Mobile data at KP Stadium?

[AKCJ]

8 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

17 isn't an insignificant number imo. Say 50% in the ground want it, you'd expect that to roughly equate to 50% of people in the FCC wanting it by law of averages. The fact that not a single person put their hand up indicates to me that demand is insignificant. 

Anyway, I'm not that fussed to discuss it in too much detail. Like I say, there are plenty of chances for people to get in front of the club and ask for it to get discussed again, the FCC and Your 90 Minutes sessions specifically. 

 Mate we're talking about 0.05% of people attending a game, probably 0.001% of people that will visit the stadium over the course of a season. How is that not insignificant?

I'm assuming that the Police's concerns with betting is the reason for 0-17 in the voting. Other than that I can't fathom a single, logical reason to vote against it.

Edited 20 August 2018 by AKCJ

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

 Mate we're talking about 0.05% of people attending a game, probably 0.001% of people that will visit the stadium over the course of a season. How is that insignificant?

I can't believe that if demand was as high as you think it is, not ONE of those people would have stuck their hand up. 

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Thanks. That’s a real disappointment and shows the FCC might be out of touch with the world today. I can understand not wanting people sitting on their phones all match but pre-match, halftime and full time is perfectly acceptable and honestly if you’re at a game and are texting during the match you need your head sorted because you’re paying to see the game!

It’s frustrating not being able to see the scores at full time or call your friends and family in the ground, especially when plans to meet post match might change. 

Completely agree, there's the argument mentioned above that we should then try and stand for the FCC if we don't agree, but many of us don't have the time to do so. Feel there would be significantly higher turnouts if various votes were held online and made more widely available.

[AjcW]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

 Mate we're talking about 0.05% of people attending a game, probably 0.001% of people that will visit the stadium over the course of a season. How is that insignificant?

I'm assuming that the Police's concerns with betting is the reason for 0-17 in the voting. Other than that I can't fathom a single, logical reason to vote against it.

Age? And not wanting to see 'kids spending all their time on the phone rather than watching the game'  

[AKCJ]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I can't believe that if demand was as high as you think it is, not ONE of those people would have stuck their hand up. 

Why?

17 out of 32,000 fans or about 150,000 people that are likely to visit the stadium. Do you not see how it's quite possible to find 17 people (at a minimum) that don't want it?

[broughtonblue]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

What knob voted against that?

17 of them

[UniFox21]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I can't believe that if demand was as high as you think it is, not ONE of those people would have stuck their hand up. 

Not necessarily, as a few are saying, the small percentage of people really doesn't give a significant view of what fans want. 

[Footballwipe]

I mean... people do realise kids and other people with smartphone will, in most cases, not need data to use their phone. There's trillions of games and apps people will have downloaded they'll use to be distracted if they really want to be.

If people want to view their accas, their tinder profile or update their Snapchat they're going to do that. They do that now, some will have top speed, some will have more limited speed, but they still do it. So introducing a club backed wifi or improved 4G coverage would only benefit those who use their phones in quiet times, half time and pre/post match more when the signal is busy. It's not like no club 4G will prevent any of this happening.

 

[StriderHiryu]

I can see the argument for voting in that way but I feel like it unfairly punishes fans that help contribute to the atmosphere but want to use their phones at full time and I think there are many people in that category!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

 

11 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Why?

17 out of 32,000 fans or about 150,000 people that are likely to visit the stadium. Do you not see how it's quite possible to find 17 people (at a minimum) that don't want it?

I just think  if there was significant demand across the fanbase then some people would have said so in the meeting, even if it is a relatively small sample size. Can someone who is batter than maths than me state the probability of 17 people all saying no if there was a 50/50 split across the whole fanbase? 

Anyway like I say the only way to make it happen would be to stick your name down for Your 90 Minutes and let the club know people want it as at the moment they don't think they do. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Always assumed it was just the level of demand.

Unusually for me (I'm usually well behind the curve on technology take up) I got a 4G phone before most people and for a while that worked brilliantly, but over a couple of seasons it got worse and worse as everyone replaced their handsets with ones using this.  I'm on EE and can just about get one update of the scores during the game, and that's about it.  Seem to be able to get texts OK - remember them?

[Wymsey]

Would be interested to know how many miss a goal/other key moment due to looking at their mobile devices.

[stripeyfox]

1 minute ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Would be interested to know how many miss a goal/other key moment due to looking at their mobile devices.

A lad I know spends the entire game (it seems) either checking scores of other matches or texting people. I don't understand it.

The only thing I do tend to do is set up the Sky Sports app beforehand to "star" the games I am interested in (usually just all the PL fixtures) and then I get the push notifications to my smartwatch. I can then (if I want) keep up to date with scores without having to fish the phone out of my pocket every two minutes!

But I generally don't bet so I'm not really "bothered" by goals in other games because I'm trying to cash out or anything like that.

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

10 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Can someone who is batter than maths than me state the probability of 17 people all saying no if there was a 50/50 split across the whole fanbase?

It's 1 in 131,072. I think. 

[AKCJ]

I don't understand how people find it hard to watch a game of football while occasionally checking your phone  

[Woof]

6 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

It's 1 in 131,072. I think. 

Correct!  Of course this assumes that the 17 are a random sample which they probably aren't.  Nevertheless I'd guess that nowhere near 50% would hold the opposite view

[cv6 fox]

I've opened a right can of worms . I agree with all the comments about using the phone while the game is on. My nephew use to do it but we took his phone away during matches. Again, what's the point of going to the games to look at your phone? It just would be nice to check the phone for score updates once or twice per match. 

[yorkie1999]

Surely its 100% of all people if 17 of them all voted against having 4G

[stripeyfox]

I suppose it is odd that they wouldn't do it. Although it wouldn't make much difference to me personally, if other people want it then that's ok. As for the betting fraud issue (if that's what it is), surely that's the betting companies problem to sort out? The club could provide 4G for the fans to use however they want.

 

[CosbehFox]

It really doesn't bother me either way. 

However I find it odd how behind the times we are as a club on social media. Surely you'd want good 4G coverage to allow fans posting on social media - instagram and snapchat stories? Other clubs make a huge thing of it. 

[Stevosevic]

Can people not stay off their phones for 2.5 hours?

[Max Wall]

3 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Can people not stay off their phones for 2.5 hours minutes?

No

[ScouseFox]

16 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Can people not stay off their phones for 2.5 hours?

not much worse than a holier than thou comment like this, tbh. 

if i want to text someone say at the other end of the kop saying this is boring let’s go get an early half time lager than i should be able to, it’s 2018 ffs. 

[AKCJ]

20 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Can people not stay off their phones for 2.5 hours?

 

[Izzy]

I don’t know how we survived at games in the 70’s and 80’s without mobile phones, I really don’t.