Two people arrested for illegally streaming TV services in Oadby Leicestershire

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

It's affordable now to those who pay fot it now. Realistically, if you halved the current price, would you get double the subscribers, I doubt. Sky and BT research these things, they work out what the best price is to get customers and make a profit. 

 

Sorry I was talking about streaming games full stop (not just the matches on Sky/BT) before I talked about NowTV, like services they have overseas. Have never really looked into the pricing of Sky Sports/BT Sports that much personally, although you do get a fair bit of service for the money, I wouldn't want to be paying as I couldn't care less about cricket, F1 or any of the other (what I'd consider) filler so have no interest paying for them

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's affordable now to those who pay fot it now. Realistically, if you halved the current price, would you get double the subscribers, I doubt. Sky and BT research these things, they work out what the best price is to get customers and make a profit. 

If they made it easily accessible, why not?

 

I'd hazard a guess that the number of people in the UK who watch Leicester matches on streams outnumber those who watch them through BT Sport and Sky by at least a couple of times, possibly close to an order of magnitude.

 

As others have said, there is a better business model for the Prem and the viewers available here, BT and Sky just want to maintain the status quo where the consumer is getting shafted, because it suits them.

Edited 30 November 2021 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

If they made it easily accessible, why not?

 

I'd hazard a guess that the number of people in the UK who watch Leicester matches on streams outnumber those who watch them through BT Sport and Sky by at least a couple of times, possibly close to an order of magnitude.

Because if that was the case Sky and BT would charge half price, get the same money from subscribers and double their advertiser income.

 

Too many simplistic arguments in kind of discussions, the clubs and the broadcasters are businesses, the players and coaches want big money, they're not charities. Why would they volunteer to take less money? 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Because if that was the case Sky and BT would charge half price, get the same money from subscribers and double their advertiser income.

 

Too many simplistic arguments in kind of discussions, the clubs and the broadcasters are businesses, the players and coaches want big money, they're not charities. Why would they volunteer to take less money? 

 

They wouldn't (Sky and BT, anyway), which is why this situation has arisen in the first place. In a free market, if the consumer feels the vendor is shafting them, then they will seek another vendor, even if that vendor is, shall we say, black market.

 

And when it comes to digital content of this type, such black markets will not be stopped and its naive in the extreme to think they can be controlled. So either the Prem gets wise and changes the business model to one that cuts out the middleman and allows greater flexibility and affordability for the consumer, or they accept this potential revenue stream as one they will never be able to tap into, nor be able to stop. I guess their decision either way comes down to the numbers.

Edited 30 November 2021 by leicsmac

[MPH]

42 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

I think that streaming would drop significantly, even if it wasn't exactly a great price. People already pay a huge amount monthly for access to a handful of Premiership games. 

 

That's why I said affordable in my next sentence, as if it was affordable, they'd hoover up subscription fees from almost every football fan in the country. 

 

I wouldn't be paying sky-level subscription fees myself. I remember someone discussing on a podcast, whether it would be more profitable to show UFC for free and raise the price of advertising in-line with the increased viewership to make-up the shortfall. Would be interesting to hear the prospective figures on such a calculation. Not sure whether its realistic for some sports. 

 

i don’t think they could show UFC for free just because of the few up front they have to pay the UFC for it but I totally get what you are saying.

 

 

I can only guess that a lot of these bigger tv companies like the more certain feeds and like to know when they are getting them so they can implement their own business model 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

They wouldn't, which is why this situation has arisen in the first place. In a free market, if the consumer feels the vendor is shafting them, then they will seek another vendor, even if that vendor is, shall we say, black market.

 

And when it comes to digital content of this type, such black markets will not be stopped and its naive in the extreme to think they can be controlled. So either the Prem gets wise and changes the business model to one that cuts out the middleman and allows greater flexibility and affordability for the consumer, or they accept this potential revenue stream as one they will never be able to tap into, nor be able to stop. I guess their decision either way comes down to the numbers.

It's like Spotify, the consumers love it, the artist's income has dropped like a stone. Most artists, I'm sure, would prefer the previous way of doing thing. 

 

I pay 20 quid a year for an iptv and I watch cricket, rugby, boxing and some American TV shows as well. I'm know what I do is ethically dodgy, I'm not kidding myself I'm standing up against the evil capitalists, I just choose to live with it. 

[Footballwipe]

PL Network. It would be an absolute dream.

• All games streamed live
• Highlights and analysis shows (MOTD style)
• Magazine Shows (PL World, Match Pack, Preview)
• All games available on demand, as well as extended highlights
• Classic games in the archive to access and watch
• Watch on up to 3-4 devices

£10/20 per month depending on your access level (just live games, all games and archive etc). Could even have a £10 match-only pass, or season ticket of £x amount for only accessing the live stream. Heck, I'd even pay £30 per month because it'd mean I could ditch all of the other services.

 

It won't be happening anytime soon, but let's not kid ourselves that the infrastructure isn't there for this. A strong, secure streaming platform is attainable, the PL already have their own studio and production unit, already film every game with World Feed commentary and provide programming for the rest of the world.

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's affordable now to those who pay for it now. Realistically, if you halved the current price, would you get double the subscribers, I doubt lt. Sky and BT research these things, they work out what the best price is to get customers and make a profit. 

Or maybe they're pushing the price up as far as they can before they see a  significant drop off in numbers, which it looks like what happened with Now TV

[yorkie1999]

43 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

And you still can't see every City game!

 

Why can't we have a service showing all of a club games, I'd happily pay for a City game pass. 

Because the club would have to buy back the tv rights so they'd end up with no income from the premier league.

[Webbo]

Just now, davieG said:

Or maybe they're pushing the price up as far as they can before they see a  significant drop off in numbers, which it looks like what happened with Now TV

I course they want to make as much as possible, nobody is forced to subscribe. 

[davieG]

Just now, Webbo said:

I course they want to make as much as possible, nobody is forced to subscribe. 

Well no but if you want to watch a game you have no other legal choice, in fact due to the EU with their monopolies policy we are now subject to at least 3 companies showing games that creates no competition at all which is the major reason the monopolies policy exist. 

Fans are being ripped off!

[filbertway]

If they're willing to get rid of 3pm kick offs on Saturdays then there's no reason that the Prem couldn't move to a subscription service. There'll just need to be multiple 12:30/5:30 games on saturdays.

 

As it stands, to protect the lower leagues and non-league teams, the rule is in place to encourage people to go to a match instead of going to the pub or sitting in the living room to watch a game at 3pm.

[String fellow]

If the cops want to track down some more naughty people, perhaps they should check the Kodi thread on this forum. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

To sell the games on TV cheap, would mean less money for the clubs in TV money and attendances. 

 

You have to differentiate between a fair price for the clubs and the rights holders and the price you'd like to pay. 

I currently pay zero towards the TV rights, if it was reasonable and showing games I want to see I would pay.

The clubs could easily find a way of creating a cheaper package by lowering the price and increasing content. They will eventually have too because streaming is increasing and subscriptions are decreasing.

[RGFox]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Optus sport, part of the mobile phone plan.

I get every game, unlimited calls and texts, plus 6 gig a month all for the equivalent of 15 pounds a month.

Was considering the optus tv package with a VPN - helpful if you have a contact in Oz (which I do) but never bothered in the end.

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I currently pay zero towards the TV rights, if it was reasonable and showing games I want to see I would pay.

The clubs could easily find a way of creating a cheaper package by lowering the price and increasing content. They will eventually have too because streaming is increasing and subscriptions are decreasing.

I'm sure things will change eventually, whether thats for the better remains to be seen. However it'll have to be a good package to beat what I'm paying atm so I reckon I'll stay as I am.

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Because the club would have to buy back the tv rights so they'd end up with no income from the premier league.

Not if the PL had it own streaming service. 

 

I didn't mean for the clubs to do it individually 

[Jattdogg]

The price for tv services is ridiculous over here in Canada.  I don't blame people for streaming. Perhaps if tv was cheaper I'd have 0 issue paying for it. 

 

Paying over £70 a month and not getting premier league games or speciality channels like hbo etc is a joke. But hey unlimited news channels why not!

 

The world has changed. I for one watch British channels, indian channels, sports from all over etc.  I have limited options to these channels with my local tele services provider and if they have it's on top of that £70 per month. Ends up costing you in excess of £100 easy if you want the channels. 

 

Worst part is most of the channels i get for £70 i dont even watch.. need to give us more options to chose what we want without overcharging us for "customizations".  

 

Toss on internet for £40-£50 a month depending on speed and unlimited download or capped etc. 

 

What makes things worse is having to subscribe to endless services if you do cut the cord. Netflix, disney, amazon, dazn and so on it adds up to more than cable television.

 

So yes, i got rid of tv services and use netflix, internet and iptv which hasnt been blocked here. For £6 a month i get channels from the globe ....thousands of them.  Dont need all that obviously. 

 

Perhaps actors, directors, companies, singers, sportsmen are ummmm over paid???? More to it especially with each country  having their own laws and protectionism policies which doesn't help.

Edited 30 November 2021 by Jattdogg

[adejo92]

Option 1 - Pay extortionate amounts of money to Sky and BT and still only be able to watch your team a handful of times a season.

Option 2 - Pay a very affordable sum of money and never miss your team, home or away.

 

It's absolutely no wonder more and more people use these kind of services. That's before you even consider all the films and TV series that are included.

 

I know Amazon dabble in the Premier League sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually bought all the rights to stream every premier league game. They are more a less doing it this week, and have done it in the past. With money not an issue for them, it's the kind of market they would get in to and thrive off of.

 

Other countries have service providers who show every single premier league game for a monthly fee. IMO, it's got Amazon's name written all over it.

 

Edited 30 November 2021 by adejo92

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

To sell the games on TV cheap, would mean less money for the clubs in TV money and attendances. 

 

You have to differentiate between a fair price for the clubs and the rights holders and the price you'd like to pay. 

Maybe the clubs should stop buying players for £100 million and £125+ grand a week in salaries.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Maybe the clubs should stop buying players for £100 million and £125+ grand a week in salaries.

Are you going to demand that Leicester stop doing that, even if it weakens our team?

[adam]

How amazon have it this week is how it should be every week. There is no reason now why we can't see every game. Annoys the hell out of me how we can't see our 2pm Sunday games legally on the tele. Fans in this country get completely ripped off 

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

I currently pay zero towards the TV rights, if it was reasonable and showing games I want to see I would pay.

The clubs could easily find a way of creating a cheaper package by lowering the price and increasing content. They will eventually have too because streaming is increasing and subscriptions are decreasing.

My main beef are the games that are impossible to watch -- I currently pay for BT just for the away European games (I will also watch rugby and college gridiron). I pay for Amazon Prime for the free next-day shipping, and get the movies and sports as a bonus. I don't pay for Sky. But I probably would if by paying for three separate, and not inexpensive, packages, I could watch every game! Right now, I can't legally watch any 3pm Saturday away game, nor can I watch most of the Sunday 2pm games! I can't watch most of the League Cup and FA Cup games, even if they are being broadcast in foreign markets! It's absolutely absurd to pay for three services, and possibly not be able to watch most of the games your team plays.

 

As an aside, and since I am in a rant anyway, the Premier League should really have at least one game a week, like a Monday Night Football or Sunday Night Football, on free television. Just choose one package that is bid for free to air: Sky and BT could still bid, but would have to air it on their free-to-air digital channels.

[Parafox]

40 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Are you going to demand that Leicester stop doing that, even if it weakens our team?

If there was a universal cap no club should be weakened but it'll never happen as long as there are agents and player power. Sad state of affairs in football where someone like Mourinho gets £60,000,000 in payoffs for becoming pretty average and underachieving.

[urban.spaceman]

Imagine criminalising people for offering consumers a service you deliberately choose to withhold?

 

Patson Daka would have been able to watch every single Premier League game of our title winning season from start to finish on just one broadcaster in Zambia.

 

All 380 of them. For £480 a year.

 

Now in the UK he can only legally watch 200 matches, would have to pay for 3 separate subscription broadcasters and it would cost him £741 a year.

 

Often at this point people will argue that on average people tend to earn much less in Zambia than they do in the UK. That's more an argument about cost of living which is also an argument that applies here. But at least the people who can't afford DSTV/Supersport can go to the PUB and find every single match available. In the UK you'd have to pay almost double the money for almost half the accessibility. 

 

The package offered to consumers in the country where it's actually occurring is beyond corrupt and needs to change.