[cite]Posted By: E=mc2[/cite]but Sky have caused this imbalanced infrastructure in football.
Whilst Sky have this monopoly. Those days of Charlton or other club supporters, dreaming of European football are now long gone.
I'm glad the landlady has won this judgement, but lets be clear, the imbalance has been caused by the football authorities, by the way they have divvied up the Sky money. The FA should never have allowed the FAPL to be formed as a separate entity, and should have made sure the money went through all the leagues.
To put it simply, Sky agree a total amount of money for the rights, and don't really care what football does with the money after that. I intensely dislike Murdoch, but we shouldn't blame Sky for the whole mess. There are actually a lot of decent football loving people who work for Sky, and while it pains me to say it, they have left the BBC standing in terms of the actual presentation of football on TV.
Before you can take that note from Citigroup seriously you would need to know the financial dealings they have with Sky/News Corp. Is Citigroup a shareholder in either entity for example?
Banking analysts are supposed to be neutral but rarely issue reports that conflict with their own company's financial interests!
[cite]Posted By: E=mc2[/cite]
If BT have no choice but to share the line with other companies
OT I know, but apart from in Hull, Kingston Communications have a monopoly on the phones here.
Have always found the KC situation a very strange one but I suppose it would be too much work for BT to open up the market there to even bother seeking to contest it.
Bad for the people of Hull though, no competition = no incentive to produce competitive services in terms of quality and price... the broadband packages are an absolute joke for example
[cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite]Bad for the people of Hull though, no competition = no incentive to produce competitive services in terms of quality and price... the broadband packages are an absolute joke for example
I believe that KC have done some kind of wholesale deal with BT to support their network. Which may lead to better broadband.
[cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite]the broadband packages are an absolute joke for example
We pay £30 a month (broadband) and £20 a quater (phoneline) for internet that is literally slower than dial-up, average download speeds of 90/100 KB/S, it's shocking.
Oh yeah and you get a 90gb download limit with a £1 for every GB after, I can't imagine anyone in the country gets a worse deal than the people of Hull.
Oh well, we get pretty white phone boxes so it that makes up for it.... right
Have to agree with you re MOTD and the BBC Prague,
The BBC sport department, were at best lazy, and took the public for granted. And at worst did not develop the brand, or give the football league a decent full coverage.
The league show even now is too little to late.
MOTD was put on at all sorts or late night showings and 'kicked' around the schedules without a regular spot! pressumably for the Saturday night 'pissheads'. Long before the Saturday night of X factor, and Strictly, it was a diet of second rate medical soap dramas, and old films that most people had seen years before if they owned a video!. Saturday night viewing was a train wreck!, and until the past few years was frankly not delivering a decent night's viewing. I dislike Sky or should I say Murdoch with a passion!. In the same way they let Formula 1 go to ITV, they never should have allowed this to happen. I have long argued that there are national sporting occassions that a public service broadcaster should be allowed to keep. These used to be called the 'crown jewels'. The trouble is in the freemarket, the highest bidder win's, and Sky just outbid the bbc, it needed football,to get it's subscription service. I get the impression that football was not valued at the bbc!. It made a mistake, it took it for granted, and like other sport and arts it cannot always be quantified, well not till you have to pay for it!
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]In the same way they let Formula 1 go to ITV, they never should have allowed this to happen. I have long argued that there are national sporting occassions that a public service broadcaster should be allowed to keep. These used to be called the 'crown jewels'.
I thought there were actually a number of "crown jewels" that the BBC and ITV have the rights to. A lot of irrelevant pish like the FA Cup final, the boat race and Wimbledon, right enough, but one man's jewels are another's stones, I guess.
The main problem is that they're a national broadcaster catering for a wide variety of people. Not everyone wants football, and certainly not everyone wants a licence fee to rival Sky subscription prices, so while I'd agree that they could have done better with what they had, they could never have given the kind of blanket coverage that a broadcaster with specialist channels could supply. And rightly so. Watching football on telly isn't some kind of basic human right. If Joe Bloggs of Essex needs to see football he should either watch his local side or pay a specialist broadcaster. There's no way that taxpayers/licence payers should be funding the BBC to provide wall to wall coverage so that dicks up and down the country can watch wall to wall coverage of their "beloved" Man U/Liverpool/Chelsea/Latest Club With Cash
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]The main problem is that they're a national broadcaster catering for a wide variety of people. Not everyone wants football, and certainly not everyone wants a licence fee to rival Sky subscription prices, so while I'd agree that they could have done better with what they had, they could never have given the kind of blanket coverage that a broadcaster with specialist channels could supply. And rightly so. Watching football on telly isn't some kind of basic human right. If Joe Bloggs of Essex needs to see football he should either watch his local side or pay a specialist broadcaster. There's no way that taxpayers/licence payers should be funding the BBC to provide wall to wall coverage so that dicks up and down the country can watch wall to wall coverage of their "beloved" Man U/Liverpool/Chelsea/Latest Club With Cash
The trouble is Motimerican the bbc took football and most sport for granted.
Sky was struggling before they took on football. Why should Joe Bloggs regardless if he is in Essex have to pay to see the national game!. Sky in it's present format hardly gives us wall to wall coverage, although some teams like Man Utd and Chelsea seem to have a pretty decent shout at present!. I suppose the argument is that these are the most popular teams. Trouble is why not have regional tv, which i understand is the next thing at the bbc!. Football is the national game. Personally I would have the present Nations Rugby, British Grand Prix, and the Gold cup, added to the list.
The case for subscription sport wether it be a pay on demand service should be available, through the clubs, or the governing bodies to delegate. Not necessarily live but a sort of sport i player service.
It is a case if you believe in sport for all, or sport for those that can afford it!. I believe that sport should be available to all, not necessarily free, but not not just for the preserve of the rich, and those that can afford it.
I would be in favour of a bbc sports subcription channel, which allowed you to access the bbc sports archive!, an add on to the licence fee.
There are actually a lot of decent football loving people who work for Sky, and while it pains me to say it, they have left the BBC standing in terms of the actual presentation of football on TV.
As with cricket and their coverage of Test matches they have left the BBC behind, but bear in mind that Sky run their sports (and news) section as a massive loss leader to drag the punters in who fork out every month for sat TV. The BBC however punt a lot more money into news, drama, films, radio etc and have more bases to cover. Take up of Sky would be a lot lower without football/cricket and a bit of rugby league to keep the norvern monkeys happy.
1. It is already possible to watch every Premiership match live on the internet anyway. Quite why anyone pays for Sky if they have broadband is beyond me.
2. Clubs could and should charge much lower prices for tickets and therefore TV should not be such a threat.
Personally, I believe sky provide an excellent service for sport, even if it is on the tad expensive side...
But, if you love football (like I do) and other sport (cricket/golf etc) then I definatly thinks its worth forking out for...
As for watching on broadband....i do watch the matches that sky do not provide on the internet, but it is often difficult to get a good feed of the match (although, it is getting better).
Besides, my parents pay for both, so it dosnt matter...
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]I don't think Sky forces pubs to by their boxes and if they do lose this in the UK courts they will stop supplying the Greek channel.
I don't think Sky supply the Greek channel, I think it's the FA.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]1. It is already possible to watch every Premiership match live on the internet anyway. Quite why anyone pays for Sky if they have broadband is beyond me.2. Clubs could and should charge much lower prices for tickets and therefore TV should not be such a threat.
3. THE FA CUP[u aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]IS NOT IRRELEVANT[/u].
Because who wants to watch football on a tiny pc screen or laptop with 3 of your mates crowding around trying to see?
At the end of the day why should it be free to watch the football anyway?
It is your choice to pay for SKY - you dont have choice to not pay your tv licence.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]1. It is already possible to watch every Premiership match live on the internet anyway.Quite why anyone pays for Sky if they have broadband is beyond me.2. Clubs could and should charge much lower prices for tickets and therefore TV should not be such a threat.
3. THE FA CUPIS NOT IRRELEVANT.
Because who wants to watch football on a tiny pc screen or laptop with 3 of your mates crowding around trying to see?
At the end of the day why should it be free to watch the football anyway?
It is your choice to pay for SKY - you dont have choice to not pay your tv licence.
If you have a modern TV you can probably connect your laptop to it, so it isn't a case of crowding round a small screen. If you'd like advice on how to do this, please let me know as that is one of the many useful services provided by my company.
don't like the Murdoch stranglehold in this country but when i was having my roof done a few years ago and it knocked out my sky signal, it was hard work. Think the NHS need to start running some SKY withdrawal services. Start off ditching the films and build up to the sports channels gradually. It'll be the only way we can wrestle this sport and our country back out of his hands.
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]Because who wants to watch football on a tiny pc screen or laptop with 3 of your mates crowding around trying to see?
Most TV's have a VGA slot (blue almost square one) which a normal monitor cable goes into, then all you need is an audio cable that you can get for a couple of quid and away you go. It's even easier if your laptop has a HDMI port.
HD quality streams are not exactly rare these days either.
In my opinion Sky already know the internet is a massive problem to them, that's why they now have things like SkyPlayer on the Xbox etc.
Dont really understand the whole anti murdoch stuff really.
To be honest if you believe ANYTHING at 100% face value that is reported in any of the media then it's quite naive and gullible. Everyone has a view/agenda even subconsciously and that spin is usually applied when retelling news. Better to go out into the world and form your own opinions than have them shaped for you by faceless puppetmasters imo.
For example i sat through sky's round the clock coverage of the Cairo riots for a couple of days last week at work. Now from their coverage it showed 250k- 1m people protesting to get Mubaret (sp) out.
Now as far as Sky and the Beeb were concerned this was cold hard FACT that the people of Egypt wanted him out. The country has a population of 80m so how they can state that based on talking to a few bods (including that famous political figurehead Omar Sharif) and the rioting of a minority of the population is anyones' guess.
Whilst they might be right there is no factual basis for it as far as im concerned and the cynic in me suggests it supports the underlying agenda of the day for whomever.
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]If you have a modern TV you can probably connect your laptop to it, so it isn't a case of crowding round a small screen. If you'd like advice on how to do this, please let me know as that is one of the many useful services provided by my company.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Most TV's have a VGA slot (blue almost square one) which a normal monitor cable goes into, then all you need is an audio cable that you can get for a couple of quid and away you go.
Oi! You trying to put me out of business, telling people how it's done?
[cite]Posted By: MrOneLung[/cite]Because who wants to watch football on a tiny pc screen or laptop with 3 of your mates crowding around trying to see?
Most TV's have a VGA slot (blue almost square one) which a normal monitor cable goes into, then all you need is an audio cable that you can get for a couple of quid and away you go. It's even easier if your laptop has a HDMI port.
HD quality streams are not exactly rare these days either.
In my opinion Sky already know the internet is a massive problem to them, that's why they now have things like SkyPlayer on the Xbox etc.
You can do this on some TV's (although in my experience most do not have vga) but some PCs have hdmi and or component out.
HD streams are rare and pretty much never what Sky can produce.
So while I agree you don't have to crowd around a laptop it isn't fair to say internet to tv is anywhere near the quality of Sky HD broadcast for football which is a must for proper fans of a premiership club - I live without mine as Charlton are so rarely on.
[cite]Posted By: Elthamaddick[/cite]If I was skint then the heating would go off before the sky...;o)
dunno what I'd watch on TV without it !
Statistically Sky is the first bill to be paid each month; before the rent, gas and leccy.....quite astonishing really. People are prepared to go without a roof over their head as long as they have Sky!
Makes me laugh the people who slag off Murdoch and his publications, especially The Sun, yet will sell their own grandmothers to have Sky!
Never had it and highly unlikely to!
The concept of paying £50 plus a month for a supposedly all singing all dancing sports service only to be shafted by pay per view for a decent boxing match or some football matches is scandalous!
However all the time people do it Murdoch will shaft them. We reap what we sow.
Also if you do a bit of research regarding the 1990s when Cricket wasn't fashionable Sky effectively stopped the national set up going under. Paying a lot over what they needed to for the rights to the overseas tours so that the sport had some money to help continue with the academy, coaching etc.
[cite]Posted By: siblers[/cite]Went to change our sky package, got rid of pretty much of everything except for the sports and it's €60 a month. Crazy money.
Got rid of Sky + and went for Freeview using a Topup TV Box. The box gives me the same recording facility as Sky +. You can "top up" to get certain additional channels including Sky Sports and ESPN. I haven't bothered to be honest.
We used to have the full Sky Package. Who watched the lions share - the Kids and mainly American Kids rubbish.
Saved myself £720 per year!
Do I miss the footie, well no to be honest? I missed more than I watched in the past. If I am desperate to watch a game, there are ways to do that as we all know.
Comments
I'm glad the landlady has won this judgement, but lets be clear, the imbalance has been caused by the football authorities, by the way they have divvied up the Sky money. The FA should never have allowed the FAPL to be formed as a separate entity, and should have made sure the money went through all the leagues.
To put it simply, Sky agree a total amount of money for the rights, and don't really care what football does with the money after that. I intensely dislike Murdoch, but we shouldn't blame Sky for the whole mess. There are actually a lot of decent football loving people who work for Sky, and while it pains me to say it, they have left the BBC standing in terms of the actual presentation of football on TV.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/02/football_not_facing_tv_doomsda.html
Before you can take that note from Citigroup seriously you would need to know the financial dealings they have with Sky/News Corp. Is Citigroup a shareholder in either entity for example?
Banking analysts are supposed to be neutral but rarely issue reports that conflict with their own company's financial interests!
Have always found the KC situation a very strange one but I suppose it would be too much work for BT to open up the market there to even bother seeking to contest it.
Bad for the people of Hull though, no competition = no incentive to produce competitive services in terms of quality and price... the broadband packages are an absolute joke for example
I believe that KC have done some kind of wholesale deal with BT to support their network. Which may lead to better broadband.
We pay £30 a month (broadband) and £20 a quater (phoneline) for internet that is literally slower than dial-up, average download speeds of 90/100 KB/S, it's shocking.
Oh yeah and you get a 90gb download limit with a £1 for every GB after, I can't imagine anyone in the country gets a worse deal than the people of Hull.
Oh well, we get pretty white phone boxes so it that makes up for it.... right
The BBC sport department, were at best lazy, and took the public for granted. And at worst did not develop the brand, or give the football league a decent full coverage.
The league show even now is too little to late.
MOTD was put on at all sorts or late night showings and 'kicked' around the schedules without a regular spot! pressumably for the Saturday night 'pissheads'. Long before the Saturday night of X factor, and Strictly, it was a diet of second rate medical soap dramas, and old films that most people had seen years before if they owned a video!. Saturday night viewing was a train wreck!, and until the past few years was frankly not delivering a decent night's viewing. I dislike Sky or should I say Murdoch with a passion!. In the same way they let Formula 1 go to ITV, they never should have allowed this to happen. I have long argued that there are national sporting occassions that a public service broadcaster should be allowed to keep. These used to be called the 'crown jewels'. The trouble is in the freemarket, the highest bidder win's, and Sky just outbid the bbc, it needed football,to get it's subscription service. I get the impression that football was not valued at the bbc!. It made a mistake, it took it for granted, and like other sport and arts it cannot always be quantified, well not till you have to pay for it!
The main problem is that they're a national broadcaster catering for a wide variety of people. Not everyone wants football, and certainly not everyone wants a licence fee to rival Sky subscription prices, so while I'd agree that they could have done better with what they had, they could never have given the kind of blanket coverage that a broadcaster with specialist channels could supply. And rightly so. Watching football on telly isn't some kind of basic human right. If Joe Bloggs of Essex needs to see football he should either watch his local side or pay a specialist broadcaster. There's no way that taxpayers/licence payers should be funding the BBC to provide wall to wall coverage so that dicks up and down the country can watch wall to wall coverage of their "beloved" Man U/Liverpool/Chelsea/Latest Club With Cash
FA Cup Final
Open Golf
Wimbledon
Olympics
Boat Race
World Cup Final
Grand National
The Derby
Rugby WC Final
might be a couple of others too
The trouble is Motimerican the bbc took football and most sport for granted.
Sky was struggling before they took on football. Why should Joe Bloggs regardless if he is in Essex have to pay to see the national game!. Sky in it's present format hardly gives us wall to wall coverage, although some teams like Man Utd and Chelsea seem to have a pretty decent shout at present!. I suppose the argument is that these are the most popular teams. Trouble is why not have regional tv, which i understand is the next thing at the bbc!. Football is the national game. Personally I would have the present Nations Rugby, British Grand Prix, and the Gold cup, added to the list.
The case for subscription sport wether it be a pay on demand service should be available, through the clubs, or the governing bodies to delegate. Not necessarily live but a sort of sport i player service.
It is a case if you believe in sport for all, or sport for those that can afford it!. I believe that sport should be available to all, not necessarily free, but not not just for the preserve of the rich, and those that can afford it.
I would be in favour of a bbc sports subcription channel, which allowed you to access the bbc sports archive!, an add on to the licence fee.
Bet that would piss off Murdoch!....
As with cricket and their coverage of Test matches they have left the BBC behind, but bear in mind that Sky run their sports (and news) section as a massive loss leader to drag the punters in who fork out every month for sat TV. The BBC however punt a lot more money into news, drama, films, radio etc and have more bases to cover. Take up of Sky would be a lot lower without football/cricket and a bit of rugby league to keep the norvern monkeys happy.
2. Clubs could and should charge much lower prices for tickets and therefore TV should not be such a threat.
3. THE FA CUP IS NOT IRRELEVANT.
But, if you love football (like I do) and other sport (cricket/golf etc) then I definatly thinks its worth forking out for...
As for watching on broadband....i do watch the matches that sky do not provide on the internet, but it is often difficult to get a good feed of the match (although, it is getting better).
Besides, my parents pay for both, so it dosnt matter...
I don't think Sky supply the Greek channel, I think it's the FA.
dunno what I'd watch on TV without it !
This...
Because who wants to watch football on a tiny pc screen or laptop with 3 of your mates crowding around trying to see?
At the end of the day why should it be free to watch the football anyway?
It is your choice to pay for SKY - you dont have choice to not pay your tv licence.
If you have a modern TV you can probably connect your laptop to it, so it isn't a case of crowding round a small screen. If you'd like advice on how to do this, please let me know as that is one of the many useful services provided by my company.
Most TV's have a VGA slot (blue almost square one) which a normal monitor cable goes into, then all you need is an audio cable that you can get for a couple of quid and away you go. It's even easier if your laptop has a HDMI port.
HD quality streams are not exactly rare these days either.
In my opinion Sky already know the internet is a massive problem to them, that's why they now have things like SkyPlayer on the Xbox etc.
To be honest if you believe ANYTHING at 100% face value that is reported in any of the media then it's quite naive and gullible. Everyone has a view/agenda even subconsciously and that spin is usually applied when retelling news. Better to go out into the world and form your own opinions than have them shaped for you by faceless puppetmasters imo.
For example i sat through sky's round the clock coverage of the Cairo riots for a couple of days last week at work. Now from their coverage it showed 250k- 1m people protesting to get Mubaret (sp) out.
Now as far as Sky and the Beeb were concerned this was cold hard FACT that the people of Egypt wanted him out. The country has a population of 80m so how they can state that based on talking to a few bods (including that famous political figurehead Omar Sharif) and the rioting of a minority of the population is anyones' guess.
Whilst they might be right there is no factual basis for it as far as im concerned and the cynic in me suggests it supports the underlying agenda of the day for whomever.
Oi! You trying to put me out of business, telling people how it's done?
You can do this on some TV's (although in my experience most do not have vga) but some PCs have hdmi and or component out.
HD streams are rare and pretty much never what Sky can produce.
So while I agree you don't have to crowd around a laptop it isn't fair to say internet to tv is anywhere near the quality of Sky HD broadcast for football which is a must for proper fans of a premiership club - I live without mine as Charlton are so rarely on.
Statistically Sky is the first bill to be paid each month; before the rent, gas and leccy.....quite astonishing really. People are prepared to go without a roof over their head as long as they have Sky!
Never had it and highly unlikely to!
The concept of paying £50 plus a month for a supposedly all singing all dancing sports service only to be shafted by pay per view for a decent boxing match or some football matches is scandalous!
However all the time people do it Murdoch will shaft them. We reap what we sow.
Also if you do a bit of research regarding the 1990s when Cricket wasn't fashionable Sky effectively stopped the national set up going under. Paying a lot over what they needed to for the rights to the overseas tours so that the sport had some money to help continue with the academy, coaching etc.
Got rid of Sky + and went for Freeview using a Topup TV Box. The box gives me the same recording facility as Sky +. You can "top up" to get certain additional channels including Sky Sports and ESPN. I haven't bothered to be honest.
We used to have the full Sky Package. Who watched the lions share - the Kids and mainly American Kids rubbish.
Saved myself £720 per year!
Do I miss the footie, well no to be honest? I missed more than I watched in the past. If I am desperate to watch a game, there are ways to do that as we all know.