs offered a package to show all their games live, say streamed on their own channel over the internet, then people would just make pirate streams of that anyway. So I get why they probably wouldn't bother offering it.