The mancityfans.net football forum

Premier league fighting to kills off joan rivers! Cant post link as on phone but basically they want to get first row eu sports banned by internet providers.

These premier league people want to try getting a stream in the fucking first place, bashing down pop ups galore then watching football with a buffering and stuttering image quality that make you feel like your having seizures on acid.

Dont think they will get streams to cease but if they do I personally find listening to the matches on the wireless quite theraputic!

Leave us poor penniless people alone!!!

I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Dameerto wrote:I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Personally I pay for watching football. I used to use streams and download quite a bit of music, but i''ve had a re-think. I'm quite tired of people who think that it's a human fucking right to get sport, entertainment and music for free.

That said, the providers should offer two types of accounts - one premier that gives you access to their content both trough your tv and online, and one just for online viewing. Pricing the second one a lot lower would make a lot of people who are today stealing their footy pay foe it.

That's the way to combat illegal viewing, IMO.

As if this is a new thing? Good luck to them.

Dameerto wrote:I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

I have no idea what it costs to pay for Sky but its more than I can afford at the moment. Plus football aside I dont really watch telly. So I would be paying to watch ninety minutes of football a week (when yhe games been covered). A pay per view I could manage. Even the mobile phone sky sports is cool price wise. Fiver a month for the sports channels viewed on a four inch screen.

I understand the argument against people watching streams but in total honesty nine times out of ten the image is shite anyway.

Like rural I dont watch tv...dont have a licence...now City are in the BIG 4 (a term not used anymore.. shame) more of our games are on down the pub...and as for joan...my internet reception is so bad id still be buffering the QPR game.
In my opinion skys product is overpriced, and for me its just not financially viable. like everything else in this country, demand leads to profiteering....not lower prices or recognition of customer loyalty(which pissed me off no end when i had sky and saw that new customers paid less for the same package)..sky can fuck off

There's a lot of ways broadcasters could offer affordable football to people who aren't currently their customers - they could price up a 'seasonticket' for each club in the Prem for example, or like Mr Nool said they could offer a reduced price online service (which Setanta in the UK used to do before they folded), or even a pay per view service. Instead of looking at people who view streams as criminals they need to start looking at them as potential customers.

When I have watched streams I have found it a joyless experience. I too would sooner listen to the wireless.

If we go down the road of season tickets for each club, we really will have put the tin hat on it. It would open the door to concentrating the money at the top even more.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:When I have watched streams I have found it a joyless experience. I too would sooner listen to the wireless.

If we go down the road of season tickets for each club, we really will have put the tin hat on it. It would open the door to concentrating the money at the top even more.

It would be the broadcasters offering a way of viewing football matches to non-regular customers (or rather semi-regular in the case of a 'season ticket'), NOT the clubs.

For the kids.... this wireless Piccs and I make reference to, its not the t'interweb! Is technology at its finest. The good old fashioned radio wireless.

I miss sitting at the top of my garden on a Autumnal afternoon getting a crackling reception from across the Pennines ;-)

ruralblue wrote:For the kids.... this wireless Piccs and I make reference to, its not the t'interweb! Is technology at its finest. The good old fashioned radio wireless.

I miss sitting at the top of my garden on a Autumnal afternoon getting a crackling reception from across the Pennines ;-)

Wireless is a lovely word.

Dameerto wrote:
It would be the broadcasters offering a way of viewing football matches to non-regular customers (or rather semi-regular in the case of a 'season ticket'), NOT the clubs.

Oh come on now. There would be figures for each clubs sales and it would be no time whatsoever before the filth, arse and scouse were wanting their fingers in the honey pot. Sadly, maybe us too.
It really woukd be opening the door to a limited break from collective bargaining.

It's pissing down here like a motherfucker.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:
Oh come on now. There would be figures for each clubs sales and it would be no time whatsoever before the filth, arse and scouse were wanting their fingers in the honey pot. Sadly, maybe us too.
It really woukd be opening the door to a limited break from collective bargaining.

That's probably the major obstacle to it. Personally, if I could pay a couple of quid to watch a City away game online, I would (not the £10 day pass though). However, I'm not interested in 24/7 sports, including City home games and Fulham vs Stoke. Therefore I won't pay for Sky Sports plus BT as well for next season.

When games are on TV, I can find a way to watch legally. For the ones not shown here, the waters get a bit muddier. Happy to pay Sky, they just won't let me.

Blue Since 76 wrote:

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:
Oh come on now. There would be figures for each clubs sales and it would be no time whatsoever before the filth, arse and scouse were wanting their fingers in the honey pot. Sadly, maybe us too.
It really woukd be opening the door to a limited break from collective bargaining.

That's probably the major obstacle to it. Personally, if I could pay a couple of quid to watch a City away game online, I would (not the £10 day pass though). However, I'm not interested in 24/7 sports, including City home games and Fulham vs Stoke. Therefore I won't pay for Sky Sports plus BT as well for next season.

When games are on TV, I can find a way to watch legally. For the ones not shown here, the waters get a bit muddier. Happy to pay Sky, they just won't let me.

I'd have that as well. But they never give you exactly what you want. If I want to buy a subsciption to foxtel here, I have to buy the basic package and then the sports package. The sports package is made so expensive, getting the next package up from basic which includes the sports package and about 50 other channels seems like a bargain.

With all that, they still manage to screw you over by having certain games on Setanta and in order to watch new shows such as GoT, Boardwalk Empire and Breaking Bad, you have to buy the movies package...yes, the movies package to watch TV shows.

Sky want to stop streams, exert a little influence over these snake oil merchants who are carrying their signal all over the world.

Slim wrote:
I'd have that as well. But they never give you exactly what you want. If I want to buy a subsciption to foxtel here, I have to buy the basic package and then the sports package. The sports package is made so expensive, getting the next package up from basic which includes the sports package and about 50 other channels seems like a bargain.

With all that, they still manage to screw you over by having certain games on Setanta and in order to watch new shows such as GoT, Boardwalk Empire and Breaking Bad, you have to buy the movies package...yes, the movies package to watch TV shows.

Sky want to stop streams, exert a little influence over these snake oil merchants who are carrying their signal all over the world.

None of that bothers me as much as the sly little increases they put up.

Back in 2001 I got fox for the 1st time at about$55 a month. They then keep sneaking in $3 here $5 there all at this stage im about $105

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

Slim wrote:
I'd have that as well. But they never give you exactly what you want. If I want to buy a subsciption to foxtel here, I have to buy the basic package and then the sports package. The sports package is made so expensive, getting the next package up from basic which includes the sports package and about 50 other channels seems like a bargain.

With all that, they still manage to screw you over by having certain games on Setanta and in order to watch new shows such as GoT, Boardwalk Empire and Breaking Bad, you have to buy the movies package...yes, the movies package to watch TV shows.

Sky want to stop streams, exert a little influence over these snake oil merchants who are carrying their signal all over the world.

None of that bothers me as much as the sly little increases they put up.

Back in 2001 I got fox for the 1st time at about$55 a month. They then keep sneaking in $3 here $5 there all at this stage im about $105

Platinum is up to $121. You want to know the 'screw you over' factor in the price increase? In the contract you sign at the start, it states they can change the price any time and if you want out of the contract, you have to pay the remaining months at the new rate.

Slim wrote:
Platinum is up to $121. You want to know the 'screw you over' factor in the price increase? In the contract you sign at the start, it states they can change the price any time and if you want out of the contract, you have to pay the remaining months at the new rate.

That and absolutely zero competition. They can do what they want.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:
Oh come on now. There would be figures for each clubs sales and it would be no time whatsoever before the filth, arse and scouse were wanting their fingers in the honey pot. Sadly, maybe us too.
It really woukd be opening the door to a limited break from collective bargaining.

The whole point of my post was to highlight there are ways to give football fans something that they want in order to make streams even less attractive than they already are - and that broadcasters are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You're applying a magnifying glass to one small spot of the post.

mr_nool wrote:

Dameerto wrote:I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Personally I pay for watching football. I used to use streams and download quite a bit of music, but i''ve had a re-think. I'm quite tired of people who think that it's a human fucking right to get sport, entertainment and music for free.

That said, the providers should offer two types of accounts - one premier that gives you access to their content both trough your tv and online, and one just for online viewing. Pricing the second one a lot lower would make a lot of people who are today stealing their footy pay foe it.

That's the way to combat illegal viewing, IMO.

Agree with you, but more especially for music, books, independent films where the artists are being directly robbed and may not be very well off. Sky in the UK do have different pricing for online only and I'm looking at this now with an IP provider as a way to view football in 2 countries without Foxtel and True Vision subscriptions...