Sky extends deal

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, I know what it's like to have a limited download and want to watch the latest programmes. It'd do my head in. I used to just pop round my pop's so it was OK. Can't you get unlimited?

Yep, one of the reasons why I have to pluck up my courage to do the rationialisation.

South Africa's coverage of sport is amazing. How many channels does Supersport have? Eight?? Awesome. I became addicted to the highlights channel.

Invader Zim wrote:There is a few broadband companies now offering 'fetch' tv, but as they don't have any decent sport they barely rate a mention.

Aye, it's essentially quite a good concept, but if it's only pumping out a bag of wank then there's no point.

taipan wrote:Yep, one of the reasons why I have to pluck up my courage to do the rationialisation.

Oh right, yeah, the sooner the better then. It got to a point where I was going over my limit and getting f'd in the a... I just thought enough was enough.

Henry wrote:South Africa's coverage of sport is amazing. How many channels does Supersport have? Eight?? Awesome. I became addicted to the highlights channel.

Varies, normally around 8. Get every EPL game live. Sometimes 4 running at the same time. And most worldwide cricket

Brass Monkey wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:There is a few broadband companies now offering 'fetch' tv, but as they don't have any decent sport they barely rate a mention.

Aye, it's essentially quite a good concept, but if it's only pumping out a bag of wank then there's no point.

taipan wrote:Yep, one of the reasons why I have to pluck up my courage to do the rationialisation.

Oh right, yeah, the sooner the better then. It got to a point where I was going over my limit and getting f'd in the a... I just thought enough was enough.

One of the ISP cuts it off. The other lets it overrun.

Mine used to give me a message, that I never saw. ASAP I'd say man, ASAP.

Used to send emails, but do kids care about emails? Like feck they do.

Brass Monkey wrote:What? Your sport coverage costs 60 cents per month?

around $3-4 dollars for the entire TV package through cable, so sports must be about that much. maybe up to a dollar for sports if you get it through satellite

that usually gives you star cricket, neo cricket, ten cricket, star sports, espn, ten sports, ten action plus, neo sports, dd sports, sony max. you can also get all of them in HD

The One wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:What? Your sport coverage costs 60 cents per month?

around $3-4 dollars for the entire TV package through cable, so sports must be about that much. maybe up to a dollar for sports if you get it through satellite

that usually gives you star cricket, neo cricket, ten cricket, star sports, espn, ten sports, ten action plus, neo sports, dd sports, sony max. you can also get all of them in HD

Fuh king hell! Still, when I see what those Aussies are paying I don't feel too bad.

Henry wrote:

beamer wrote:The houses with dishes won't have the sports channels in most cases... still, I guess the dodgy web streams described as the biggest threat to the game could actually have benefits in that people who can't afford it can still get access to it!

If they're prepared to fork out the money for the dish but not the sport channels, chances are they're not interested in sport. Still, considering the popularity, it would be hoped that young football fans around the Country would have access to the sports channels and stumble across the cricket in the Summer.

If the parents aren't into it or are only very casual sport followers then it will bypass the next generation. That's always been the issue. If it isn't visible to "new" audiences it will just decline.

beamer wrote:All home England cricket until 2017 it seems. Not faulting the quality of their coverage, but another 5 years during which cricket will be cut off to new followers from non-subscribing households. There will be a breaking point in terms of public profile that the sport won't recover from, probably when England have a sustained spell of poor results. Could they not put a couple of games a year elsewhere?

No big surprise is it - what with the BBC's sports rights budget cut by 15% I reckon that there's a decent chance that by the end of the decade there won't be any live sport on the BBC.

No wonder the world's ending in a couple of months.

beamer wrote:If the parents aren't into it or are only very casual sport followers then it will bypass the next generation. That's always been the issue. If it isn't visible to "new" audiences it will just decline.

This is so true. How many people have become cricket fans because they were exposed to it on television. You can't become a fan of something you aren't exposed to.

I wonder if the ECB could strike a deal where Sky gets exclusive rights but a terrestrial channel can show the final session of each day's play.

Sky might take a bit of a hit, but serious cricket fans who have a subscription at the moment will still want to watch a full day's play. Meanwhile casual fans would still get some exposure to the game.

Even if the amount of money from such a deal was a little bit less it would definitely be better for the game as a whole.

I would say most are fans because of TV.

TV stations only care about the money.