Sky outbid for EPL rights (Premier League Pass discussion)

Forums › Online streaming services › Sky outbid for EPL rights (Premier League Pass discussion)

1 | ... | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | ... | 210

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885411 27-Aug-2013 17:02

vkjc: atten star blazer.

on a more helpful note I rang csm directly today at their auckland office and they were very helpful.
i asked if they could tell me if any and what smart device would broadcast at 3000 (or higher) so that I may purchase one
and connect it to my 50 inch tv.

I will keep yoi informed of the outcome.

in a side note if you get a good picture on a 70 inch projector maybe im doing something wrong.
I live in whangarei come round mine and help us out. the beers are on me.

Awesome I look forward to hearing their response. Their CSRs have not responded to my emails either - perhaps I will give them a call.

My gripes are the Judder and what I see as misleading 1.1GB average/game when it really chews through 2.5GB/game.

Whangarei is a bit far away unfortunately but cheers anyway.

Have you mentioned to the thread who your ISP is and what type of connection you have; ADSL/VDSL/UFB - I'm convinced that it has more to do with that than the equipment you are using.

Also, set your stream to "best available" when it starts playing, hover your mouse over the dropdown and it will tell you what stream you are connected to. I think that dropdown is more of a maximum than a fixed and that the program will pick the kbps based on the communication with their servers.

Thanks

Procrastination eventually pays off.

Zurtle

7 posts

Wannabe Geek

#885443 27-Aug-2013 18:07

Sorry to pick you up on a few technical points, StarBlazer,but...

(A) PLP IS NOT HD. 720p has a frame rate requirement (60 Hz) that PLP doesn't achieve (30 Hz or less?). And that's the killer with the football. Like most of the people who are disenchanted with PLP, I was used to watching the EPL on a REAL HD sports broadcast. 1080p at a decent frame rate.

I can only imagine you enjoyed viewing the game on 70" screen by standing 3-4 miles away. I have a mere 46" and it's painfully awful compared to football recorded off Sky. I must get UHF Freeview installed to compare with Sommet.

(B) What technically is there to do about PLP? Nothing. Once the quality's obliterated from a signal, you cannot get it back. Communications engineering 101. PLP has an inferior resolution and frame rate compared to what Sky offers, and certainly how its recorded in the UK.

(C) Forums are really about complaints, trolls, rumours, pizza and many other things. While it has the label "Geekzone", don't be fooled into thinking this isn't a forum. But, good luck with changing the internet, you're going to need it.

Between the sync issues, childish Twitter account, lack of support (I'm looking at you support ticket that has been unanswered for months), and the poor quality, PLP is nothing but an extra cost $240 + extra bandwidth for a lesser product. I suddenly wish it were a case of multiple EPL broadcasters who could vie for the consumer's $$$ rather than the monopolised customer abuse that goes on. At least Sky did it in quality.

The root issue is that consumers don't have a choice about where and how to watch their football, really. And any geek can appreciate that.

Jonathan

vkjc

36 posts

Geek

#885466 27-Aug-2013 18:58

orcon average of 12mbps download
have an s3 and an all share cast dongle attached via hdmi to a 2 month old panasonic neo plasma 50 inch.

also have std issue pc with built in graphics car and 8gb ram attached to 22 inch monitor.

really dont want to drag the desktop down from the other end of house.

looking at buying a tablet that will run at 3000 or a laptop but would prefer a tab.

but I have already spent 150 on the sub, 150 on the all share cast dongle, 2500 on a smart tv (stupid me for thinking
there would be an app for it).

henceforth forth my grumpiness.

nzred

2 posts

Wannabe Geek

#885508 27-Aug-2013 19:47

So I tried emailing coliseum at the email address for the android app in the Play Store. I asked about the bitrate, and this is the reply I got:

"Yes, the Android app is limited to 1600kbps. This is due to many android devices not being able to handle a higher rate. We've set it up so as to ensure the best possible result for the majority of viewers."

Pretty disappointed as I was planning to use the HDMI out from my ASUS Transformer Infinity to watch the games on the TV. I tried it at 1600kbps and unsurprisingly it ain't pretty. I shall be voicing my displeasure to them!

Kim587

128 posts

Master Geek

#885509 27-Aug-2013 19:52

@ Zurtle,
just with regard to the quality of Sommet's coverage. It's just stock standard SD. I'd say the quality of their football coverage looks roughly equivalent to a 360p video on youtube, to my eyes anyway. PLP's image quality is better. Of course the 'but' is that Sommet doesn't suffer from the motion stutter that most of us are seeing on PLP.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#885523 27-Aug-2013 20:26

Zurtle: Sorry to pick you up on a few technical points, StarBlazer,but...

(A) PLP IS NOT HD. 720p has a frame rate requirement (60 Hz) that PLP doesn't achieve (30 Hz or less?). And that's the killer with the football. Like most of the people who are disenchanted with PLP, I was used to watching the EPL on a REAL HD sports broadcast. 1080p at a decent frame rate.

I can only imagine you enjoyed viewing the game on 70" screen by standing 3-4 miles away. I have a mere 46" and it's painfully awful compared to football recorded off Sky. I must get UHF Freeview installed to compare with Sommet.

(B) What technically is there to do about PLP? Nothing. Once the quality's obliterated from a signal, you cannot get it back. Communications engineering 101. PLP has an inferior resolution and frame rate compared to what Sky offers, and certainly how its recorded in the UK.

(C) Forums are really about complaints, trolls, rumours, pizza and many other things. While it has the label "Geekzone", don't be fooled into thinking this isn't a forum. But, good luck with changing the internet, you're going to need it.

Between the sync issues, childish Twitter account, lack of support (I'm looking at you support ticket that has been unanswered for months), and the poor quality, PLP is nothing but an extra cost $240 + extra bandwidth for a lesser product. I suddenly wish it were a case of multiple EPL broadcasters who could vie for the consumer's $$$ rather than the monopolised customer abuse that goes on. At least Sky did it in quality.

The root issue is that consumers don't have a choice about where and how to watch their football, really. And any geek can appreciate that.

Jonathan

Well, if you are gong to get technical,.....

yes, 3Mbps can certianly give you 720p. You dont need 60fps to be classes as HD.

Also, you are not used to watching the football in 1080p because sky does not broadcast in 1080p. 720p or 1080i is the max on sky hd.

Also, why have you had a support ticket open with plp for months when they only launched the product 2 weeks ago?
Heck they only announced that plp existed on 18th June, slightly over 2 months ago, so how can you have had a support ticket open before they even had a proper website?

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885525 27-Aug-2013 20:30

Zurtle: Sorry to pick you up on a few technical points, StarBlazer,but...

(A) PLP IS NOT HD. 720p has a frame rate requirement (60 Hz) that PLP doesn't achieve (30 Hz or less?). And that's the killer with the football. Like most of the people who are disenchanted with PLP, I was used to watching the EPL on a REAL HD sports broadcast. 1080p at a decent frame rate.

I can only imagine you enjoyed viewing the game on 70" screen by standing 3-4 miles away. I have a mere 46" and it's painfully awful compared to football recorded off Sky. I must get UHF Freeview installed to compare with Sommet.

(B) What technically is there to do about PLP? Nothing. Once the quality's obliterated from a signal, you cannot get it back. Communications engineering 101. PLP has an inferior resolution and frame rate compared to what Sky offers, and certainly how its recorded in the UK.

(C) Forums are really about complaints, trolls, rumours, pizza and many other things. While it has the label "Geekzone", don't be fooled into thinking this isn't a forum. But, good luck with changing the internet, you're going to need it.

Between the sync issues, childish Twitter account, lack of support (I'm looking at you support ticket that has been unanswered for months), and the poor quality, PLP is nothing but an extra cost $240 + extra bandwidth for a lesser product. I suddenly wish it were a case of multiple EPL broadcasters who could vie for the consumer's $$$ rather than the monopolised customer abuse that goes on. At least Sky did it in quality.

The root issue is that consumers don't have a choice about where and how to watch their football, really. And any geek can appreciate that.

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan

A) PLP is not HD - are you agreeing with me? I can't tell. Just so we are clear - it is not HD and therefore should not be compared with what you had before on Sky HD on a technical level. I have countless times agreed that there is some stutter and it is sometimes worse and other times non-existent. Complain to Sky if you are missing your 1080P coverage of the EPL.

Just because you have not had a good experience with PLP does not give you grounds to attempt to mock my opinion. Yes I watched it on a 70" projection at 720p and completely enjoyed it. Just because you disagree doesn't make me wrong or you right.

B) You appear to be working from the assumption that the original feed from the UK has been permanently ruined. Considering they have on-sold some of the delayed rights to TV1 and they broadcast on Freeview HD at 1080i without the stuttering it is safe to assume they have an original full quality broadcast stream of all the games. Therefore the problem is likely to be in the encoding of their stream or on-demand content - which means it is completely recoverable if they wish to (and if they can work out how). If they can't then their churn rate will be massive at the end of the season.

C) Welcome to Geekzone - it's always good to have new people join and contribute. I'm not a veteran on this forum by comparison but have been a member for 3.5 years and following it for a couple more before that. Yes we have all the fun of complaints, arguments, trolls etc etc - I'm just a bit bored of what appears to be a number of people who have joined with the sole intention to have a go at PLP and anyone who dares to defend what they are bringing to the market.

I agree, consumers don't have a choice - they didn't before with Sky. What you are missing in quality, I am gaining in quantity and for me it is delivered at a quality which I am generally happy with. Sometimes it takes a big change like this to shake up the market to the point where more is offered by the available providers. Sky were never going to show all of the matches either live or delayed. If Sky had allowed someone like PLP to offer a 2 hour delayed online coverage while retaining the rights to live then we all would be happy - we know that that would never happen because it would mean higher churn and a loss of new locked in revenue for Sky. Sky had the rug pulled from under their feet and I'm glad.

I welcome debate - but let's keep it constructive - that's what Geekzone is for.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885534 27-Aug-2013 20:42

vkjc: orcon average of 12mbps download
have an s3 and an all share cast dongle attached via hdmi to a 2 month old panasonic neo plasma 50 inch.

also have std issue pc with built in graphics car and 8gb ram attached to 22 inch monitor.

really dont want to drag the desktop down from the other end of house.

looking at buying a tablet that will run at 3000 or a laptop but would prefer a tab.

but I have already spent 150 on the sub, 150 on the all share cast dongle, 2500 on a smart tv (stupid me for thinking
there would be an app for it).

henceforth forth my grumpiness.

Thanks for the information. I think the problem is with the share cast dongle - I'm sure it's been reported before that it doesn't have the processing power to be able to stream at that level.

If you have a PC then for the sake of ruling it out, it would be worth you hooking it up to the TV either through HDMI if the PC has it or using a standard monitor connection. Don't force your system to a 1080 resolution as the 3000kbps stream is only 720 - this will save unnecessary processing power of the image.

I really hope you do manage to get this sorted - nobody likes feeling like they have wasted money.

If I were you, I'd wait for the Apple app and see if it's available on an Apple TV3 - as much as I'm not an Apple fan, I have a gut feel that this will ultimately deliver the best experience! (Don't quote me on that!!!).

At the moment, I'm holding out for the Samsung TV app - until then I'm hooking up either my work laptop or my PC to the TV (40" Samsung) - at the end of the day even the PC only needs 2 cables to work - Power and HDMI (3 if you include network cable - otherwise I use wireless on the laptop) and it takes less than 5 minutes to move the PC into the family room connected up.

Let me know how you get on.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

vkjc

36 posts

Geek

#885594 27-Aug-2013 22:03

StarBlazer:
vkjc: orcon average of 12mbps download
have an s3 and an all share cast dongle attached via hdmi to a 2 month old panasonic neo plasma 50 inch.

also have std issue pc with built in graphics car and 8gb ram attached to 22 inch monitor.

really dont want to drag the desktop down from the other end of house.

looking at buying a tablet that will run at 3000 or a laptop but would prefer a tab.

but I have already spent 150 on the sub, 150 on the all share cast dongle, 2500 on a smart tv (stupid me for thinking
there would be an app for it).

henceforth forth my grumpiness.

Thanks for the information. I think the problem is with the share cast dongle - I'm sure it's been reported before that it doesn't have the processing power to be able to stream at that level.

If you have a PC then for the sake of ruling it out, it would be worth you hooking it up to the TV either through HDMI if the PC has it or using a standard monitor connection. Don't force your system to a 1080 resolution as the 3000kbps stream is only 720 - this will save unnecessary processing power of the image.

I really hope you do manage to get this sorted - nobody likes feeling like they have wasted money.

If I were you, I'd wait for the Apple app and see if it's available on an Apple TV3 - as much as I'm not an Apple fan, I have a gut feel that this will ultimately deliver the best experience! (Don't quote me on that!!!).

At the moment, I'm holding out for the Samsung TV app - until then I'm hooking up either my work laptop or my PC to the TV (40" Samsung) - at the end of the day even the PC only needs 2 cables to work - Power and HDMI (3 if you include network cable - otherwise I use wireless on the laptop) and it takes less than 5 minutes to move the PC into the family room connected up.

Let me know how you get on.

I watched the americas cup online thru my s3 and all share and it looked sweet.
(any reason why you reckon? I really think if we had the 3000 option it would look better)

I also dont nderstand why their websjte says you can connect yr smart device wirelessly to yr tv
and then only give you the 1600 option. the resolution cant be good.

what I would really like to see is a xbox app.
the nba and mlb look awesome. (I think these were what I had in mind with plp)

Dororke

94 posts

Master Geek

#885615 27-Aug-2013 23:15

I had a work buddy at my place this morning to watch the Chelsea v Man Utd game. He watched PLP last weekend for free with one of the hand out day passes. He told me then that his experience was bad - enough for him to be put off from buying it.

When he saw what I was able to see on my 50" he changed his mind. We watched the game in a constant 3Kbps stream without any judder or artefacts. It was interesting watching during the half time break how we both agreed how bad old footage of the EPL looked before the advent of modern cameras in the game.

We both are recent VDSL upgraders with Telecom living quite close to each other. I'm planning to pop around his place and see if my rig can deliver an improved service. Will let you know how things go.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#885616 27-Aug-2013 23:27

Dororke: I had a work buddy at my place this morning to watch the Chelsea v Man Utd game. He watched PLP last weekend for free with one of the hand out day passes. He told me then that his experience was bad - enough for him to be put off from buying it.

When he saw what I was able to see on my 50" he changed his mind. We watched the game in a constant 3Kbps stream without any judder or artefacts. It was interesting watching during the half time break how we both agreed how bad old footage of the EPL looked before the advent of modern cameras in the game.

We both are recent VDSL upgraders with Telecom living quite close to each other. I'm planning to pop around his place and see if my rig can deliver an improved service. Will let you know how things go.

Interesting comparison. Sounds like there is definitely some differences in actual experience, rather than just differences in people's expectations.

So for those of you unhappy with the quality, seems like there might be hope....

dwl

371 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885630 27-Aug-2013 23:38

Zurtle: (B) What technically is there to do about PLP? Nothing. Once the quality's obliterated from a signal, you cannot get it back. Communications engineering 101. PLP has an inferior resolution and frame rate compared to what Sky offers, and certainly how its recorded in the UK.

I think the statement about once the quality is obliterated you cannot get it back might be a bit simplistic. I agree that once you have that poor output on your screen it can't be corrected. However, the stream from the encoder will be of a certain quality but currently not HD (although 720p and 30 fps could quality if the motion performance were better). The problem with this service is the large number of variables which can further degrade the stream that might be correctable so what we are seeing at times might be worse than what is possible. For example:

1) Rate available - this morning I was watching the live feed and at 7:30 it started trying to get the 3000 stream from offshore which struggled and dropped to 400 then using the local source, slowly ramping back up through 800, 1200, 1600 until 2 minutes later it was back to 3000. I think all agree 400 looks terrible on anything but a small screen. I think this was a problem with the CDN delivery for my situation. Improve this and the picture quality would improve at those times.

2) Rate provided - on Sunday morning 3 of the VOD streams seemed locked for me at no more than 1600 while the other 4 were at 3000. I don't believe this was my local feed as swapping between these gave the same consistent difference. This seemed to me to be a management decision made to preserve capacity but only the providers will know whether they were doing it. On a larger screen 1600 doesn't look that good.

3) Motion stutter - this seems a common complaint and I have suffered it myself. With camera panning shots when vertical white lines like mid field are scrolling across the screen it didn't look smooth (and it now irritates me). I started to alter Flash player settings as my Chrome had both PPAPI (out-of-process) and NPAPI enabled and found CPU use was twice as high on PPAPI but both had similar effects. IE and Opera similar. Using a crude check of a camera at 60 fps looking at the screen and playing back very slowly on VLC I could see the motion was uneven whereas the exact same content, on a Galaxy Note 10.1 (at only 1600), was significantly smoother. A saved copy of a 3.3M Arsenal player game with similar moving content (at 25 fps) played on VLC was noticeably smoother. I don't trust Flash player and/or the way this is encoded to give a smooth result.

Only a saved stream played back on a different player like VLC would highlight whether the motion stutter was in the encoding or the Flash playback. Unfortunately the PLP offering does not allow for such download but the fact that the Android app seemed smoother suggests the source material might not be the problem. Alternatively, as has been suggested, perhaps the Android app is taking a different stream (e.g. .m3u8 with 10 sec TS chunks) - I didn't have time to check - does anybody know if it is different?

I really sympathise with those who have invested in technology expecting to get an acceptable answer and it isn't being delivered for them. When others say they are happy and the problems are minor enough not to impair their enjoyment that's great. Can the picture quality be improved for others? We live in hope that PLP can make changes to improve quality but don't hold your breath it will make much difference in the short term.

On the IOS app, it is my understanding that the app will only be for the iPad/iPhone and not for the Apple TV so AirPlay or HDMI cable would be needed. PLP might like to confirm. If they cripple the IOS to only 1600 that would be sad and I don't accept the argument that Android devices couldn't cope with 3000. Of course some can't even do 1200 but that can be a viewer choice to use the best rate that works on their player. If the CDNs are working hard I can see decisions might be made to limit the max rate but I would be surprised if that was openly stated. I guess keep asking for devices that can do at least 3000 - it might be legitimate to limit to 1600 for use on the tablet (looked quite good to me) but higher is needed to drive a big screen.

ISP = Telecom; Access = ADSL2; Location = Porirua
Core i5, 2.6 GHz, 8 GB, Win8, Chrome 29 (Flash 11.8.800.115 PPAPI and 11,8,800,94 NPAPI), IE10, Opera 15
Samsung 23" full HD monitor via HDMI
WiFi 802.11g (LAN speedtest 22 Mbps)

Dororke

94 posts

Master Geek

#885632 27-Aug-2013 23:52

I am seeing different experiences with different equipment. I say different but its the same. Let me explain that one. I have triplets and a couple of years back we bought them each an HP laptop. They were identical machine specs. 4GB ram, 750GB hard drives and i5 processors. Child 1s PC overheats, is noisy with the fan on virtually all the time and was not up to streaming of any kind with all the rubbish he has on it. Child 2s PC was OK but was still poor. Child 3s PC was just right. Ok so far it sounds like something out of a novel involving 3 bears. ;p

Using the 3rd child's PC with IE gave a perfect viewing experience for PLP. I have since restaged my 1st child's laptop and that works fine too now.

My own PC is a beastly fella and gives a perfect experience no matter what is running on it. I can only watch PLP in my office on a 27" monitor as its not a portable thing.

Also, even though I have a good wireless network I choose not to use it for PLP. My experience is that this introduces delay during live streams. So all my usage in the house has been via a wired connection. This for me seems to give a better experience.

That said last week I had a perfectly good time watching a mid week game on my kids Samsung over an LTE connection.

Seems to me that the hardware matters. I'm wondering if those that are having bad times are using wireless or poor PCs perhaps.

Apsattv

2390 posts

Uber Geek

#885634 28-Aug-2013 01:15

Do you have hardware acceleration enabled in your flash settings? that should be the 1st things people check.

If using wifi check your router settings as some have modes for better wifi streaming performance.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#885646 28-Aug-2013 07:17

Dororke: I am seeing different experiences with different equipment. I say different but its the same. Let me explain that one. I have triplets and a couple of years back we bought them each an HP laptop. They were identical machine specs. 4GB ram, 750GB hard drives and i5 processors. Child 1s PC overheats, is noisy with the fan on virtually all the time and was not up to streaming of any kind with all the rubbish he has on it. Child 2s PC was OK but was still poor. Child 3s PC was just right. Ok so far it sounds like something out of a novel involving 3 bears. ;p

Using the 3rd child's PC with IE gave a perfect viewing experience for PLP. I have since restaged my 1st child's laptop and that works fine too now.

My own PC is a beastly fella and gives a perfect experience no matter what is running on it. I can only watch PLP in my office on a 27" monitor as its not a portable thing.

Also, even though I have a good wireless network I choose not to use it for PLP. My experience is that this introduces delay during live streams. So all my usage in the house has been via a wired connection. This for me seems to give a better experience.

That said last week I had a perfectly good time watching a mid week game on my kids Samsung over an LTE connection.

Seems to me that the hardware matters. I'm wondering if those that are having bad times are using wireless or poor PCs perhaps.

I'd say it is a possibility, flash video with drm can be quite picky at times... However that doesn't apply to me... I'm using a custom built Intel Core i5 that is my gaming machine and it's still microlagging... I can unfortunately notice the flickering of fluorescent lights too which is where the problem could be; however as mentioned by others I didn't get this on the Sky DVB-S2 stream hence my annoyance!

1 | ... | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | ... | 210