DS Forums

 
 

Would you pay to access live feeds?


View Poll Results: Would you pay to access live feeds
No, I\\\'ll stick with TV coverage 204 73.38%
Yes, but only at a cost of £5 or under 39 14.03%
Yes, at a cost of £10 or under 29 10.43%
Yes, I\\\'d pay over £10 6 2.16%
Voters: 278. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2002, 15:54
Neil Wilkes
Former DS Editor: 1999-2011
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,941

As suggested by Hutchio, would you be prepared to pay to access live feeds from the BB house via the internet?

A Channel 4 statement, released today, said: "At the time of going to press, Channel 4 anticipates that the live streaming will be available on subscription."

This poll will close when we hear confirmation either way.

Neil
Digital Spy Ltd
Neil Wilkes is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-05-2002, 16:53
Mark H
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,965
There's something wrong with the options.
Mark H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 17:43
Alex Duggan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Exeter, Devon, UK
Posts: 5,705
If i did have broadband net access, then i would probably pay, as long as it was a reasonable price, and contained something different to the Sky Digital feeds.
Alex Duggan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 17:46
Mark H
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,965
Maybe if it was uncensored or something
Mark H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 17:55
ShakeyJake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norwich
Posts: 384
depends how many camera angles there were, ntl didn't offer anything special last year, but from what i heard sky digital had a few cameras to view, yeah i spose i would pay a tenner for that (for the whole series).
ShakeyJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 17:59
Alex Duggan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Exeter, Devon, UK
Posts: 5,705
Originally posted by ShakeyJake
ntl didn't offer anything special last year, but from what i heard sky digital had a few cameras to view,
There are details about what interactive features the different providers are going to use this year, in this DS article: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/displayarticle.php?id=7270

Alex
Alex Duggan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 19:09
ShakeyJake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norwich
Posts: 384
mm well if it's just one stream i wouldn't pay for it

pfft!
ShakeyJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 19:59
Glen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inverness
Posts: 11,726
I would pay if there were several streams to choose from (more than two) and it was live and uncensored. It could be made as a cert 18 PPV or something so a PIN is needed all the time.
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 22:23
Dave Robinson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
Posts: 552
I wouldn't pay as as I'm only on a 56k connection, it is just too choppy and unwatchable, I'll be sticking to the interactive coverage on E4. Let's hope they are better at actually editing out swear words this year, and don't keep putting train noises over it at random intervals.
Dave Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 22:38
mromega
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Newcastle, Tyne and Wear
Posts: 6,264
No trains near Elstree, as far as I know, but you may be able to hear people in Albert Square.
mromega is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 23:03
Mark H
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,965
Does anyone know which Star Wars was shot nearby?
Mark H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 06:57
Ragnarok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,567
not while the TV feeds are free on sat, the last couple of times they were on at 16°east.
Ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 08:05
Mike McGuigan
 
Posts: n/a
Would never pay for the service as I would never watch it on the internet I'd just use E4. They idea......Greedy IMO


Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 10:11
beep
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 6
Blimey, how much money does one production company want to make? They must make a fortune on the voting numbers alone.
beep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 10:35
mrphil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Poole, Dorset
Posts: 334
I have voted no, based on the quality of last years feeds, but if they were high quality broadband then yes I would be prepared to pay something.
mrphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 13:54
Mark H
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,965
What puzzles me about that vote is that more people have chosen £10 or under than £5 or under
Mark H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 14:23
Dinger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,768
money isnt an issue for me luckily

my old man is an engineer, we get all channels (excl adult) and ppv free, coz he is sky staff

Dinger
Dinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 17:33
electronicpie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 336
my old man is an engineer, we get all channels (excl adult) and ppv free, coz he is sky staff
You lucky bastard
electronicpie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 18:49
Evil Chris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London
Posts: 785
Originally posted by hutchio
What puzzles me about that vote is that more people have chosen £10 or under than £5 or under
This shows the maximum people are prepared to pay. Remember that the people who would go up to £10 would also go up to £5 by definition, so they would get more people interested at less than £5 than between £5 and £10.

Also its worth bearing in mind this isn't what people *want* to pay, but what they are *willing* to pay. A very important issue in economics.
Evil Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2002, 22:46
oblivious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 74
I voted no, but given a choice of alternative feeds to what was available elsewhere on an uncut, totally live (as in the time you see on their wall clock matching your own!) and unedited then I would be prepared to pay towards it.

Liv
oblivious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2002, 17:42
Mark H
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,965
I think they answer is pretty conclusive.
Mark H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2002, 17:30
Jim Blackler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 464
Yes, if this poll is typical there'd certainly be enough takers to make it commercially viable.
Jim Blackler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2002, 06:37
electronicpie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 336
I have voted no. But, if the feeds stay free, I'll be laughing at everyone with my super-duper hyper-speedy ADSL, so I can watch 24/7 in amazing quality. Hee hee hee...
electronicpie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2002, 06:51
trevordl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 23
I've been looking at the Australian Big Brother site, and am not quite sure, but it looks like you pay for access to the feeds and then also pay per minute type thing, if you read the t & c. would C4 offer a flat rate for viewing or also PPV, this would make an awful lot of money for C4
trevordl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 13:38
Coljj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,118
I paid for the US feeds last year. CBS sold the rights to Real Networks and let them deal out passes. I think it was $20 (£13) for the 3 months but then dropped to $10 just as it was about to start so that made it an easier decision. I remember people on IRC who refused to pay on principle would wait for passes that were hacked from the server which lasted a few hours each time. Even worse though was that the producer of the show viewed the web feeds as a threat to the tv show (3 x 45min shows a week) and so loads of stuff was censored. Everyone hated FOTH (Front Of The House) which they cut to far too many times for my liking accompanied by the title music. Streams also dropped from 220k down to 150k making it feel like the people who paid had been ripped off.

Compare that to US BB1the previous year which AOL handled. It had 5 seperate feeds streaming at 300k which was excellent quality. That including 1 feed which was a 4 in 1 that made switching thru feeds very easy (just highlight the window and click it). Oh and it was FREE.
Coljj is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01.