Sky outbid for EPL rights (Premier League Pass discussion)

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

1 | ... | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | ... | 210

371 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885647 28-Aug-2013 07:46

I don't believe the micro stutter is anything to do with packet delivery as there is buffering. When a stream starts I can see the 2 second MP4 chunks coming it at around 1 per second and after about 15-20 seconds it then paces out to average the expected one every 2 seconds. My speedtest to Telecom is usually a very stable 5.5 to 5.7 Mbps to the test PC (I am rural ADSL). I also suspect that when rewinding over the same part it is using packets from the browser cache but a good warning to watch out from buffer depletion.

I tried Flash acceleration on and off but no difference. I hadn't noticed this micro stutter (I like this description) before and it could well be that something changed. The other browsers all had the same recent Flash version.

I guess my point is this is getting too many variables when we have to worry not only what spec PC (beyond minimum they have stated), what OS, what browser, what version of Flash, how many tabs or applications open, what other services are running, why a problem when total CPU only 20%, whether it has been rebuilt within the last two months, and the list goes on ...

Perhaps not so much a "wireless or poor PC" issue for me but one that isn't quite playing just right (sounding like the kids story again). This should be a product for the masses and when I went into Noel Lemming (referenced by Tim Martin) to ask what the recommendations were they had very little to offer.

JonnyCam

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#885711 28-Aug-2013 09:41

Perhaps not so much a "wireless or poor PC" issue for me but one that isn't quite playing just right (sounding like the kids story again). This should be a product for the masses and when I went into Noel Lemming (referenced by Tim Martin) to ask what the recommendations were they had very little to offer.

And that is the problem.
I got home from work last night, and Sommet did not have the Chelsea v Man U game, so I signed up for a free day pass on PLP.

I was hugely disappointed, and it was so hard to watch due to the (what looked like) fps issues. - stuttering - the ball moving through the air chunks at a time. (not all the time)

There was also some random noise in the commentary, where it dropped from a decent AAC rate to a poor one and my AVR didn't produce surround.
But also some (as my wife put it) darth vader sounds randomly.

All in all it was frustrating, which also wasn't helped by the mostly poor football being played by both teams.

I may have a poor PC - but it plays 1080i freeview flawlessly - and PLP are selling a product to fans who have had good experiences up until now.

dwl

371 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885733 28-Aug-2013 10:27

JonnyCam:
Perhaps not so much a "wireless or poor PC" issue for me but one that isn't quite playing just right (sounding like the kids story again). This should be a product for the masses and when I went into Noel Lemming (referenced by Tim Martin) to ask what the recommendations were they had very little to offer.

And that is the problem.
I got home from work last night, and Sommet did not have the Chelsea v Man U game, so I signed up for a free day pass on PLP.

I was hugely disappointed, and it was so hard to watch due to the (what looked like) fps issues. - stuttering - the ball moving through the air chunks at a time. (not all the time)

There was also some random noise in the commentary, where it dropped from a decent AAC rate to a poor one and my AVR didn't produce surround.
But also some (as my wife put it) darth vader sounds randomly.

All in all it was frustrating, which also wasn't helped by the mostly poor football being played by both teams.

I may have a poor PC - but it plays 1080i freeview flawlessly - and PLP are selling a product to fans who have had good experiences up until now.

I can say that at 3000 on my PC the ball motion is pretty smooth but it is objects like white lines that look worse, possibly because the camera might be tracking the ball better and the lines scroll across the screen.

I guess that is what the day passes are for and each potential customer needs to decide how much effort they want to put in. Unfortunately if the issue is outside the home (e.g. poor bandwidth or CDN support at the ISP) there might not be a working solution even after the effort.

Apsattv

2390 posts

Uber Geek

#885780 28-Aug-2013 11:09

Can someone confirm? is the stream 720p @ 60 HZ or 50 HZ?

The source feed from Europe is probably 1080i @50HZ with a 30 FPS framerate, since Neulion is a U.S based company they may be encoding it to 720P@60HZ @25 FPS that might be the issue with jerky motion.

Otagolad

364 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885785 28-Aug-2013 11:14

Starblazer,

I accept that you are more than happy with an inferior viewing experience than what others previously had (SKY HD - did you have that?), however just because you are happy with that does not give you the right to out-of-hand dismiss other people's opinions on their experience.

For me, the experience with PLP has been simply awful and I have been streaming from offshore sites in HD to make up for that and downloading in HD if I couldn't be bothered getting up in the middle of the night to watch live.

Now before you say what is my setup, here is what I have:

UFB 100/50 with Snap
HP PC (i7, 24GB Ram, 256GB SSD, 2xGTX690 cards) - wired into Cat6
HP27xi monitor (x2)
Panasonic VT50 55" Plasma
Denon AVR-4520
ASUS RT-AC66U WiFi Router
Sony VPCZ22TGX laptop (i7 256GB SSD)

So, I have tried:

1. Desktop connected with HDMI to HP27xi monitor using UFB - picture is blocky with judder and frankly rubbish.

2. Sony laptop connected to UFB through Cat6 (house is wired) and then by HDMI (a) directly to the Panasonic and (b) through the Denon and with both the picture is blocky with judder and frankly rubbish.

On both of these the stream is at 3000kbps so even at its best the stream is, and yes its only my humble opinion, shockingly bad.

Now lets compare that to two other streaming sports sites:

1. MLB - either through the web-browser on the Desktop or the laptop connected as above and with the laptop wirelessly - brilliant, no judder and flawless. Via Apple TV (Both wired or over 5Ghz wireless from my ASUS router) - brilliant, no judder and flawless. Via PS3 both wired and wireless - brilliant, no judder and flawless. Via the Panasonic's MLB widget both wired and wireless - brilliant, no judder and flawless. Via Airplay from my iPhone 5 and iPad3 - yep, you guessed it brilliant, no judder and flawless.

2. NFL Game Pass - either through the web-browser on the Desktop or the laptop connected as above and with the laptop wirelessly - brilliant, no judder and flawless. Via Airplay from my iPhone 5 and iPad3 - yep, you guessed it again brilliant, no judder and flawless.

So what do I take from all this - well, I don't believe it is a network or equipment setup issue rather it is simply a very low quality product being offered and we have moved from one monopoly to another with the pro being quantity and the con's being quality and lack of ability to watch games after a certain time period.

From my perspective as a ManU fan, I'd rather have the monopoly that gave me all my games and the quality than one that just gave me a whole bunch of rubbish. And I still need SKY as I want FA Cup and Champions League, not to mention rugby (e.g. Shield holders game on Sunday) and cricket.

Basically it comes down to what you're willing to put up with and for me at the moment it is HD streams from offshore and downloads rather than PLP until they get their quality issues right.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885829 28-Aug-2013 12:36

Otagolad: Starblazer,

I accept that you are more than happy with an inferior viewing experience than what others previously had (SKY HD - did you have that?), however just because you are happy with that does not give you the right to out-of-hand dismiss other people's opinions on their experience.

For me, the experience with PLP has been simply awful and I have been streaming from offshore sites in HD to make up for that and downloading in HD if I couldn't be bothered getting up in the middle of the night to watch live.

So what do I take from all this - well, I don't believe it is a network or equipment setup issue rather it is simply a very low quality product being offered and we have moved from one monopoly to another with the pro being quantity and the con's being quality and lack of ability to watch games after a certain time period.

From my perspective as a ManU fan, I'd rather have the monopoly that gave me all my games and the quality than one that just gave me a whole bunch of rubbish. And I still need SKY as I want FA Cup and Champions League, not to mention rugby (e.g. Shield holders game on Sunday) and cricket.

Basically it comes down to what you're willing to put up with and for me at the moment it is HD streams from offshore and downloads rather than PLP until they get their quality issues right.

I did not dismiss other peoples opinions, I was defending my opinion that was questioned by other forum members - I have seen some of the screen shots from their playback and I agree it's terrible. What you are making out as being dismissive is trying to inform people that what they are getting is not the best on offer from PLP. Just because we have a different experience of the product does not make my opinion wrong. If your expectation of the product is different to mine - then again that does not make me wrong.

So to address you tongue-in-cheek comment; Yes, I have Sky HD through which I watch TV1 and TV3 in HD regularly although I do not have sport or movies. I have a Blu-ray player and have watched other content at 1080p. I am a photographer and edit videos in my spare time - I know what quality should look like and I know a little about converting between formats, resolution and frame rates but I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe I have ever professed to my opinion being an expert opinion and that is how it should be read.

Again;
Is it perfect? No.
Is it full 1080p HD? No - probably never will be for the foreseeable future.
Have I complained to PLP? Yes.
Have I had a reply? No. I will be sending another email someday soon
Am I enjoying watching football even with these problems? Absolutely!!

That's great that Sky had everything you wanted for us it didn't - it is too expensive (I don't watch other sports) and they wouldn't have shown enough content of the lower teams had they retained the rights. Again that makes neither of us wrong, just different.

You are arguing with the wrong person. Write to PLP and tell them, then write to Sky and complain at the fact that they lost the rights.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

Otagolad

364 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885854 28-Aug-2013 13:35

StarBlazer: You are arguing with the wrong person. Write to PLP and tell them, then write to Sky and complain at the fact that they lost the rights.

I'm not arguing with you, and I have complained to both - I'm simply saying that people who espouse an opinion that PLP is a very poor quality product should not be ridiculed and dismissed by you who simply has a different opinion. I suggest you look at your reply to vkjc where you say:

"Really, again? Broken record!" and "Please stop whining and using your shielded expletives in this forum and complain to Sky or join Al Jazeera if you want a different experience."

Frankly, you sound like you work for PLP. PLP have done nothing to enhance the viewing experience of the ELP in NZ and have simply adopted a low-cost monopolistic we-don't-give-a-stuff attitude to fans of the game. I agree that SKY weren't perfect but IMHO they were far and away better than PLP.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#885861 28-Aug-2013 13:46

Otagolad, a note if I may?

Whilst PLP have not done the best thing in my mind, it is debatable if they have done nothing to enhance the viewing experience of EPL. They have done something quite impressive in that they broke Sky's hold on the EPL, allowed any supporter to watch their team play and removed the need for Sky Sports to watch it.

That is in some peoples view an enhancement, espcially for those that either supported other teams than Sky showed or those that couldn't afford Sky.

Personally I don't like it but then I have Sky Sports HD and support Man Utd :-)

RedDevil79NZ

25 posts

Geek

#885870 28-Aug-2013 13:52

StarBlazer:
Otagolad: Starblazer,

I accept that you are more than happy with an inferior viewing experience than what others previously had (SKY HD - did you have that?), however just because you are happy with that does not give you the right to out-of-hand dismiss other people's opinions on their experience.

For me, the experience with PLP has been simply awful and I have been streaming from offshore sites in HD to make up for that and downloading in HD if I couldn't be bothered getting up in the middle of the night to watch live.

So what do I take from all this - well, I don't believe it is a network or equipment setup issue rather it is simply a very low quality product being offered and we have moved from one monopoly to another with the pro being quantity and the con's being quality and lack of ability to watch games after a certain time period.

From my perspective as a ManU fan, I'd rather have the monopoly that gave me all my games and the quality than one that just gave me a whole bunch of rubbish. And I still need SKY as I want FA Cup and Champions League, not to mention rugby (e.g. Shield holders game on Sunday) and cricket.

Basically it comes down to what you're willing to put up with and for me at the moment it is HD streams from offshore and downloads rather than PLP until they get their quality issues right.

I did not dismiss other peoples opinions, I was defending my opinion that was questioned by other forum members - I have seen some of the screen shots from their playback and I agree it's terrible. What you are making out as being dismissive is trying to inform people that what they are getting is not the best on offer from PLP. Just because we have a different experience of the product does not make my opinion wrong. If your expectation of the product is different to mine - then again that does not make me wrong.

So to address you tongue-in-cheek comment; Yes, I have Sky HD through which I watch TV1 and TV3 in HD regularly although I do not have sport or movies. I have a Blu-ray player and have watched other content at 1080p. I am a photographer and edit videos in my spare time - I know what quality should look like and I know a little about converting between formats, resolution and frame rates but I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe I have ever professed to my opinion being an expert opinion and that is how it should be read.

Again;
Is it perfect? No.
Is it full 1080p HD? No - probably never will be for the foreseeable future.
Have I complained to PLP? Yes.
Have I had a reply? No. I will be sending another email someday soon
Am I enjoying watching football even with these problems? Absolutely!!

That's great that Sky had everything you wanted for us it didn't - it is too expensive (I don't watch other sports) and they wouldn't have shown enough content of the lower teams had they retained the rights. Again that makes neither of us wrong, just different.

You are arguing with the wrong person. Write to PLP and tell them, then write to Sky and complain at the fact that they lost the rights.

Sky Sport is $26.45 per month so that's $317.40 per year. PLP is $239.90 per year for the platinum subscription so it's $77.50 cheaper. However the Sky Sport subscription includes HD quality, the UEFA Champions League, the FA Cup, international friendlies and the World Cup... and that's if you are a football only supporter. Their coverage of cricket, golf, rugby, tennis and F1 is extremely comprehensive as well as many other sports.

My impression was that Sky showed just about every Premier League game last season. Their coverage over the last couple of seasons has included a lot more games than in previous seasons. There are now 4 channels compared to the 2 they had a few years back.

I'm not defending Sky. They should have done more to secure the rights but in comparison I don't think PLP is good value for money especially as we are essentially beta-testing the product for them.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885871 28-Aug-2013 13:55

Otagolad:
StarBlazer: You are arguing with the wrong person. Write to PLP and tell them, then write to Sky and complain at the fact that they lost the rights.

I'm not arguing with you, and I have complained to both - I'm simply saying that people who espouse an opinion that PLP is a very poor quality product should not be ridiculed and dismissed by you who simply has a different opinion. I suggest you look at your reply to vkjc where you say:

"Really, again? Broken record!" and "Please stop whining and using your shielded expletives in this forum and complain to Sky or join Al Jazeera if you want a different experience."

Frankly, you sound like you work for PLP. PLP have done nothing to enhance the viewing experience of the ELP in NZ and have simply adopted a low-cost monopolistic we-don't-give-a-stuff attitude to fans of the game. I agree that SKY weren't perfect but IMHO they were far and away better than PLP.

You take the comments completely out of context. That was the second time the poster used the "s**t" comment with nothing constructive which followed a string of equally unconstructive comments from other forum members who basically just wanted the company to fail. This thread is littered with them.

No I have no affiliation with PLP - I am however, like many on here, looking for answers to improve my experience. I still say that comparing Sky with PLP is like comparing apples and oranges. Sky is a broadcaster with many years experience - PLP is a content provider and does not.

We will have to agree to disagree regarding whether PLP have enhanced the viewing experience.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

langers1972

1039 posts

Uber Geek

#885872 28-Aug-2013 13:56

People are also forgetting that we are now able to watch a game free to air plus the review show on Monday night, for me that's enough so I am more than happy and not having to pay Sky or PLP a cent

Of course, this may all change when (OK if) Forest go up the the PL ;o)

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#885874 28-Aug-2013 13:58

@RedDevil

As per the conversation I had with nonprayingmantis, PLP is poor value compared to Sky Sports ONLY if you have the sky basic package.

Sky have a market saturation short of around 900K people, this means that there is stil 4/5 of the population that couldn't receive EPL. So for them, PLP is good value.

For me PLP is poor value as I had Sky basic already but for some colleagues it work is considered to be good value as they didn't want sky at all.

Chris

RedDevil79NZ

25 posts

Geek

#885876 28-Aug-2013 13:59

langers1972: People are also forgetting that we are now able to watch a game free to air plus the review show on Monday night, for me that's enough so I am more than happy and not having to pay Sky or PLP a cent

Of course, this may all change when (OK if) Forest go up the the PL ;o)

Well that might be ok for the casual EPL supporter (good luck to you for promotion) but for me and to quote Bill Shankly, 'Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.'

dwl

371 posts

Ultimate Geek

#885891 28-Aug-2013 14:16

I really, really don't know if we are comparing apples with pears. A lot of people on this forum do have a good idea of what SD and HD looks like. When comments like "blocky with judder and frankly rubbish" and "shockingly bad" is used, is this simply the drop from HD to SD (which is what I would call the current 3000 stream) or something much worse?

In the old days we had PQ points with ghosting and noise the common impairments and hardly anyone got PQ5. Now we have digital artifacts and it is a lot harder to get a subjective measure. I know it is probably piracy, but has anyone managed to get a recording of a few minutes of the original stream, not transcoded or altered in any way, so we can put it through a standard player and get some more accurate comparisons ?

There could well be conversion issues that are impacting some systems more than others. To answer @Apsattv I believe it is 720p 30 fps and I would like to be able to step through each frame from the source and see it outside a Flash player.

We know that 3000 is a low rate for 720p and PLP seems to be a bit worse off than others using the same rate. I still struggle to see that this turns it from "not good but adequate" into the much more negative results being seen unless something else is wrong.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#885896 28-Aug-2013 14:24

RedDevil79NZ: Sky Sport is $26.45 per month so that's $317.40 per year. PLP is $239.90 per year for the platinum subscription so it's $77.50 cheaper. However the Sky Sport subscription includes HD quality, the UEFA Champions League, the FA Cup, international friendlies and the World Cup... and that's if you are a football only supporter. Their coverage of cricket, golf, rugby, tennis and F1 is extremely comprehensive as well as many other sports.

My impression was that Sky showed just about every Premier League game last season. Their coverage over the last couple of seasons has included a lot more games than in previous seasons. There are now 4 channels compared to the 2 they had a few years back.

I'm not defending Sky. They should have done more to secure the rights but in comparison I don't think PLP is good value for money especially as we are essentially beta-testing the product for them.

As I have no more than a passing interest in any other sport and all I want to do is watch the games then it only costs $150 for PLP. To me that's a difference of $287.40.

<tongue-in-cheek>
If we are going to quote Sky HD then you need to add $10 per month which makes it $437.40 per year (where I get the $287.40). In fact for the sake of hyperbole, if I was going to be really unfair then I would also add the cost of the MySkyHDi box at $180/year so that I could record the overnight games to watch when I got up and then being really ridiculous lets also add on a second decoder for $300/year so that I can watch it in peace in the other room while the kids watch the Disney Channel - which is basically what happens now.
</tongue-in-cheek>

Ok now I'm being silly - but in my position I'm saving $287.40 a year with PLP which for me represents great value for money and the $150 breaks down to $3 per match if I watch 50 matches. And at least with PLP I can watch the games almost whenever and wherever I want - someone on here even watched a game through mobile 3G, I wonder if his boss found out!

I can't comment on how many games Sky showed, which were live or not and which were in HD as I never was able to see value in the cost of sports from Sky for a single sport. Perhaps if I did have it, I would be equally disappointed with the current offering.

Yes PLP were late to market and you're right we are basically free beta-testers for them. As there was no way they were going to be able to generate enough demand on the system prior to kick-off of the first game I'm not sure what else they could have done - what would you have done differently? Giving 10,000 passes on the first day was a mistake - they should have settled the system, delivered the apps and fixed the problems and then offered the free tickets to say "look what you're missing".

Procrastination eventually pays off.

1 | ... | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | ... | 210