Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

hold my beer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950948#Comment_123950948

Im not interested in shaming anyone, I'm more just saying why I personally pay Sky. Their service is excellent, and at the end of the day people have to be paid for their work. Both providers, and the ultimate entertainers.

Benedict XVI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950914#Comment_123950914

The post I was replying to was part of a conversation about what would happen if Sky's prices were cheaper, and that they need to reduce their prices if they even want to counter illegal IPTV.

And the answer is that NOW is that cheaper Sky Sports.

It's not the answer to getting 3pm games or all your teams games, that's in the control of the English football authorities, not Sky or TNT or anyone else.

But if people want Sky Sports and TNT and Premier Sports for cheaper than over satellite, without using an illegal service, what another poster called "the middle ground" then NOW is your answer.

You don't even need to be a Sky TV subscriber to use it.

Benedict XVI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950476#Comment_123950476

Can you elaborate on that a bit please?

What do you think would happen in a world without Sky ?

I'll tell you what won't happen, access to EPL football will not suddenly become cheaper.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950970#Comment_123950970

its the gulling nature of the whole process that users have had enough of, yes employees and providers do indeed need to be paid, but do some entities seriously need to be paid millions from the process?

NIMAN

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950925#Comment_123950925

Football will always exist, such a daft statement. Sky didnt invent it.

Unfortunately Football joined in with the service providers and decided to fleece the end user. And by doing this they allowed the funds to pay guys 400k per week. If Sky service collapses, the worst that happens is that players and teams get less money. They have to cut their cloth accordingly.

I am a big Football fan, been one all my life. I used to attend many but matches abroad and subscribe to Sky. Then as the prices of both continued to rise, I took the decision not to continue paying. I would love to go to big games now, but I have been priced out of the ticket market as its gone crazy compared to 19, 15, 20 years ago. The greed in the world of football, and probably other sports as well, is off the charts.

I have no qualms using iptv. The Football seems to keep on coming, the tv deals are as big as they ever were and Football is going nowhere. Will I lose any sleep if in 10yrs time Sky have to pay less for rights, and the top star players have to accept 100k per week instead of 400k? No i won't. But they will continue to play the game. Its only getting more popular, and they will always have a way to get money out of the fans.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950948#Comment_123950948

The piracy angle is always talked up. A few press releases to journalists allows the journalists to act like they have a clue about piracy and they get invited on to radio and TV (probably paid an appearance fee) to give people the benefit of their "expertise". The problem is that they don't understand the technology or the economics of piracy. The intention of the programme providers is to keep piracy at an acceptable and low level. The press releases to journalists are part of that.

As long as people subscribe, the programme providers make money if they cover the costs of the programming and operations. If you track the articles in the Irish media, they preceed a major seasonal marketing campaign. As for the claims and "surveys" about the number of devices, I would be deeply cynical about such numbers because the devices have legitimate uses. These are not dedicated devices like pirate smartcards which only ever had one use. If the same programming is available from different providers and the user can subscribe to both, the user will often go for the cheapest provider.

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950925#Comment_123950925

You do realise football was a thing long before ppv?

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123950948#Comment_123950948

Which is why the argument that if Sky was cheap there would be no pirates is nonsense. The pirates want another dozen services illegally along with Sky.

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951061#Comment_123951061

There would be a whole lot less though, people are lazy, they're happy with the status quo until you push them to discomfort, that's when they will seek out alternatives - simples, my current sub is €88 per month (no sport - just movies and kids pack), most of the dodgy subs would be a lot less than that for the year!

€1,000 for a service we hardly use anymore seems crazy and I'm tempted to cut it out altogether, we do use Netflix and Prime, the kids have no interest in TV anymore, it's TicTk or Youtube for pretty much everything, but I'm lazy (at the moment).

TheDriver

I subscribe via an Asian website that a good few here also do, it's like an eBay so I've no transaction to a seller in Europe. VPN on the whole time. And I don't believe anyone is ever going to knock on my door.

The whole thing is comical regarding scripted articles.

I recall contacting sky last year about getting a better broadband price and threatening to leave, the guilt tripping was comical.

jj880

The hyperbole here is daft.

1. "Everyone wants everything for free". Not true.

2. "Without Sky there's no football". Not true.

3. "Now TV is the middle ground already". Not true. It doesn't include all games for a prem team and the faff with discount codes / adverts, extra for UHD etc. etc. doesn't interest a lot of people.

Piracy and legitimate services will always co-exist. This seems to be a tough one for posters here to swallow pushing an "all or nothing" scenario. Its not going to happen.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951155#Comment_123951155

The idea that said website is going to cough up transaction records to the nGyardai is also quite hilarious.

Nigzcurran

I pay €16 a month for a third of a share of a now subscription. It's great it gives me a load of uhd sport but technically I'm still breaking the law by sharing. I also play €5 a month for IPTV. It's amazing it gives me literally hundreds of channels of absolutely everything I could ever want including everything off Netflix, prime and Disney. I'd be happy paying about €30 a month to get a decent quality legit subscription that covered everything but that's never going to happen so I carry on with this hybrid version of legit/dodgy stuff that a vast majority of people also do.

Hellrazer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951216#Comment_123951216

Im the same as yourself - Cancelled Sky 2 weeks ago and they havent stopped calling me.

I use RTE Player/Virgin media for the free live stuff.

Dodgy box for some stuff and call me old but I still torrent stuff that I cant find on the dodgy box - I dont watch sports so that doesnt bother me.

Id gladly pay 30 a month to get a legit subscription that covered everything - not going to happen though - so Ill stick with my torrenting!!!

Benedict XVI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951041#Comment_123951041

A few press releases to journalists allows the journalists to act like they have a clue about piracy and they get invited on to radio and TV (probably paid an appearance fee) to give people the benefit of their "expertise". The problem is that they don't understand the technology or the economics of piracy.

I'd argue that the likes of Weckler know as much about illegal streaming and about broadcasting rights and the broadcast business as anyone else around here, probably even more.

I'd say in a one on one discussion they'd lose and find some of the IPTV evangelist here.

But they can't talk about it much on national media because they can't be seen in any way to be condoning piracy and also the target audience, the general public is largely ignorant of the nuance of it.

Benedict XVI

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951054#Comment_123951054

A lot of the people who complain about Sky are the same who sit down and watch their team (Liverpool, Utd etc) multiple times a week.

They don't remember or where not alive during the pre 1992 football on TV days.

That is to say, football for them is football on TV multiple times a week

bladespin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951483#Comment_123951483

Football was the same then, it was on TV, it was on several times a week too (absolutely hated it), possibly not as much as now but there were multiple games on.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951602#Comment_123951602

and some games were even fta!

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951475#Comment_123951475

You may argue that. You would be wrong. Broadcast rights are a complex issue even for those who have experience in the business. They have been a topic of discussion for decades. It took years before there was an EEC/EU wide legal framework to protect services.By that time, all the major European Pay-TV services had had major compromises with pirate devices and smartcards being sold in shops, via mail order and online. The legislation protecting broadcasting rights was not sufficient to deal with the problem of piracy on its own.

The technology journalists in the Irish media are not specialists. Conditional Access and Pay-TV are also very specialised topics. One is highly technical and journalists typically have no expertise or background in the subject. Pay-TV is a far more nebulous subject in that it involves business, economics, legislation and the impact of piracy. Again, it has its own specialist media. When it comes to Conditional Access, Let's just say that I have a very particular set of skills.

The mistakes that led to the rise of IPTV for delivery of such services and its replacement of card and key sharing were known decades ago in the CA and Pay-TV industries. Irish technology journalists would not have been aware of them as most were not even journalists when they were made. Even though I do not use a dodgybox, the evolution of piracy is an fascinating subject. Your faith in the expertise of these Irish technology journalists is rather touching. But they are not specialists and write for the non-specialist press.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123951602#Comment_123951602

ITV and BBC in the UK used to show soccer FTA. It wasn't until the early 1990s when Sky made a play for soccer that things changed. Sky and British Satellite Broadcasting had engaged in a bidding war for movies prior to that and it resulted in the fees rocketing. The problem for Sky was that the same movies were available on other services like FilmNet. Those services used insecure scrambling systems which were widely pirated. BSB was the RTE of satellite TV. There was no bailout only an ignominious takeover. It lost the war with Sky and Sky took over BSB. The BSB decoders, though technologically superior to Sky's decoders, where decomissioned and the BSB satellites were sold off. Soccer got Sky out of a very tricky position.