Sky

[carlos21]

Carlos has got sky q now.

 

[Number_25]

Carlos has got sky q now.

nice one mate

 

[carlos21]

nice one mate

What you got kid.

 

[trueblue84]

Talksport were on about this earlier in the year, if the people who now subscribe to Sky and BT subscribed to an on demand service at £9 per month, the premier league would make more money than they do now and most fans would save money as the cost of Sky, BT and Amazon is much more than that. Below is a link with all the info.

The Premier League reveal plans for a Netflix-style streaming service to revolutionise how English football is consumed

talkSPORT pundit Simon Jordan’s wish for the Premier League to become ‘the Netflix of Football’ is looking increasingly likely to becoming a reality. The league’s new CEO, R…

talksport.com

Would end up like the world cup where fifa control what you see and even splice in footage from other games. If this ever happens, I'll be done with football. It's bad enough with sky's bias.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

Would end up like the world cup where fifa control what you see and even splice in footage from other games. If this ever happens, I'll be done with football. It's bad enough with sky's bias.

I really dont understand what you mean. At the world cup, FIFA dont "control what you see", its normally a broadcasting company from the country the games are held in. I am not sure footage from other games have ever been sliced into a live broadcast or what the point of that would be

 

[paultheblue]

I haven't read this thread but can I just add I fkn hate SKY

carry on

 

[trueblue84]

I really dont understand what you mean. At the world cup, FIFA dont "control what you see", its normally a broadcasting company from the country the games are held in. I am not sure footage from other games have ever been sliced into a live broadcast or what the point of that would be

Im fairly sure fifa own the footage and license it.
I cant find the article thanks to the fifa video game spamming any search for fifa, but there was a news article from one of the previous world cups where fifa where showing footage of a woman crying at one of the games. She came out to say she was surprised to see herself on the tv as she was not at the match. They were showing footage of her from a completely different match.

 

[trueblue84]

Im fairly sure fifa own the footage and license it.
I cant find the article thanks to the fifa video game spamming any search for fifa, but there was a news article from one of the previous world cups where fifa where showing footage of a woman crying at one of the games. She came out to say she was surprised to see herself on the tv as she was not at the match. They were showing footage of her from a completely different match.

Edit: they do. Their world cup broadcaster is HBS and has been for the last 5 world cups.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

Im fairly sure fifa own the footage and license it.
I cant find the article thanks to the fifa video game spamming any search for fifa, but there was a news article from one of the previous world cups where fifa where showing footage of a woman crying at one of the games. She came out to say she was surprised to see herself on the tv as she was not at the match. They were showing footage of her from a completely different match.

FIFA own the rights to the footage after its broadcast, but they don't do the live broadcasts of the games. I think it's common during world cups for broadcaster to have cameras on the crowd and reuse that footage over and over again. Footage of the south American girls in the crowd seem to get reused a lot.
For the premier league sky, BT and amazon own the rights to the game when it's live and for a portion of time after that to show replays and highlights, then they go back to the premier league and become part of their archive

 

[trueblue84]

FIFA own the rights to the footage after its broadcast, but they don't do the live broadcasts of the games. I think it's common during world cups for broadcaster to have cameras on the crowd and reuse that footage over and over again. Footage of the south American girls in the crowd seem to get reused a lot.
For the premier league sky, BT and amazon own the rights to the game when it's live and for a portion of time after that to show replays and highlights, then they go back to the premier league and become part of their archive

Statement from fifa (https://www.fifa.com/what-we-do/tv/host-broadcasting/)...

When taking the media rights in-house, FIFA also decided to take control of the TV production of its events to safeguard consistent quality and full integration of its event designs. In this process, FIFA has appointed the company HBS as host broadcaster for the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and 2018 FIFA World Cup™.

Doesn't that equate to them controlling what gets shown during a broadcast?

 

[Collyman]

Would end up like the world cup where fifa control what you see and even splice in footage from other games. If this ever happens, I'll be done with football. It's bad enough with sky's bias.

Not sure how you can feel like that, surely, if we can watch Footy officially and as cheap as it says in that article, it can only be a good thing? When you say ‘splice in footage’ you are only using one example of that woman crying, even If that were to happen, hardly reason ‘to be done with football’. We pay to see the action on the pitch after all? Gotta be better than the Sky/BT coverage, Anything would be better than that.

 

[trueblue84]

Not sure how you can feel like that, surely, if we can watch Footy officially and as cheap as it says in that article, it can only be a good thing? When you say ‘splice in footage’ you are only using one example of that woman crying, even If that were to happen, hardly reason ‘to be done with football’. We pay to see the action on the pitch after all? Gotta be better than the Sky/BT coverage, Anything would be better than that.

It would be a pure monopoly, with everything controlled in-house. That is never a good thing. They would be able to control all aspects of what is shown/not shown, the message they want to allow (would criticism of the league and lack of support to grass routes/lower league football get any coveeage)?. It would become politicised like fifa have done.

You really think low prices would remain in a monopoly?

 

[Collyman]

It would be a pure monopoly, with everything controlled in-house. That is never a good thing. They would be able to control all aspects of what is shown/not shown, the message they want to allow (would criticism of the league and lack of support to grass routes/lower league football get any coveeage)?. It would become politicised like fifa have done.

You really think low prices would remain in a monopoly?

Not as low as the example given by Simon Jordan in that article, but it says we pay about 75p/m, lets face it, most of us only have Sky for the footy, loads of us don’t have it because it’s too expensive and there’s ‘other’ options. Get a bit frustrated with the buffering etc that comes with the other options so if they made it more affordable, id gladly pay about 30p/m. Nothing can be as bad as Sky/BT coverage, I’d embrace it fully i would. Think you’re overthinking it.

 

[Jimishorts]

Don’t really understand why anyone would have sky over a decent IPTV unless your broadband speeds weren’t up to it.

Only had it once for a year and would not bit bothering with it again.

 

[roydo]

Don’t really understand why anyone would have sky over a decent IPTV unless your broadband speeds weren’t up to it.

Only had it once for a year and would not bit bothering with it again.

Those utter idiots, (me), who dont know what an IPTV is, and no idea what it does and how to get one?