Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

19899101103104

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,950 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    you re living in cloud cuckoo land, shutting down paddy does nothing in the grand scheme, everyone knows server numbers are increasing, and at a significant level, they just move onto another server, and thats that, very few, will move back to legal services, they just wont, ive heard nothing about people losing access to iptv in waterford, nobody at all, clearly some have, but everyone knows, just move on to another one….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,150 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Paddy in Waterford is just a example, I don't know if there is a Paddy selling loaded Firesticks in Waterford or whether he has been shut down or not.

    I'm not suggesting that the legal providers are making any in roads in their fight against illegal streaming.

    But if you shut down Paddy then his customers are shut down and they have to go somewhere else for their service.

    This is frustrating for the end user, and the more you frustrate the end user the more likely they are to go to a legal service.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,602 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭FazyLucker


    Oh the delusion to think that somebody who loses Paddy in Waterford will sign up to Now TV instead…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,950 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    its not really that frustrating to end users, when users know servers are dime a dozen, and all it requires is a quick phone call, and back online they are, they might lose connection for a couple of days, but thats it, people are simply not willing to pay the fees of legal providers, its done, people are not going back, theres plenty of paddies in waterford, they are known, people dont have to go far to contact them…



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,150 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The only way Sky and the Premier league get ahead of this is by selling Team packages.

    And the only way that happens is if you break up the premier League as it has existed for 30+ years.

    The whole idea was that 20 would share the revenue rather than 92.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,505 ✭✭✭Nigzcurran


    Lads if you type iptv into Google you'll get loads of ads for them and usually a free trial. Dosnt matter if your seller goes tits up

    Time is contagious, everyone is getting old.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 628 ✭✭✭Apothic_Red


    I pay my guy an extra tenner a year to access a Plex server. Basically every box set & movie on a separate server. Family use it more than the IPTV.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,602 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,297 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    If the big clubs were clever on this and looked at the bigger picture they'd still revenue share across all teams regardless of sub numbers.

    I believe (might be wrong here) that NFL teams share their TV rights, their jersey slaves and their gate receipts across all teams. So the smaller teams don't get left behind. For such a capitalist country, their professional leagues are quite socialist and equalising...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    Socialising is a stretch.....the very wealthiest of wealthy Americans own NFL teams and make vast sums of money from doing so, while holding cities to ransom under threat of moving "their" franchise elsewhere unless they taxpayer builds them a fancy new stadium. The only reason they have the share element, and I don't know to what extent it actually applies, is to ensure everyone makes more money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,297 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Well obviously it's a stretch. But between themselves they try to remain equal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,693 ✭✭✭dubrov


    I think the word "Cartel" is more accurate when referring to American sport



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Murt2024


    They tried to shut down a certain "pirate" in a certain "bay" and never have been able to. IPTV is going no-where.



  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 7,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭pleasant Co.


    They'll have to, otherwise agnes the dinner lady is gonna get the sack....or whatever other ridiculously nonsensical argument that poster has put forth since this thread began



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,150 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Absolutely.

    If the broadcasters the next time the rights deal comes around say to the EPL we are not paying what you are looking for because we are losing so much to illegal IPTV then the clubs will end up with less revenue.

    And if they have less revenue they will cut costs, and it won't be at the top end with players, it will be at the bottom end with Agnes the dinner lady.

    We are already seeing this the way Man Utd are cutting costs.

    I'm a very happy customer of an illegal IPTV service, but unlike others here I'm not so deluded as to think that I am sticking it to the big corporates like Sky etc, I'm just part of a process that could eventually make English soccer clubs poorer.

    Illegal music streaming reduced the value an artist got in royalties for their songs, because the legal solution that followed it ended up paying them a pittance for each play/stream/download.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Butson


    This happened in Portsmouth when they got into trouble.

    Players refused to take even a short term pay cut, so Mary in the canteen etc all did lose their jobs.

    The Premier League in its current guise is vulgarity in the extreme.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,297 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    This bit amazes me. Manchester United let a load of staff go and cut costs everywhere. If all of the players gave up half of one week's pay then that would have been a bigger saving. Madness.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Butson


    To the players, this is just business. They couldn't care less about the clubs they play for.

    Kiss the badge and the idiots lapping it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭FazyLucker


    Well the reality will quickly occur that you can only cut so many Agneses before you need to look higher up the chain.

    It would do football no harm to have a financial reality check across the board.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,380 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The staff count at United doubled in 10 years, it was an absolute bloated mess with double and treble jobbing and in some instances absolutely no need for the position.

    The players are not going to give up anything unless it is in their contract, the club have to honour the contracts.

    Also players particular youth players who come through the ranks are not immune from getting fired either.

    Anyway, the mess United find themselves has feck all to do with IPTV and all to do with years of mismanagement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,950 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ah i disagree there, player wages is definitely an element of why iptv has exploded, its a mess



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,380 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    United have one of the lowest wage to turnover ratios in the league.

    Paying wages isn't United's problem, paying wages to the like of Mason Mount and Luke Shaw who are made of stale pringles is the problem.

    Bruno on 300k a week plus bonuses is worth every penny.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,950 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    none of the players in the league should be paid what theyre being paid, its making a right mess of the financial functioning of the league, clubs try survive on a knife edge, and broadcasters just keep pushing up sub prices in order to maintain the whole thing, its directly involved in the causation of iptv



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Manc-Red_


    There’s always been hacking of subscription tv channels on satellite & cable since the dawn of the Premier League and now with IPTV servers - it just continues on.

    The game of cat n mouse won’t stop happening even if the miracle of players wages been reduced.

    Sly have a tiered system which means you must have a basic pack to then go for sport - which is the core of the issue, pure greed. If I or any fan just want FTA channels and sport, then they should be able to do so.

    Basically, the providers worldwide have had this coming & like Netflix or Amazon, you should be able to pay for a months subscription to the Premier League without the need of purchasing channels you won’t or never will watch.

    My personal issue is I can’t watch every game live here in Ireland but in USA, South Africa, Australia & New Zealand for example - you can. - That’s wrong.

    IPTV then through “illegal” means becomes more of a draw and will keep on attracting people that have been short-changed by UK & Ireland providers of Sport.

    Will they introduce a PL app down the line or suffer the consequences of what IPTV is doing and growing even bigger?

    I doubt it, & for that reason you can’t blame people for purchasing a server & a “bogey box”.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Better Born Lucky Than Rich.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,380 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    That disproportionately effects the "smaller" clubs or the ones who lose the absolute run of themselves.

    It is one of the reasons PSR was introduced.

    I don't think footballers wages would make much of dent in subscription prices. I think sky will actually be paying less now for more content in the new deal.

    Sky are trying to compete with the streamers so they are shoving an absolute wedge into original programming, which of course is very hit and miss.

    The main driver of IPTV apart from ease, quality, availability and price, is competition.

    I'm sure what broadcasters pay for content plays it's part too, but I think it would be naïve and just dishonest to suggest that if they dropped their prices, hoards of IPTV users would come flooding back for subscriptions.

    Anyway, United's sights are firmly on cutting recurring costs, and increasing commercial and matchday revenue. I can see it from both sides to be honest.

    A tilt at broadcasting revenue will come, but this will be focused on overseas rights.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭FazyLucker


    Honestly, I don't think I'd pay Sky €5 a month for their channels.

    I want to see 3pm Saturday kick offs. I don't want to be tied to what they think I should want to see. I want to see the games I want to see when I want to see them.

    Player wages are absolutely correlated to TV revenue and if that suffers in the next TV deal then eventually players wages adjust to affordability and PSR rules force their hand even more.

    The genie is out of the bottle and it ain't going back in no matter how much people think it will. If anything, it will get more sophisticated and harder to manage.

    Sorry Rupert et al but the good times are over and the pool of mugs willing to pay €50 a month is dwindling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,150 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Typical illinformed post for this thread

    Sky don't stop you from watching the 3pm kick offs, the English football authorities do.

    Sky don't stop you from watching the games you want to see, the EPL do.

    And Rupert Murdoc has not owned Sky for at least 7 years now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭FazyLucker


    Ill informed? The only thing ill informed is your delusion that people are going to abandon their dodgy boxes etc and go back to Now TV etc - the ship has sailed and isn't coming back no matter how much you yell at it.

    To be honest, nobody stops me from watching the 3pm kick offs. But once upon a time they did.

    You obviously don't understand the meaning of et al…

    The good times are over for these companies. This is the reality, ill informed me backside.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,509 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Its impossible for anyone to stop iptv. its actually getting better of anything. I have 3 lines and 3 firesticks. Rarely if ever misses a beat. Vod is excellent.

    All for 120 euro per year. Whats not to like



Advertisement