Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 
14450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1899


  Reply # 1125102 9-Sep-2014 15:15
Send private message

tdgeek:
mattwnz:
tdgeek:
invisibleman18: And of course they still have the majors, Ryder Cup and various other big tournaments so those who are interested are still going to have to keep Sky and pay out for the new provider. With this starting to happen more and more, people who are interested in several sports are going to end up having to pay out for multiple different services to watch them. Interesting to see which sport is next.


Exactly. While many here complain about Sky, and want more competition, when that comes, they may end up paying more.


Competition should bring down prices, as that is it's intention, as it allows xyz to compete againest abc with the same content. But the nature of TV is that it would lead to fragmentation, as it means some networks will have different programs from others, which essentially means you have to purchase from all the companies if you want to watch all the programs. So it isn't really competition, as different channels will have a monopoly on some content . The only way to have competition that would lead to lower prices is for different companies to have the same content. When monopolies exist, regulation maybe a a better answer, rather than competition that leads to fragmentation of content.


Exactly my point, well extrapolated. TV content is unlike any other product. It can be exclusive. A Fridge may be also exclusive at one retailer, but while you can buy any number of equivalent fridges you cant buy an equiavlent, F1, MotoGP, Golf match, Breaking Bad. Who has the monopoly, or is it contrived? Sky, or the other TV provider, or the content owner?  The problem with un-exclusive content is the channel advertising is less revenue. Cannot garner customers if the TV provider has no value "I can get this anywhere, I will roam without loyalty" Needs a buy in from the top I feel. A whole new model   


I suspect skys bids on these fringe sports is strategic, so that regulators see that there is 'some' competition in the market for content. Both the soccer and golf represent for them a very small customer base, so they could probably afford to lose them. Although I suspect very few people would leave because they would still want the rugby and perhaps movies. I can't ever see anyone out bidding them on rugby.

13902 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526

Trusted

  Reply # 1125110 9-Sep-2014 15:28
Send private message

mattwnz:
tdgeek:
mattwnz:
tdgeek:
invisibleman18: And of course they still have the majors, Ryder Cup and various other big tournaments so those who are interested are still going to have to keep Sky and pay out for the new provider. With this starting to happen more and more, people who are interested in several sports are going to end up having to pay out for multiple different services to watch them. Interesting to see which sport is next.


Exactly. While many here complain about Sky, and want more competition, when that comes, they may end up paying more.


Competition should bring down prices, as that is it's intention, as it allows xyz to compete againest abc with the same content. But the nature of TV is that it would lead to fragmentation, as it means some networks will have different programs from others, which essentially means you have to purchase from all the companies if you want to watch all the programs. So it isn't really competition, as different channels will have a monopoly on some content . The only way to have competition that would lead to lower prices is for different companies to have the same content. When monopolies exist, regulation maybe a a better answer, rather than competition that leads to fragmentation of content.


Exactly my point, well extrapolated. TV content is unlike any other product. It can be exclusive. A Fridge may be also exclusive at one retailer, but while you can buy any number of equivalent fridges you cant buy an equiavlent, F1, MotoGP, Golf match, Breaking Bad. Who has the monopoly, or is it contrived? Sky, or the other TV provider, or the content owner?  The problem with un-exclusive content is the channel advertising is less revenue. Cannot garner customers if the TV provider has no value "I can get this anywhere, I will roam without loyalty" Needs a buy in from the top I feel. A whole new model   


I suspect skys bids on these fringe sports is strategic, so that regulators see that there is 'some' competition in the market for content. Both the soccer and golf represent for them a very small customer base, so they could probably afford to lose them. Although I suspect very few people would leave because they would still want the rugby and perhaps movies. I can't ever see anyone out bidding them on rugby.


Very true. The gold star of Skys offering. The virtual shackle 

 
 
 
 


482 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 63


  Reply # 1125187 9-Sep-2014 17:09
Send private message

No Sky will not allow rugby to go. Their whole business model relies on it and I suspect they would pretty much cease to exist quickly without it. The difference with rugby to most other sports though is that, at least for All Blacks and domestic games, Sky films and produces the content as well as broadcasts it. So for someone like Coliseum it wouldn't be quite as simple as buying the rights to broadcast it.

14450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1899


  Reply # 1125211 9-Sep-2014 17:46
Send private message

invisibleman18: No Sky will not allow rugby to go. Their whole business model relies on it and I suspect they would pretty much cease to exist quickly without it. The difference with rugby to most other sports though is that, at least for All Blacks and domestic games, Sky films and produces the content as well as broadcasts it. So for someone like Coliseum it wouldn't be quite as simple as buying the rights to broadcast it.

 

I would love to see telecoms lightbox get it. But whether it would cope, and whether they have the budget to throw at it. I don't know how the bidding process works, and how much the rugby would cost to get, but it would amazing if someone did manage to get it.

298 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 21


  Reply # 1125221 9-Sep-2014 18:04
Send private message

haydenmarsh: Hoping that Sommet Sports pick it up!
Sommet Sports seems to be even worse than SD. The picture is terrible on our 55" TV.  I would have to REALLY want to watch something to view that channel.




Antec Veris Fusion v2 Case, Gigabyte 880GM-USB3, Nvidia GT-730, AMD FX 6100 6-core 3.3Ghz, Blackgold BTG3600, Hauppauge HVR-2200, Logitech Harmony 525 remote, Windows 10 (32-bit), Mediaportal.

 

 


14450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1899


  Reply # 1125224 9-Sep-2014 18:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

Both CHoice TV and sommet have very soft pictures and look to be worse than SD. Not sure if it is due to really poor compression. I would rather lose some of the +1 channels for these to be in HD or at least sharp SD.

2731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 710


  Reply # 1125225 9-Sep-2014 18:09
Send private message

mattwnz:
invisibleman18: No Sky will not allow rugby to go. Their whole business model relies on it and I suspect they would pretty much cease to exist quickly without it. The difference with rugby to most other sports though is that, at least for All Blacks and domestic games, Sky films and produces the content as well as broadcasts it. So for someone like Coliseum it wouldn't be quite as simple as buying the rights to broadcast it.

I would love to see telecoms lightbox get it. But whether it would cope, and whether they have the budget to throw at it. I don't know how the bidding process works, and how much the rugby would cost to get, but it would amazing if someone did manage to get it.


dont forget Sky also uses all its own production gear to film and produce the rugby in NZ, so if someone gets the rights to the rugby they would still have to talk to Sky or set up their own production company to produce it.




Common sense is not as common as you think.


298 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 21


  Reply # 1125233 9-Sep-2014 18:21
Send private message

mattwnz: Both CHoice TV and sommet have very soft pictures and look to be worse than SD. Not sure if it is due to really poor compression. I would rather lose some of the +1 channels for these to be in HD or at least sharp SD.

I access Sommet and Choice on the freeview terrestrial network and Choice is particularly good for SD, but not Sommet.




Antec Veris Fusion v2 Case, Gigabyte 880GM-USB3, Nvidia GT-730, AMD FX 6100 6-core 3.3Ghz, Blackgold BTG3600, Hauppauge HVR-2200, Logitech Harmony 525 remote, Windows 10 (32-bit), Mediaportal.

 

 


2096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 358

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1125235 9-Sep-2014 18:28
Send private message

mattwnz: Both CHoice TV and sommet have very soft pictures and look to be worse than SD. Not sure if it is due to really poor compression. I would rather lose some of the +1 channels for these to be in HD or at least sharp SD.


Softness isn't the issue. Sommett feed non TV broadcast standard 360p and worse feeds into encoders, once its resampled there certainly aren't 576 lines of original information, then it looks like they apply some type of antialiasing filter to make it blurry so that you don't notice that half the detail is missing given the jaggy lines. I did one comparison after finding the original 800 kbps Al Jazeera 360p clip and the resultant Sommett transmission quality was even worse than this. I rate the channel as totally unwatchable, people on Facebook page mostly don't notice. Given the sources they use aren't even standard definition they can't really get any better.




Ross

 

Spark FibreMAX using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+

 


Speed Test


540 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35


  Reply # 1125677 10-Sep-2014 12:12
Send private message

 No Sky will not allow rugby to go. Their whole business model relies on it

 
dont forget Sky also uses all its own production gear to film and produce the rugby in NZ, so if someone gets the rights to the rugby they would still have to talk to Sky or set up their own production company to produce it.


The NZRU & Sanzar also rely on Sky / news corp? for a chunk of their revenue. (guaranteed revenue for 3 years or whatever)
It's how the unions pay their players.

1 | 2 | 3 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.