NZ Cricket to Spark Sport

Forums › Online streaming services › NZ Cricket to Spark Sport

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 16

554 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 103

ID Verified

#2335128 10-Oct-2019 16:54

This whole situation is really interesting and you have to winder if it stems from the VF + Sky merger fail. If that went through then Sky/VF could easily compete with Spark Sport in terms of money to buy sports rights etc.

I wonder if the com-com will break up Spark and Spark Sports if they keep winning rights.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#2335129 10-Oct-2019 16:55

Remember when sky first got rights to rugby it was line of sight to terrestrial transmitter. No satellite service then..

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335134 10-Oct-2019 17:08

arnies:

This whole situation is really interesting and you have to winder if it stems from the VF + Sky merger fail. If that went through then Sky/VF could easily compete with Spark Sport in terms of money to buy sports rights etc.

I wonder if the com-com will break up Spark and Spark Sports if they keep winning rights.

Dont see how. Anyone can get Spark Sport. There is no benefit being a Spark broadband user as well.

mudguard

2327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1250

#2335135 10-Oct-2019 17:14

ALTRON:

I get the motogp season pass. Its a little on the $$ side but its totally worth it if you're into motoGP

I also have SSN and have demo'd motogp on that via kodi addon. The official motogp app+chromecast is waaay better quality than SSN.

SSN at a muddy looking 50fps while the official app + chromecast is a native 60FPS=looks great.

To carry on the off-topic theme, how does the app work? I used to record (on MySky) the races, but as I'm only interested in MotoGP, would fast forward until I got to it. Can you do the same on the app? IE pause, or choose where to start?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335141 10-Oct-2019 17:21

mudguard:

ALTRON:

I get the motogp season pass. Its a little on the $$ side but its totally worth it if you're into motoGP

I also have SSN and have demo'd motogp on that via kodi addon. The official motogp app+chromecast is waaay better quality than SSN.

SSN at a muddy looking 50fps while the official app + chromecast is a native 60FPS=looks great.

To carry on the off-topic theme, how does the app work? I used to record (on MySky) the races, but as I'm only interested in MotoGP, would fast forward until I got to it. Can you do the same on the app? IE pause, or choose where to start?

This is where SS is better. Sky has 30X FF, slow. Spark Sport (SS) has a scroll bar so you can move that . Weird, MotoGP being advertised on Sky right now! It was in one 5 or 6 hour feed. So a pain to 30X, I FF to the gridlist, I dont watch the pre race. Then FF to Moto2 etc. SS is better for long FF. I see MotoGP is now each event.

compost

295 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

#2335144 10-Oct-2019 17:34

Wrong move Spark. Sky are teetering on the financial precipice right now having to spend more than 50% of their market cap just to retain rugby rights, just one major crisis and they're cooked - say the Iranians stuffing up yet another rocket launch and borking the Sky satellite. But if Spark acquires too many more sports, ComCom will no longer block a Sky acquisition which will guarantee them some form of longer term survival.

A time-poor geek is hardly a geek at all

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335171 10-Oct-2019 18:13

compost:

Wrong move Spark. Sky are teetering on the financial precipice right now having to spend more than 50% of their market cap just to retain rugby rights, just one major crisis and they're cooked - say the Iranians stuffing up yet another rocket launch and borking the Sky satellite. But if Spark acquires too many more sports, ComCom will no longer block a Sky acquisition which will guarantee them some form of longer term survival.

Market cap? Whats that got to do with it? As long as they are making money they are, well, making money. Going into a real loss (not paper loss) is another issue. I believe subscription losses have reduced. If Sky continues to lose subscribers then that tails off, they may settle with, pick a number, 640,000. subscribers and that stays flat. And if they are still in the black, thats their baseline plateau. They can live with that forever. As its in the black. They can then tinker with his many sports, etc. It all depends if where the subs stabilise, if thats in the black or in the red.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#2335184 10-Oct-2019 18:48

surfisup1000:

I think it is important to have 100% coverage.

If Spark can provide more flexible viewing options, improved quality and more accessible pricing, then a number a little less than 100% is an acceptable price to pay.

With every shift in technology, many win, and a few are worse off - but as a country do we really want to be the Luddite nation persisting with satellite set top boxes in 50 years time just because a few people live remotely or don't have the technical wherewithal?

Time to move on.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#2335186 10-Oct-2019 18:55

tdgeek:

Market cap? Whats that got to do with it? As long as they are making money they are, well, making money. Going into a real loss (not paper loss) is another issue. I believe subscription losses have reduced. If Sky continues to lose subscribers then that tails off, they may settle with, pick a number, 640,000. subscribers and that stays flat. And if they are still in the black, thats their baseline plateau.

Think of market capitalisation like net worth.... the more money and assets and diversification one has to their name, generally the greater resilience one has to financial risk and economic shocks.

You make the assumption that sky subscriber numbers will stabilise where return on investment still makes sky a good investment. Ask Blockbuster Video when their membership will stabilise....the subscriber floor is close to 0.

If sky spends 180 million (half it's capitalisation) on sports, but subscribers keep falling, then sky goes bust because they cannot repay debt and shareholder value goes directly to 0.

If spark spends 180 million (1/45th it's capitalisation) on sports, and it fails, then net profit is down for a year and things are back to normal the next. Spark provides a diverse range of products so a single loss making venture becomes an accounting entry as opposed to business collapse.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335188 10-Oct-2019 19:01

dafman:

surfisup1000:

I think it is important to have 100% coverage.

If Spark can provide more flexible viewing options, improved quality and more accessible pricing, then a number a little less than 100% is an acceptable price to pay.

With every shift in technology, many win, and a few are worse off - but as a country do we really want to be the Luddite nation persisting with satellite set top boxes in 50 years time just because a few people live remotely or don't have the technical wherewithal?

Time to move on.

Flexible Viewing Options Can you clarify?

Improved quality Its 60fps or 50fps now, its very very good

Accessible pricing Its $20 per month.

Other than that I agree

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#2335190 10-Oct-2019 19:09

dafman:

surfisup1000:

I think it is important to have 100% coverage.

If Spark can provide more flexible viewing options, improved quality and more accessible pricing, then a number a little less than 100% is an acceptable price to pay.

With every shift in technology, many win, and a few are worse off - but as a country do we really want to be the Luddite nation persisting with satellite set top boxes in 50 years time just because a few people live remotely or don't have the technical wherewithal?

Time to move on.

Why abandon the 200,000 (5%??) people that live in areas without broadband internet? Especially when we already have technology and and existing satellite feed that can fill the gap.

So why not provide 100% coverage given it shoudl be easy enough to do so? We already have an expensive freeview satellite distribution system in place ... so just tack some software at the head-end that can send authentication signals to compatible freeview boxes and TV's.

I think it would be lazy not to take a look at least.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335191 10-Oct-2019 19:12

surfisup1000:

tdgeek:

Market cap? Whats that got to do with it? As long as they are making money they are, well, making money. Going into a real loss (not paper loss) is another issue. I believe subscription losses have reduced. If Sky continues to lose subscribers then that tails off, they may settle with, pick a number, 640,000. subscribers and that stays flat. And if they are still in the black, thats their baseline plateau.

Think of market capitalisation like net worth.... the more money and assets and diversification one has to their name, generally the greater resilience one has to financial risk and economic shocks.

You make the assumption that sky subscriber numbers will stabilise where return on investment still makes sky a good investment. Ask Blockbuster Video when their membership will stabilise....the subscriber floor is close to 0.

If sky spends 180 million (half it's capitalisation) on sports, but subscribers keep falling, then sky goes bust because they cannot repay debt and shareholder value goes directly to 0.

If spark spends 180 million (1/45th it's capitalisation) on sports, and it fails, then net profit is down for a year and things are back to normal the next. Spark provides a diverse range of products so a single loss making venture becomes an accounting entry as opposed to business collapse.

1. Market cap is the valuation of the shares. Its not Sky's money, it's the shareholders money.

2. The stabilisation was my theory, I didn't say it has or will, just to show that IF the subscribers stabilised while they are in the black, they are not teetering.

Sky wont go bust as they cannot repay debt, they go bust as they run at a loss. A loss is fine, not every year though. Shareholder value, is the shareholders problem. Sky do not have to pay that back. Sky is not obligated to pay it back. I dont follow this line of thought. Skys value is low, the profit is there but dropping. Prospects are low. Sparks share price is high, and if SS failed thats a lot more than a rounding error. Sparks revenue is huge, the bottom line is a much smaller number, a SS loss would matter.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335199 10-Oct-2019 19:21

surfisup1000:

Why abandon the 200,000 (5%??) people that live in areas without broadband internet? Especially when we already have technology and and existing satellite feed that can fill the gap.

So why not provide 100% coverage given it shoudl be easy enough to do so? We already have an expensive freeview satellite distribution system in place ... so just tack some software at the head-end that can send authentication signals to compatible freeview boxes and TV's.

I think it would be lazy not to take a look at least.

Fair enough, who pays? Taxpayers or Spark or the end user? Anyone who is not in an 10mbit ADSL or better can get access to that.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2335200 10-Oct-2019 19:22

surfisup1000:

Think of market capitalisation like net worth....

Its not

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#2335207 10-Oct-2019 19:34

SheriffNZ:

empacher48:
tdgeek:

Choice is the wrong argument. Why do 900,000 not have Sky? It costs to much. Sky literally covers ALL of NZ geographically but it covers only 40% economically. Some of those chose not to as it lacks value for cost. Many cannot afford it, so its no choice for them as well. In Skys heyday they had 50%. Its a luxury for some and no choice for others

Fair enough, choice maybe wrong. How about infrastructure?

Everyone in NZ can get TV through satellite, just point the dish to the right place in space and you get it as long as you have the dish and receiver. It’s why the government required Freeview to be available via both UHF and satellite.

If streaming is where the world is going, then the infrastructure should ensure that the same number of people have access to it as traditional broadcast medium. Then people can choose if they want access to it. By not having the infrastructure there is no choice.

Why? and who is going to pay for it?

My comment on the why would be for whatever societal goodness that flows from that infrastructure but I don't think that people have a right to watch the Blackcaps (or the RWC) just because. Society should pay for the societal goodness and the balance of the costs should be built into the price (whether the people who require extra infrastructure pay for it as an extra is a different question).

As for the who: Maybe the Fibre companies get to pay for it.

You know, those people that got to build a network using soft loans from the government and that now get to spend the next 60+ years raking in the network access fees.

Doesn't seem unreasonable that the government encourage further expansion of the UFB network and/or removal of data caps on RBI.

All sorts of ways it could be encouraged through tax breaks, further soft loans, telecom levies through to direct legislation to mandate minimum speeds and unlimited data caps.

As for the why: Don't underestimate the societal good from enabling everyone to participate in a shared national event. And beyond that, all the same arguments for having an RBI in the first place.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 16