Page 2 of 2
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 09:44
by ALI
Am i the only one who thinks this is not benificial to our sport? Taking popular fighters of our TV screens and putting them onto a fcuking internet subscription service!!!!
Can someone explain to me how this can possibly benifit our sport?
Posted: 04 Feb 2007, 10:12
by stujones
No you are not the only one, the only way it would benefit the sport is if Sky/ITV/BBC whoever had stated in advance that they had no interest in the showing the fight.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 04:56
by ALI
Ant Evans, Mr 14 posts, your good enough to come on here and plug your websites new adventure. I hope your good enough to respond to my above post......... please enlighten me how taking popular tv fighters of our tv's and putting them onto an internet subscription service will benefit our sport???
I guess Seconds Out will be open to selling the rights for these fights onto Sky, ITV, and other tv stations worldwide, right? But at what price!!
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 11:02
by jamesmcdonnell
ALI wrote:Am i the only one who thinks this is not benificial to our sport? Taking popular fighters of our TV screens and putting them onto a fcuking internet subscription service!!!!
Can someone explain to me how this can possibly benifit our sport?
I think it's beneficial, more people have an internet connection than sky subscriptions after all. The TV channels simply are not picking up enough fights, it's impossible to follow the sport fully as is, without spending money buying in DVD's of fights, because they simply are not broadcast.
It's not like they've signed up every fighter in the world is it, it's people who wouldn't neccesarily be broadcast over here.
You're backward thinking, the internet has an enormous installed user base world-wide, and this, and other internet services will allow for users to see these fights, indepdendent of whether their local TV broadcasters have deigned to pay to pick up the fight. It benefits fighters who otherwise wouldn't get shown in the UK, and promoters too.
I think you're being negative for the sake of it, the internet is the future of broadcasting, simple as that, and in 10 years everyone who has broadband will have a PC box connected to their TV, or a broadband connection built into their TV to deliver content.
Sky and ITV are not delivering enough content to satisfy people who want to follow the sport, and so I am all in favour of this move myself.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 11:20
by stujones
James,
I do agree with your theory but have a couple of issues.
You use the word neccesarily, that is not the same as definately. As far as I can read it, Secondsout have WON the rights. Its not some kind of deal where Sky have said - we are not showing the fights so you can show that. It also doesn't sound like a bidding war - just secondsout negatated and (you know how last minute Sky can be) now if Sky DO come in interested the US broadcasters will just say done deal.
Also you say more people have Internet connection (I trust you mean UK people) than Sky? I would imagine you a correct, but is it the same for Broadband. You will need Broadband to access it probably. Yes you could go on about World wide population - but I aint interested in how well boxing is being recieved in Asia, Africa - I want it to thrive in the UK. Don't matter about the US population cause they have the opportunity to watch it on TV.
However, its not only Broadband connection you need, but also a subcription to Secondsout. I got the Sky solely for the boxing (as alot of people did) but with the Broadband connection and the annual sub to Secondsout it is working out about the same and this is only (thus far) for a few fights a year.
Yes, it all sounds very well about the technology advances in 10 years time. but thats in 10 years time, not the present. Now, surely its far more reliable, comfortable and just better to watch it on TV. Why don't Secondsout have a subcription TV channel, or a PPV channel on the Sky network. Then when technology advances, the transition will be easier.
It IS the future - but note the word FUTURE.
Gone will be many of the threads on here - Did you remember such and such an incident about a fight - cause with this, you get to see it once and that is it.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 11:53
by jamesmcdonnell
The Broadband user base in the uk is currently around 11 million, 18 million have digital tv services (that's all providers though, and how many of those actually have Sky Sports?).
What is without a doubt is that Sky won't give us EVERYTHING we want to view, there are always big fights they don't carry, they simply do not have enough money to buy in every single fight card in the world, nor enough slots either.
At least this way, Sky can bid for those they do want, and those they don't can be bought up elsewhere, because ITV ain't doing shit in terms of international action, unless it involves a SN boxer. With Harrison out of the picture, Calzaghe near retirement, and Khan a long way from genuine world honours, that doesn't bode well unless someone like Nicky Cook gets his shot soon, or M'baye gets a prime slot.
At some point, you have to start looking forward rather than back, because otherwise you find that everyone is on the bandwagon, and you're left in the bushes with piss running down your leg shouting 'wait for me.'
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1960096,00.html
http://www.ukaop.org.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/r ... ml?uid=859
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/cm/overview06/
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 13:09
by Twinkle Toes
Until we can stream via a set top box onto our tv's things like internet streaming are only going to appeal to the hardcore geek, or the hardcore fan.
From what I have seen we are getting closer and closer to an all in one set top box, in fact it's easy enough to stream to your tv now, but there is still a way to go for the masses to convert.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 13:13
by jamesmcdonnell
Yes, this is of course true, but if you want to get market share, you need to cater for the early adopters, not wait until it's mainstream, especially for someone like seconds out with no broadcasting pedigree. If they waited until the major players were doing it, they'd get blown out of the water.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 13:19
by stujones
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, this is of course true, but if you want to get market share, you need to cater for the early adopters, not wait until it's mainstream, especially for someone like seconds out with no broadcasting pedigree. If they waited until the major players were doing it, they'd get blown out of the water.
Yes, but why doesn't secondsout look into obtaining a PPV channel, or a subscription based regular channel and make some deal that the events are cheaper for those who just want it via the Internet. Sort of as Frank Maloney planned for the Earl vs Bennett PPV (the internet side fell through at the last minute). I think the main problem with the internet side of the Earl vs Bennett PPV (don't quote me though) was because the PPV was being aired on Setanta. However, if it was aired on Secondsout PPV TV Channel then it wouldn't have these "rights" issues.
Surely forking out for a TV channel isn't as costly as some are saying. Some channells out there now are very small time.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 13:24
by jamesmcdonnell
The production costs for broadcast TV are going to be MUCH higher. Also, I'm sure there is a lot of red tape involved with regard to the broadcasting regulations, and I bet there isn't the same amount of regulation over internet broadcasting, because the government hasn't caught up with how fast moving the technology is.
Interestingly, don't know if anyone can confirm this, but the .TV suffix, is actually the allocation of a country, just like .uk, and that the country involved makes a lot of money selling the rights for the use of the .TV suffix.
In fact, I'm right, TV is the suffix for Tuvalu.
Posted: 05 Feb 2007, 14:57
by stujones
I would imagine a high percentage of that 11 million is office computers - no good for 2 o clock boxing.
As I said, one of the major drawbacks of this (unless Ant or anyone can clarify) is the apparant lack to be able to view this in your own time. If you could get a Broadcast quality picture - bung it on a DVD (and providing this is as easy as working a VCR) and then get to watch it from your own comforts - then I would be interested.
Being a 2 o clock am plus show, no guarentee's that you will be able to stay up and watch even a Barrera vs Morales style fight - however with Sky, you can always set the video and tape it.
Posted: 03 Jul 2007, 19:34
by BigEars
'Also, Irish fans, SecondsOut is the ONLY place to see John Duddy's next fight. It is on Irish TV on a delay (and perhaps even just highlights, but don't quote me on that) but SecondsOut has it LIVE!
Actually that's not true:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2007/0529/duddyj1.html
As it says , everyone (except those in North America) will be able to watch Duddy's fight(and some of the fights leading up to it)
live and for free on RTE.ie .
Those of us lucky enough to have RTE 2 will be able to watch it on tv .
Now I don't know about the rest of you but I much prefer being able to watch fights on tv and have it so that I'm not the only one with a nice seat .
Can you imagine yourself going to a mates house to watch a fight on his pc ?
IMO internet sites should only be able to buy internet viewing rights , if you don't have a tv channel you shouldn't be able to buy exclusive viewing rights .
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 04:59
by boxingchatter
I bought the Klitschko v Brewster fight on Secondsout and it was ok for £3. SHit quality, though compared to sky and no real annoucing.
But imagine what a knob I felt when I called my mates up all proud that I'd seen it and they turned round to inform me they'd seen it for f-all on YouTube with HBO commentary!!!!
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 05:27
by thepocketrocket
boxingchatter wrote:I bought the Klitschko v Brewster fight on Secondsout and it was ok for £3. SHit quality, though compared to sky and no real annoucing.
But imagine what a knob I felt when I called my mates up all proud that I'd seen it and they turned round to inform me they'd seen it for f-all on YouTube with HBO commentary!!!!
I cant find it on YOUTUBE, can only find the first fight..got a link?
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 05:30
by boxingchatter
They get put you and taken down fast. The one I saw was up for a few hours, then taken down within two hours. But keep checking every so often and you will get it!
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 05:33
by thepocketrocket
boxingchatter wrote:They get put you and taken down fast. The one I saw was up for a few hours, then taken down within two hours. But keep checking every so often and you will get it!
Cheers mate, will do
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 05:57
by jamesmcdonnell
stujones wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, this is of course true, but if you want to get market share, you need to cater for the early adopters, not wait until it's mainstream, especially for someone like seconds out with no broadcasting pedigree. If they waited until the major players were doing it, they'd get blown out of the water.
Yes, but why doesn't secondsout look into obtaining a PPV channel, or a subscription based regular channel and make some deal that the events are cheaper for those who just want it via the Internet. Sort of as Frank Maloney planned for the Earl vs Bennett PPV (the internet side fell through at the last minute). I think the main problem with the internet side of the Earl vs Bennett PPV (don't quote me though) was because the PPV was being aired on Setanta. However, if it was aired on Secondsout PPV TV Channel then it wouldn't have these "rights" issues.
The cable distribution channels are probably a lot more expensive and hard to deal with.
I think it's still the case that you have to go through 'on demand' who are a global distribution agent. They take a cut of all of the major PPV's out there.
Surely forking out for a TV channel isn't as costly as some are saying. Some channells out there now are very small time.
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 06:45
by REAL_DEAL
i watch it live on RTL German tv, its a good idea from seconds out but i expect they are losing a lot of money.
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 06:52
by TerribleTerry
The price of £3 was right though and if I am in the next time one is on I will probably shell out for it - at least they arent charging big money for what is a technology still in its infancy..
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 11:02
by Max Molyneux
Why did Seconds Out pay for Exclusive rights though and not just normal rights to view It?
Posted: 09 Jul 2007, 20:38
by ArtOfWar
Internet streaming is s**t, so don't expect much if you get a subscription. You cavemen need to get with the times and start using torrents.
Posted: 10 Jul 2007, 00:36
by hitman_hatton1
ArtOfWar wrote:Internet streaming is s**t, so don't expect much if you get a subscription. You cavemen need to get with the times and start using torrents.
getting it for free.
naughty naughty.
"knock off nigel it's knock off nigel"
slag.
Posted: 10 Jul 2007, 01:48
by m1kee50
the thing is all this stuff WILL get better and better, as broadband starts moving up to 8meg for example.... they are doing the right thing by getting a foothold now IMO.... when advertising revenue kicks off for them they might not even have to charge.... between round adverts, banners on the site.... all these things bring in dosh and more users viewing more you can charge
Posted: 10 Jul 2007, 09:49
by jamesmcdonnell
ArtOfWar wrote:Internet streaming is s**t, so don't expect much if you get a subscription. You cavemen need to get with the times and start using torrents.
I really should, but haven't got round to sorting it out yet, Terrence was kind enough to give me some instructions.