Bspa Warning About Live Streaming

[Steve0 5,517]

If Sky hadn't been ripping people off for years with ludicrously high prices BT wouldn't have entered the market. Why should Sky have a monopoly?

 

There is life beyond paying over far too much of your hard-earned cash to Sky you know.

 

Yes there is - now we have to Pay it all to both sky and BT Edited April 14, 2016 by Steve0

[RobMcCaffery 2,752]

Yes there is - now we have to Pay it all to both sky and BT

You're missing the point. Look at the wider picture. As ever it's a little more complex than how it affects you.

 

Sky now charge more for their services than they did when they had a monopoly. People are blaming BT for making them pay more overall when it's Sky, as ever, who are the real problem. They abused their monopoly position for years and still continue to overcharge to pay for their suicidal football deal.

 

But the mugs still pay and bleat about another business naturally trying to undercut. Why not ditch the Sky leech to solve your problem?

Edited April 14, 2016 by rmc

[A ORLOV 8,628]

You're missing the point. Look at the wider picture. As ever it's a little more complex than how it affects you.

 

Sky now charge more for their services than they did when they had a monopoly. People are blaming BT for making them pay more overall when it's Sky, as ever, who are the real problem. They abused their monopoly position for years and still continue to overcharge to pay for their suicidal football deal.

 

But the mugs still pay and bleat about another business naturally trying to undercut. Why not ditch the Sky leech to solve your problem?

This is what people can not see. If hundreds of thousands cancelled sky they would either reduce their charges or pack up in the uk.

 

People have power, do not complain, USE IT.

[Steve0 5,517]

You're missing the point. Look at the wider picture. As ever it's a little more complex than how it affects you.

 

Sky now charge more for their services than they did when they had a monopoly. People are blaming BT for making them pay more overall when it's Sky, as ever, who are the real problem. They abused their monopoly position for years and still continue to overcharge to pay for their suicidal football deal.

 

But the mugs still pay and bleat about another business naturally trying to undercut. Why not ditch the Sky leech to solve your problem?

 

I am not missing the point thanks very much - its just I don't agree with it! I am happy to pay Sky for the great service they provide. Yes I would like things to be cheaper but its not.

 

Now that we have competition (another huge company in BT), I find that I am having to pay for Sky (for league matches) and if I want SWC and SGP, I now need to subscribe to BT therefore it is not good!

[Aces51 2,778]

If you're out of contact with your broadband provider or, going to be soon, try what I did.

 

I spoke to Sky told them I was going to cancel the sports, they did me a deal. I changed my broadband to BT, got fibre instead of adsl and BT Sport on my TV and tablet all for a total of £30 a month less than I was previously paying for Sky, phone and broadband. It's a 12 month deal with BT but I'm sure other deals will be about when it expires.

[Skidder1 7,637]

Bring back Screensport, I say!!! Clive Fisher's a mate!! :-)

[BWitcher 12,453]

Noone has to pay to watch any meeting easy to find on the net gone are the days I pay sky £70 robbing buggers

 

No, you are the robbing bugger.

[rusky 113]

Bring back Screensport, I say!!! Clive Fisher's a mate!! :-)

I wouldn't be shouting about that......Only kidding Clive.. :wink:

[SCB 0]

You're missing the point. Look at the wider picture. As ever it's a little more complex than how it affects you.

 

Sky now charge more for their services than they did when they had a monopoly. People are blaming BT for making them pay more overall when it's Sky, as ever, who are the real problem. They abused their monopoly position for years and still continue to overcharge to pay for their suicidal football deal.

 

But the mugs still pay and bleat about another business naturally trying to undercut. Why not ditch the Sky leech to solve your problem?

I think you're missing the point. When all speedway was on Sky Sports you paid for Sky Sports. Now you have to pay for Sky Sports, BT Sport and Eurosport. You're better off with a monopoly than multiple providers whos combined cost is more than the original monopoly provider.

 

Speedway being spread across 3 channels means it costs people more to watch.

[AlanF 295]

On the other hand, having three providers interested in televising the sport should in theory create an opportunity to increase the value of the rights and bring more money into the sport.

[Steve Shovlar 10,439]

Bt and Sky are paying billions for the football. Why on earth didnt they meet up for a pint in a back street pub and say you have that, we have this and we wont bid more than a few million quid a season between us.

 

Result? Footballers on 200,000 a week can go elsewhere, the premier league will survive and in an ideal world subscriptions would reduce.(yer right)

Edited April 14, 2016 by Steve Shovlar

[HertsRacer 222]

Bt and Sky are paying billions for the football. Why on earth didnt they meet up for a pint in a back street pub and say you have that, we have this and we wont bid more than a few million quid a season between us.

 

Result? Footballers on 200,000 a week can go elsewhere, the premier league will survive and in an ideal world subscriptions would reduce.(yer right)

Steve, BT were never a threat to Sky winning the main football contract, they were only interested in gaining more of the smaller packages of games on offer. Sky were spooked by rumours that Fox or one of the major Middle East companies wanted the main contract, so bid way over the odds. In the end neither of the others bid, so Sky were lumbered. The only way they could pay for it was to jncrease prices to the customer and drastically cut back on costs by dropping a lot of other sports.

[arnieg 3,644]

Bt and Sky are paying billions for the football. Why on earth didnt they meet up for a pint in a back street pub and say you have that, we have this and we wont bid more than a few million quid a season between us.

Perhaps because that would be against competition law. Not that that would necessarily stop SKY, but they are in no doubt that there is considerable scrutiny from politicians and other parts of the media so it would be prudent to at least appear to be 'playing by the rules'.

[robert72 845]

I noticed at leicester they had even put a notice up on the burger van saying about streaming so it's not just in the programme and a mega long speech before the meeting you get it in your face when by a burger.

 

Not sure what the big fuss is about really as I don't always watch speedway on sky, so i wouldn't be bothered on periscope.

 

Be interested to know if this periscope warning is taken as seriously at all clubs as it is at Leicester

[A ORLOV 8,628]

I noticed at leicester they had even put a notice up on the burger van saying about streaming so it's not just in the programme and a mega long speech before the meeting you get it in your face when by a burger.

 

Not sure what the big fuss is about really as I don't always watch speedway on sky, so i wouldn't be bothered on periscope.

 

Be interested to know if this periscope warning is taken as seriously at all clubs as it is at Leicester

What a complete waste of time as signs inside the stadium and notes in the prog have no authority what so ever, unless there is a sign at the point of payment and entry.

Edited April 15, 2016 by A ORLOV