Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

I'd say the football has always been Skys number 1 cost, for decades now.

Sky were the only show in town for decades, now they are competing with netflix, prime, Disney, YouTube etc for screen viewers. Advertising revenue is falling, the newer generations want content on demand,no ads.

They continue to pedal the same product for the same price, the only changes are they bloat it more.

Don't they still charge for HD? Who the hell has an SD TV in 2025

They are losing 100s millions £ a year.

I think it's a host, 3 people on a penel with him, and another guy in front a screen doing analysis. This part of the broadcast could easily be done in London. Sending them to the 4 corners of the world for 24 gps over a year is an awful waste.

You just need the couple of commentators, and one or two reporters at the race, plus crew.

Someone mentioned RTE vs the ridiculous money ITV and the BBC spend on putting themselves in front of the Brandenburg gate etc. That's even more ridiculous than Sky F1. At least Sky are actually at the event. The BBC especially, who are funded by the tax payer, might as well be in the studio in London instead of wasting money in prime locations in other countries. Because either way, they're not actually at the stadium. If there's a game on in Berlin, and the studio is in front of the Brandenburg Gate, they might as well be in Timbuktu, because they're not at the game either way. I'm surprised this is never a bigger story over there when it comes to major tournaments.

Simon Jordan on Talksport spoke about this a few months ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g6HcZm7otU

In case people read this to mean that Cronin has something to do with the Commission, she hasn't. She is from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. We'll see how the legal eagles from Sky and the Commisson get on. I would see it no different than dealers who sell TV's being legally obliged to pass their customer details to TV Licencing. That was certainly the law in the past, maybe GDPR has outlawed it? If it is still the law, then making Dodgy Box sellers supply similar data seems reasonable.

Dodgy boxes shouldn't be illegal to sell or own. They're essentially mini PCs that usually run on Android and can be operated via a remote control, oftentimes. In principal, nothing about that should give anyone cause to suspect (in the legalistic sense, ie plausible deniability and so on) that anything illegal is being provided or purchased.

And do shops actually sell these boxes with IPTV software or subscriptions, anyway? Anyone I know who's purchased one to watch SKY or whatever, purchased them off 'a guy' who I'm pretty sure hasn't registered their little business, much less feel obligated to forward customer data to relevant authorities.

what people do with Linux or windows on servers or desktops is no one’s concern either. It’s trying to lock them down would be the same. Android or firesticks boxes are nothing illegal or ever will be. What The consumer does is up to them.

ban them you’d have to lock dock everyone like windows/linux or other proprietary software. Will never ever happen. You’ll just get a cheap Linux box

I don't like paying what is most likely a bill compromised of 90% premier league costs when I don't give a sh*te about the sport and don't watch it.

Having a million different streaming services doesn't do the movie/TV show industry any favour either - was a time when netflix had nearly everything and it was just the one bill.

Good luck getting your lad who hasn't even registered the business to supply customer info.

For Amazon fire device users:

Yeah I saw you mentioned it yesterday but thought Id post a video to show exactly where it is.

I know it's not the TA thread, but anyone hate those wide mouthed expressions on about 90% of YouTube videos?

Tis annoying but he seems to have a good channel for keeping fire devices running well and watching out for Amazons updates. Should be useful in the near future with Vega OS incoming.

no one would expect to rock up at Anfield and suggest they get in for nothing because Salah is paid too much.But on here some seem to think theres nothing wrong watching content for free that others paid for. I remember years ago a cable company decided to stop supplying a town in the dublin suburbs because so many were running the signal into their own homes to avoid paying.If the avoidance of payment is very widespread might we see Sky withdrawing altogether,especially if they don't get their own way on data access.

I don't recall a cable company withdrawing from a town in the past but I do remember Sky removing their channels from a cable service (maybe cablelink?).

Are you asking if Sky could withdraw from Ireland completely because of IPTV? I don't see that happening, IPTV suppliers would still be running without problems so it would just push more people here to illegal streaming.

Edit, I think a fairer comparison than your salah one is if you're a golf fan and you buy a ticket to the ryder cup but are asked to pay for a formula one race and a ticket for anfield at the same time. Sky force you to pay for F1 and golf even if you just want to watch football.

I would see it no different than dealers who sell TV's being legally obliged to pass their customer details to TV Licencing. That was certainly the law in the past, maybe GDPR has outlawed it? If it is still the law, then making Dodgy Box sellers supply similar data seems reasonable.

Whaa?? So you're saying

1. shops that sell TVs know who their customers are
2. and pass on these customer details to TV licencing???
3. and this is the law!!

Surely this is utter shiite?