• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BT Sports Channel (Part 2)
<<
<
34 of 345
>>
>
derek500
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“I'd expect BARB to use their normal 5,100 panel.

We know there were 550,000 orders for BTS as of approx 2 weeks ago. Let's say that figure is now approx 750,000.

If 25m homes in UK then the number of BARB panel homes with BTS should be:

(5,100/25m) * 750,000 = 153 homes with BT Sport.

Of course it won't be perfect but 5,100 is a very good sample (most opinion polls are only 1,000) so it shouldn't be far out.

If there "should be" 153 homes I would be surprised if it was out by more than 15% - ie if BARB didn't actually have between 130 and 176 BTS homes in their panel.”

Be interesting to see the reach figures from BARB. Surely, the majority of those who have signed up/paid would have watched at least three minutes out of curiosity?

So with the minimum 130 homes and say just one watching, we could be looking at a 663,000 reach.

Trouble is the FTA night would skew it all, as even I dipped in for a bit!!
Jaycee Dove
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by daver34:
“Quote: Jaycee Dove
BT Sport added to the wrong Sky box.

Did you give them the wrong card number?. Fail to see how its a Bt fault.”

Umm, no...If interested, please just read my posts retelling this sorry saga over the past 3 weeks - though hard to find as they started in part 1.

Or look on the forums in My BT help where there is a four page thread about the hash BT made,
HatzofBarts
09-08-2013
owen hargeaves is so bloody annoying, massive headache listening to him spout his rubbish

even jake hunmphrey is starting to get annoying
acker
09-08-2013
Half watching Rio Ferdinands Testimonial and ....please stop with the intermittent little box in the bottom left corner with a shot of the manager ...a sub ...the ref. It adds NOTHING and its irritating beyond belief ....or is it just me ?
THFC23
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by acker:
“Half watching Rio Ferdinands Testimonial and ....please stop with the intermittent little box in the bottom left corner with a shot of the manager ...a sub ...the ref. It adds NOTHING and its irritating beyond belief ....or is it just me ? ”

It would be okay if it was just occasionally but bt are using it constantly when it isn't necessary.
Lindy_Loue
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by THOMO:
“Just read on Twitter that the WTA Tennis between 7.00pm-10.00pm will be available only online this evening as there's other live sport on both BT Sport 1 and 2. That's excellent news as they must be going to use extra live streams online.
Ian.”

Originally Posted by coventrywooo:
“and live football on ESPN too”

Just noticed this when I logged on to the website - it's good news!
sheff71
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by SAXON_GB:
“There are a hell of a lot of people in the UK who can't get VM and if they want both BT Sport and Sky sports then they pay for it, so why should VM customers be the special case here? You also seem to be thinking that VM is not to blame, have VM not monopolised to cable TV market in the UK. BT can offer it's products via satellite as it isn't owned by Sky. VM are basically using it's customers as leverage against both BT and Sky. People are saying well done to VM but in fact it is VM who are denying it's customers the right as they wont free up it's cable network. You will say why should VM do this, and the response is why should Sky or BT not do what VM are already doing. Sky and BT could argue that not only do VM have a monopoly on it's cable network but they are being anti-competitive. They could argue that VM is using dirty tricks and tactics by using it's customer base to create lies and rumours about BT and Sky. All of the bad publicity that both Sky and BT have got over this and VM are looking like Robin Hood figures doing their customers a favour, yet where is BT Sport or any of the other channels you are being denied? VM customers also blindly believe that their BB is better than anything else out there. I have had VM BB and that is also another lie that VM would have you believe. Bottom line is it is VM who are not offering value for money. Sky is no more expensive than VM and it is much better quality. BT BB may not always be faster but imo it is much better.

The TV rights have gone up steadily every year since Sky arrived even when there was no competition. The point I was making is if BT or ESPN were not around Sky would be charging you the extra £12 - £15 that ESPN or BT are charging. There would be no competition and therefore the quality of programming that Sky offered would never be questioned as there would be no competition. And you would still be paying through the nose for it.”

It differs across the country, and what you are fortunate enough to be able to access. We don't have a credible BT/Sky BB service (and not being considered for BT's fibre rollout) so we have no option than to stick with VM - so why in that situation would it be wrong to sell BTS on VM at the same price as on Sky (£12) - then if they really want it they can, and if not so be it. Not everyone can just switch - and it's not in their control.
chrisr21
09-08-2013
The DOG needs to change from being solid colour in my view.
d'@ve
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by acker:
“Half watching Rio Ferdinands Testimonial and ....please stop with the intermittent little box in the bottom left corner with a shot of the manager ...a sub ...the ref. It adds NOTHING and its irritating beyond belief ....or is it just me ? ”

The inset box as it's being used is completely pointless and just detracts from the action. By all means cut to managers, subs, officials, players' kids etc.... during breaks in play. But then, they may as well do it full screen!

The main time I can think it might be useful would be during breaks in play, so we can see (in the inset box) what's happening on the field while the main picture cuts to other things... and we can see when play is about to restart.
sheff71
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by d'@ve:
“The inset box as it's being used is completely pointless and just detracts from the action. By all means cut to managers, subs, officials, players' kids etc.... during breaks in play. But then, they may as well do it full screen!

The main time I can think it might be useful would be during breaks in play, so we can see (in the inset box) what's happening on the field while the main picture cuts to other things... and we can see when play is about to restart.”

Sounds like they've got a new toy, and can't stop playing with it! I'm sure by the time the meaningful football starts on BTS, they'll have had enough feedback and learn to use it more effectively...
Lindy_Loue
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by sheff71:
“It differs across the country, and what you are fortunate enough to be able to access. We don't have a credible BT/Sky BB service (and not being considered for BT's fibre rollout) so we have no option than to stick with VM - so why in that situation would it be wrong to sell BTS on VM at the same price as on Sky (£12) - then if they really want it they can, and if not so be it. Not everyone can just switch - and it's not in their control.”

Agreed - and I'm in the opposite situation to you, ie can't have VM as no cable, so have stuck to BT and Sky. Used to feel a bit disgruntled about it - but am now enjoying free BT Sport access for as long as it lasts....

Swings and roundabouts......
SAXON_GB
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by sheff71:
“It differs across the country, and what you are fortunate enough to be able to access. We don't have a credible BT/Sky BB service (and not being considered for BT's fibre rollout) so we have no option than to stick with VM - so why in that situation would it be wrong to sell BTS on VM at the same price as on Sky (£12) - then if they really want it they can, and if not so be it. Not everyone can just switch - and it's not in their control.”

I noticed you say you have a Sky box so therefore you can subscribe via free sat using your Sky box. You live in an urban area so therefore you can get broadband, so it is back to my original point, you can get BT Sport but the reason you haven't got it is because you have chosen not to sign up. That is your choice and I see no reason why VM customers should be the special case here. You can subscribe directly through you Sky set top box.

For the record VM are releasing people from their contracts so you can switch if you want to.
SAXON_GB
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“The value of the PL rights was lower in 2004/07 than it was for 2001/04.”

Who's to say they wont be lower next time around? Point being though the cost of watching not just football but all sports is generally getting more expensive. Your argument isn't valid as the next TV deal or the one after could be lower than the previous.

the general trend is upwards.
HatzofBarts
09-08-2013
man united fans not impressed by BT's coverage tonight at all, many saying if thats what it will be like they will not suscribe on redcafe, comments like BT made a complete hash of what should have been a good rio tribute night
casinoman13
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by HatzofBarts:
“man united fans not impressed by BT's coverage tonight at all, many saying if thats what it will be like they will not suscribe on redcafe, comments like BT made a complete hash of what should have been a good rio tribute night”

You mean because they lost?
HatzofBarts
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“You mean because they lost?”

well im sure that didn't help but there were loads of negative posts about hargreaves commentating, humphrey, and just the way they handled the night with no proper coverage of rio and all the talking at half time rather than focusing on what was going on at old trafford with all the stuff rio had organised, having watched numerous testimonials on mufc (ignoring the result) they have been handled alot better

people felt it shouldve been about rio but BT made it about themselves and their upcoming coverage
SAXON_GB
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“You mean because they lost?”

And because Fergie wasn't in the dug out! David Moyes first home match in charge of United, and was deffo BT Sport they weren't happy with!
casinoman13
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by HatzofBarts:
“well im sure that didn't help but there were loads of negative posts about hargreaves commentating, humphrey, and just the way they handled the night with no proper coverage of rio and all the talking at half time rather than focusing on what was going on at old trafford with all the stuff rio had organised, having watched numerous testimonials on mufc (ignoring the result) they have been handled alot better

people felt it shouldve been about rio but BT made it about themselves and their upcoming coverage”

They interviewed Rio at the start and end, Ian Darke paid a glowing tribute before the start of the game and Jake Humphrey paid constant recognition throughout, not sure what more they could of done, at the end of it all it was another football match which they had to reflect on.
HatzofBarts
09-08-2013
altight BT fanboys, calm down I'm just repeating what I'm seeing elsewhere

I do think hargreaves is going to be a big problem though, and shoudn't be anywhere near a commentary box for the actual PL coverage, owen is much better
Jamesp84
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“You mean because they lost?”

Not at all. It's a preseason friendly

My only real issue with the coverage was Hargreaves.
casinoman13
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by Jamesp84:
“Not at all. It's a preseason friendly

My only real issue with the coverage was Hargreaves.”

I think they have a way to go yet before the likes of Hargreaves and Owen reach the likes of any of the Sky boy's.
HatzofBarts
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by casinoman13:
“I think they have a way to go yet before the likes of Hargreaves and Owen reach the likes of any of the Sky boy's.”

watching the MNF preview it was clear that jamie carragher could be really good, and he was the one that they should have gone all out to get
StargateNerd_24
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by SAXON_GB:
“I noticed you say you have a Sky box so therefore you can subscribe via free sat using your Sky box. You live in an urban area so therefore you can get broadband, so it is back to my original point, you can get BT Sport but the reason you haven't got it is because you have chosen not to sign up. That is your choice and I see no reason why VM customers should be the special case here. You can subscribe directly through you Sky set top box.

For the record VM are releasing people from their contracts so you can switch if you want to.”

What are you talking about? I live in an urban area and the best BB speed BT/Sky can offer me is 7mg and I get 30mg off VM and could get 120mg right now if I wanted.

Maybe he doesn't want to pay £15 pm for BTS and would like it in XL. I am sure VM would be more than happy to pay reasonable price to BT for BTS but I think its more a case BT not wanting to do a reasonable deal.
Brekkie
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by SAXON_GB:
“Who's to say they wont be lower next time around? Point being though the cost of watching not just football but all sports is generally getting more expensive. Your argument isn't valid as the next TV deal or the one after could be lower than the previous. ”

Unless Sky and BT are flat broke there is no chance they'll be lower next time - Sky will want to keep BT at bay and BT will presumably want a bigger slice of the pie, or at least give the impression they want a bigger slice of the pie. Considering they say they're in it for the long term even if they have what they have now they're not going to risk bidding lower.
mlt11
09-08-2013
Originally Posted by SAXON_GB:
“Who's to say they wont be lower next time around? Point being though the cost of watching not just football but all sports is generally getting more expensive. Your argument isn't valid as the next TV deal or the one after could be lower than the previous.

the general trend is upwards.”

Of course anything could happen to the price of rights next time.

What that has got to do with what I said in post 817 I can't imagine. If Setanta / ESPN / BT had not had secondary rights Sky's prices wouldn't be £12 higher - because the market wouldn't bear such a price across the majority of the Sky Sports customer base.
<<
<
34 of 345
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map