Amazon or Facebook have bid for Premier league fixtures

As mentioned,you might need three or four subscriptions to watch all the games you want if you're so inclined.It doesn't add up to being worth it unless you're both;
A) Stupid
B) Loaded

No wonder some folk are turning to illegal streams,this ain't going to help.
It'll be RTV or the pub for me.
 
Mez said:
I completely accept i'm being fussy, which to some may seem ridiculous. But i've spent a fair whack on a top of the range 4K tv and surround sound setup, so it always feels a bit underwhelming to then watch poor source material through it, when combined with my shanner of an internet connection.
Click to expand...
You're not getting value for your hard earned,which-imo-is completely understandable.

BT,Sky,Amazon and Facebook can all do one as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mez
Oh for the days when Sky had all the Scottish and EPL football - no other subscriptions required.

Scottish football actually had money back then too before the SPL stupidly thought the grass was greener elsewhere.
 
Sky via a satellite in full HD is night and day compared to any streams I've seen. It's just much much better and it would be a shame to have to watch inferior signals as standard again. And as others have said, having to go here there and everywhere paying a bit at a time for your sport is getting to be a pain in the arse already in my opinion. Maybe I'm doing something wrong......?
 
Something I never thought I would say and makes me sound like a bit of a weirdo but there is already too much football on the tv. Last thing I need is to pay more for it and no doubt amazon prime subscriptions will go up if they get it.

It's all very boring now. One of the best things about world cups and things in the past was you would get to see players you had never seen on the tv before. Now you see them every single week and makes the world cup boring. It's went stale. In this day and age you should be allowed to subscribe to watching the one team you want instead of having to pay huge amounts a month to the likes of sky for the one or two games you are interested in. I know you can do it with Rangers tv and a vpn but it's a grey area that no doubt they will crack down on.
 
Mez said:
I don’t enjoy watching games on a laptop/tablet if I can avoid it. If this is the future of broadcasting, personally speaking, I’m out.
Click to expand...

Yep, really annoying the streams being a few minutes behind for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mez
Superrangers said:
Streaming is generally extremely poor in comparison to live tv broadcasts, in terms of picture quality and reliability.

I have Virgin fibre and the wife (no pics) watches Netflix a lot. Trying to stream two shows at once causes regular issues with service.
Click to expand...
We regularly have Netflix or Amazon playing different things on 3 devices from the same BT fibre with no issues, including football on the iPad.
 
cav said:
As mentioned,you might need three or four subscriptions to watch all the games you want if you're so inclined.It doesn't add up to being worth it unless you're both;
A) Stupid
B) Loaded

No wonder some folk are turning to illegal streams,this ain't going to help.
It'll be RTV or the pub for me.
Click to expand...
This is where the big problem comes in, it's on 3 or 4 different platforms all requiring a monthly payment. Sky kept putting their subscriptions up and giving you less for it so I binned it and pay £5 a month to my mum to use her Sky Go.

Spanish football is already going to a subscription service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cav
Mez said:
Can’t see anything in the article to suggest that would be the case? I suspect if Facebook win, you’d have to watch the matches on their platform. I can’t see them bringing a channel to the likes of Sky or Virgin.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be a problem. Netflix and Premier Sports are on the Sky and Virgin platform.
 
Mez said:
I don’t enjoy watching games on a laptop/tablet if I can avoid it. If this is the future of broadcasting, personally speaking, I’m out.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that Football is more of social activity, that you rarely watch alone is why none of these big streaming sites have jumped on the bandwagon. The only way I see any of these companies going all out on Football packages is when broadband speeds improve across the board and everyone has streaming capabilities on their TV.

I just can't see a world where people stop watching Football on their TV.
 
Call me an arse etc I just want to get in from work, turn the tele on and watch the football.

Can't be arsed with a cable from laptop to TV etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mez
Who said that viewing will be limited to a web/app platform? Doesn’t have to be and let’s wait and see.

It’s a ballache though that it’s yet another subscription which is not doing the punter any favours, it’s just pure greed. Splitting up the games into different packages was the worst decision ever.
 
bluenosebazza said:
We regularly have Netflix or Amazon playing different things on 3 devices from the same BT fibre with no issues, including football on the iPad.
Click to expand...
It’s normally two big tv’s we use. Not sure if the device you are streaming to makes much of a difference? I am shit with technology.
 
Mez said:
Can’t see anything in the article to suggest that would be the case? I suspect if Facebook win, you’d have to watch the matches on their platform. I can’t see them bringing a channel to the likes of Sky or Virgin.
Click to expand...
You can access Fb on smart TVs, firesticks, cast from tablets, phones etc.
 
BluebellsPuertoDelCarmen said:
Sky via a satellite in full HD is night and day compared to any streams I've seen. It's just much much better and it would be a shame to have to watch inferior signals as standard again. And as others have said, having to go here there and everywhere paying a bit at a time for your sport is getting to be a pain in the arse already in my opinion. Maybe I'm doing something wrong......?
Click to expand...
You ever watched a game on 4K through Sky? That’s streaming and it’s better than anything you get through the dish.

The drawback to getting this however is your internet connection, it’s needs to be fibre based for 4K, around 40mb download speed and about half that for a decent HD stream.

People tend to think of streaming like the dodgy sources but done properly through the big companies with a decent internet connection then it’s absolutely perfect.
 
Southern_Ger said:
Who said that viewing will be limited to a web/app platform? Doesn’t have to be and let’s wait and see.

It’s a ballache though that it’s yet another subscription which is not doing the punter any favours, it’s just pure greed. Splitting up the games into different packages was the worst decision ever.
Click to expand...
I agree with this completely. It’s bad enough having to shell out for both SKY and BT as it is, if another provider gets a slice of the pie then it becomes too much for most people.

I don’t mind if it’s extra games being sold, ie SKY and BT will still have the same number as they do now, and all the big games, but if they start to divide it all up then that’s another issue, I can’t see them ever lowering their prices to compensate either.
 
Barrymoped said:
You ever watched a game on 4K through Sky? That’s streaming and it’s better than anything you get through the dish.

The drawback to getting this however is your internet connection, it’s needs to be fibre based for 4K, around 40mb download speed and about half that for a decent HD stream.

People tend to think of streaming like the dodgy sources but done properly through the big companies with a decent internet connection then it’s absolutely perfect.
Click to expand...

4K games are still through the dish mate. I’ve got an utterly woeful connection (under 2mb at peak), but thankfully can still get 4K footie.

I think it’s only BT that require an internet connection for their 4K content.
 
Hkda said:
It’s not difficult to run a cable from your laptop to TV.

I do it for BT sport all the time
Click to expand...

It’s just not the same, though, is it. I do that with RTV and it can be frustrating.

I grudgingly pay for Sky and BT because I want to park my arse on the sofa, turn on the tv and watch football on 55 inches of HD.

I don’t want to plug laptops in, suffer buffering, log into Facebook or any of that carry on.

I don’t think Amazon would be bad though, their Prime service is easily accessible through your TV if it’s a smart TV
 
Mez said:
4K games are still through the dish mate. I’ve got an utterly woeful connection (under 2mb at peak), but thankfully can still get 4K footie.

I think it’s only BT that require an internet connection for their 4K content.
Click to expand...
Ah right, I thought all 4K was streaming, I didn’t think the dish could cope but clearly not from what you are saying.

However 4K is still streamed perfectly through Amazon prime and the like providing you have a decent enough internet, if not then it’s dish only until BT get round to putting fibre in every house in the country.
 
Superrangers said:
Streaming is generally extremely poor in comparison to live tv broadcasts, in terms of picture quality and reliability.

I have Virgin fibre and the wife (no pics) watches Netflix a lot. Trying to stream two shows at once causes regular issues with service.
Click to expand...

There's a problem with your set up then. We can end up with four screens running at any given time and they're all crystal clear.

If you've not got a streaming service showing all the football in top notch quality, you're doing it wrong! ;)
 
Barrymoped said:
You ever watched a game on 4K through Sky? That’s streaming and it’s better than anything you get through the dish.

The drawback to getting this however is your internet connection, it’s needs to be fibre based for 4K, around 40mb download speed and about half that for a decent HD stream.

People tend to think of streaming like the dodgy sources but done properly through the big companies with a decent internet connection then it’s absolutely perfect.
Click to expand...
I haven't mate, no. We have super fast broadband here now (at last!) so these speeds wouldn't be a problem. I just dunno if 4k is available here as we won't be connected to a UK phone line assuming that is still a condition.... I'll ask our guy. Thanks for info. Kenny.
 
Chromecast would do the job or an Amazon app on a smart tv. Also if you have an Xbox or Playstation.
 
Last edited:
There were serious rumours about Amazon going in for it before so I'd reckon it's them. And suits their current strategy with Prime etc.
 
Barrymoped said:
You ever watched a game on 4K through Sky? That’s streaming and it’s better than anything you get through the dish.

The drawback to getting this however is your internet connection, it’s needs to be fibre based for 4K, around 40mb download speed and about half that for a decent HD stream.

People tend to think of streaming like the dodgy sources but done properly through the big companies with a decent internet connection then it’s absolutely perfect.
Click to expand...

Exactly! 4K content is delivered by the internet and we have folk moaning about streams ffs.
 
Barrymoped said:
Ah right, I thought all 4K was streaming, I didn’t think the dish could cope but clearly not from what you are saying.

However 4K is still streamed perfectly through Amazon prime and the like providing you have a decent enough internet, if not then it’s dish only until BT get round to putting fibre in every house in the country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there’s a maximum bit rate that can be supported by the dish, which is basically what 4K matches on Sky are running at (I think it’s around 40mbps). In theory, it’s not true 4K when compared with a Blu Ray which is 40+mbps, but it’s still quite a bit ahead of 4K streaming like Amazon and Netflix, which can be as low as 20mbps (in order to bring it to more people, I suppose).

As it stands though, a satellite dish is still the best way to see 4K in as close to it’s true form when it comes to a broadcast.

A proper HDR 4K video that still has 300 times compression runs at 85mbps, so you can see that all the platforms are still quite a bit off what would be considered (at least by pedants like myself) true 4K content.

I’m not sure what the streaming requirements will be for BBC’s UHD content, but I suspect it’ll be a fair bit off the real thing.
 
BluebellsPuertoDelCarmen said:
I haven't mate, no. We have super fast broadband here now (at last!) so these speeds wouldn't be a problem. I just dunno if 4k is available here as we won't be connected to a UK phone line assuming that is still a condition.... I'll ask our guy. Thanks for info. Kenny.
Click to expand...
Another thing to do if you can, run the RJ45 cable directly from your router to your TV, it will improve connection . Wireless is miles better than it used to be but you still can’t beat a hard wired connection. However I appreciate for a lot of people it’s not possible if the router is in a different room.
 
Mez said:
Yeah, there’s a maximum bit rate that can be supported by the dish, which is basically what 4K matches on Sky are running at (I think it’s around 40mbps). In theory, it’s not true 4K when compared with a Blu Ray which is 40+mbps, but it’s still quite a bit ahead of 4K streaming like Amazon and Netflix, which can be as low as 20mbps (in order to bring it to more people, I suppose).

A proper HDR 4K video that still has 300 times compression runs at 85mbps, so you can see that all the platforms are still quite a bit off what would be considered (at least by pedants like myself) true 4K content.

I’m not sure what the streaming requirements will be for BBC’s UHD content, but I suspect it’ll be a fair bit off the real thing.
Click to expand...
I think the BBC have said you need 40mbs fibre so roughly in line with BT. I agree a proper UHD HDR Disc is always king but a decent 4K stream from Amazon etc is still noticeably better than HD. HDR is the business however and that currently isn’t possible through SKY Q or BT I don’t think.
 
Barrymoped said:
I think the BBC have said you need 40mbs fibre so roughly in line with BT. I agree a proper UHD HDR Disc is always king but a decent 4K stream from Amazon etc is still noticeably better than HD. HDR is the business however and that currently isn’t possible through SKY Q or BT I don’t think.
Click to expand...

Genuine HDR stuff is amazing. I saw a low compression demo of HDR footie on an OLED when I was in Germany, literally the best picture i’ve ever seen, almost better than being there!
 
Superrangers said:
It’s normally two big tv’s we use. Not sure if the device you are streaming to makes much of a difference? I am shit with technology.
Click to expand...

If your connection is anything like mine mate, it'll just be a bandwidth issue. At best, we can get a 6MB connection, at worst it's below 2MB. When it's below 2, we can literally only do one thing at best and even then, it still buffers.

I think Netflix requires 4-5MB for a solid HD stream, so if your connection is only that fast, there's not any room for other stuff to run at the same time without the resources having to jump between the two. Whereas if you have a 10MB connection, in theory two 5MB connections can run concurrently. That is a slightly over simplified way of how it works, but that's essentially the basis of it.
 
Monster said:
Don't see it being included. It will be an extra fee I reckon like they do with their other inside subs.
Click to expand...

Correct. If it was Amazon they definitely wouldn't just gift it to prime users. Prime video is a bit of a con as it is.

If prime was a part of things I'd expect them to make prime a prerequisite, and still charge per broadcast.
 
Mez said:
There’s always a delay and the sound and video quality isn’t quite as good as the live broadcast. Tends to be a mismatch in frame rates as well.

Not sure why people are getting so bothered by my personal preference. I’m not insisting anyone has to share the same view.
Click to expand...
You should be ashamed of yourself coming on here and causing all this bother.:D:D:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mez
HereLiesDavidStHubbins said:
Surely it's just a matter of time before this archaic agreement gets challenged by some club?
Click to expand...

Streaming is the perfect starting point. Keep the traditional TV ban but allow online streaming since people can do that anyway with vpns or dodgy streams.

Make it PPV and home team keeps the money so Rangers away games would generate money for the diddy teams.
 
blueman14 said:
Would imagine it will be Amazon and will be included with Prime.
Click to expand...
Would be great I think and would give Sky and BT a run for their money, throw in Netflix as well.
We’re to limited on where we watch major sporting events in the UK
 
It would be good if you could pay like £100 to a provider every year to get all the games your team plays. However, the issue is selling that to the other clubs who would have a few thousand subscribers, where the big teams would have hundreds of thousands if not millions.
 
_DON_ said:
It would be good if you could pay like £100 to a provider every year to get all the games your team plays. However, the issue is selling that to the other clubs who would have a few thousand subscribers, where the big teams would have hundreds of thousands if not millions.
Click to expand...

Works well in the States where you can either get the full package of every game, or a reduced package of just your team. I suppose the key difference being they have a market of 350 million people to sell to.
 
EndOfDays said:
Streaming is the perfect starting point. Keep the traditional TV ban but allow online streaming since people can do that anyway with vpns or dodgy streams.

Make it PPV and home team keeps the money so Rangers away games would generate money for the diddy teams.
Click to expand...

There is no point in keeping the ban but allowing the use of vpn’s or dodgy streams.

Given the attitude of many on here, who seem more concerned with getting something for nothing (see many threads on this subject plus parking at Asda threads) than the financial impact on the club, if you made it something reasonable like a fiver a game, they will still take the dodgy option.

A better solution, if you still made it illegal to use non-official means,would be to make it 50-50 in revenues generated by PPV. It would be the away games people would subscribe to and so it would mean more revenue than giving the home side the money.
 
Superrangers said:
There is no point in keeping the ban but allowing the use of vpn’s or dodgy streams.

Given the attitude of many on here, who seem more concerned with getting something for nothing (see many threads on this subject plus parking at Asda threads) than the financial impact on the club, if you made it something reasonable like a fiver a game, they will still take the dodgy option.

A better solution, if you still made it illegal to use non-official means,would be to make it 50-50 in revenues generated by PPV. It would be the away games people would subscribe to and so it would mean more revenue than giving the home side the money.
Click to expand...

I think most would pay the £5.99 per game that it currently is for overseas fan.. I dont think fans would want to steal from their own club so doing it 50/50 prob would be best actually or else people may only pay for the home game streams.

They key would be making the official streams a much better option than a dodgy stream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top