[christara]

Nice interesting read and a little gob smacked at the results of a survey at the end of the post?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40483486

The link above is to the BBC sports pages and Kodi gets a mention, Not in a bad way but more about what the software is designed to do and what people are really using it for. (Whether knowingly or not.)
Really does look like the public need educating and also needs more of a universal copyright/infringement putting in place by all governments concerned. (Regardless of different countries laws, Whether its EU/USA or where ever, Just get something thats distinct for all countries and a universal law..)
Cut out the grey areas, Lets get it black & white, I belief thats the area that needs concentrating on.
Anyway rant over enjoy the link/read.

[BFeely]

So how do we get in touch with their Correction department to let them know about the misleading terms being used in their article?

[christara]

I presume at the bottom of the page like many sites.
It will also take you to another page for the compliant procedure? Bit long winded but you,ll get there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/contact#sport

Just found it a good read.
I also guess surveys done on a small amount of people (1000) and a mixed audience will always have mixed results.
I belief if they conducted it with an larger audience then results would differ. Either way it all comes down to educating the masses.

[el_Paraguayo]

There's a related story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p057nmz5

Fascinating how the guy tries to justifies watching illegal streams.

Also good to see that the Premier League recognises the issue is with the "pre-loaded boxes" rather than blaming Kodi.

[User 182116]

Where did the radio interviewer get the idea that people are paying £50-£60 a month to watch football?

It's £27.50 a month, so rather puts a dent in his integrity.

He is also incredibly naive to say that if more people paid then the price would come down.

Premier League football does to a certain extent create the problem for themselves because it has become so greedy that it will have priced some people out of the game and so some will resort to alternative methods to enjoy their national sport.

Sure, just as there will always be some that will always want something for free, no matter how cheap it may be, my sympathy for them is rather on the low side.

If it wasn't for Match of the Day on BBC I would not bother with the game any more as it's become so money driven that when the average wage for a player is £2.4m a year, the value of the skills actually on show are not worth a fraction of that.

Greed promotes it's own form of greed.

The alternative argument is that it is a choice for people to pay or not and that is absolutely true but then that's if the world worked on such principles then it would not be the rather screwed up planet that it has become.

[trogggy]

Where did the radio interviewer get the idea that people are paying £50-£60 a month to watch football?

It's £27.50 a month, so rather puts a dent in his integrity.

Sky sports channels are £27.50, but that assumes you're also paying £22.50 for their standard channels. So £50.
Add up the cheapest way (excluding special deals) to get sky sports and bt sports via sky and you're into £72 per month.
Want it all in HD? That'll be £98.50 please.
All that's obviously without negotiation / special offers.
Edit: Sky's football may be all on SS1 so potentially a bit cheaper? Not sure these days. And people with BT internet may be able to get it a lot cheaper - but that option's not open to everyone.

So maybe he asked them?

[User 182116]

Where did the radio interviewer get the idea that people are paying £50-£60 a month to watch football?

It's £27.50 a month, so rather puts a dent in his integrity.

Sky sports channels are £27.50, but that assumes you're also paying £22.50 for their standard channels. So £50.
Add up the cheapest way (excluding special deals) to get sky sports and bt sports via sky and you're into £72 per month.
Want it all in HD? That'll be £98.50 please.
All that's obviously without negotiation / special offers.
Edit: Sky's football may be all on SS1 so potentially a bit cheaper? Not sure these days. And people with BT internet may be able to get it a lot cheaper - but that option's not open to everyone.

So maybe he asked them?

But the sport element is not £50 or more.

The other elements of cost are not directly associated with other services and is therefore not a true representation of the cost of watching football.

[trogggy]

But the sport element is not £50 or more.

The other elements of cost are not directly associated with other services and is therefore not a true representation of the cost of watching football.

Perhaps they're confusing the amount they have to pay every month with what it's costing them...? It's an easy mistake to make.

Maybe Sky should charge £100 a montrh for a basic package and another fiver for 5 sports channels, one carrying football - then they could explain that the real cost of watching football is a pound a month?

[christara]

Where did the radio interviewer get the idea that people are paying £50-£60 a month to watch football?

It's £27.50 a month, so rather puts a dent in his integrity.

Sky sports channels are £27.50, but that assumes you're also paying £22.50 for their standard channels. So £50.
Add up the cheapest way (excluding special deals) to get sky sports and bt sports via sky and you're into £72 per month.
Want it all in HD? That'll be £98.50 please.
All that's obviously without negotiation / special offers.
Edit: Sky's football may be all on SS1 so potentially a bit cheaper? Not sure these days. And people with BT internet may be able to get it a lot cheaper - but that option's not open to everyone.

So maybe he asked them?

But the sport element is not £50 or more.

The other elements of cost are not directly associated with other services and is therefore not a true representation of the cost of watching football.

Well to be honest it is.
As a new customer I couldn,t phone sky and just take sports. I would need the basic package and the the little addons what sky provide one of which is sports. At what ever price.
Its how they have been doing it for a long time.
So the most basic subscription £22 + (Sports package is) £27.50 = £50 Its just not been broken down in the interview but basically saying to watch football is £50, Nice round figure.
Definitely not a misrepresentation. As you will need to pay £50 per month to watch footy.

And before too long they are going to get a revamp of the channels? Putting them into categories rather than channels numbers.
So if you like just football it will £18 per month, (Football package) But you need to already be on a basic package to get that price. Also for example other sport packages you may like will be X amount of money on top of that.
Kinda getting more expensive. So the more types of different sport you like you,ll probably need more an more packages on top your basic subscription.
Looks like another rip off by sky been doing to make it sound cheap but rob you blind. Thats the way its always been.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=price+...&tbs=qdr:m



Add sports. SKY SHOP

[speedwell68]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

[christara]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

Too right mate and I can understand why some turn to piracy (In whatever format) even tho they know its wrong, Its more than likely they just can not afford it or why keep lining the pockets of company's like Sky TV?
Its an expensive hobby to watch sport.

[Dumyat]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

I've always firmly believed that there will surely come a time in the coming years with ever increasing subscription costs that even the most Die Hard of sports and football fans will eventually stop paying such high costs and just go without. But I'm sure the likes of Sky, Virgin and BT probably already have some kind of cunning plan in place for that eventuality.

Thankfully, none of my household are not big sports fans so not really relevant.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with Kodi

[jjd-uk]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

The big problem is the bundling since the Sports channels are not available on their own with no other package, I have absolutely no interest in any of the Sky entertainment channels and yet I'm forced to pay for the basic package of entertainment channels that I won't ever use in order to get the Sports channels.

If the Sports channels were available independently with no other package for say £30, there would be much greater uptake IMHO.

[christara]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

I've always firmly believed that there will surely come a time in the coming years with ever increasing subscription costs that even the most Die Hard of sports and football fans will eventually stop paying such high costs and just go without. But I'm sure the likes of Sky, Virgin and BT probably already have some kind of cunning plan in place for that eventuality.

Thankfully, none of my household are big sports fans so really relevant.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with Kodi

Am like you with them views too. Eventually it will get to a loggerhead when people would get priced out? (Especially poorer people?)
I liked the read of my original post and got an understanding of the pirates point of view from it. (Impartial point of view of course?) Or more to say why they are priced out and turn to dodgy boxes and illegal side of it. (Watching thru whatever format possible.)

Now am just going to jump off topic a little but hopefully you,ll get my side of what am saying.
On average there is in the USA 600 films per year that come out. If you want to add that to your library at £10 a pop for a dvd it costs £6000
Now you wont want them all because some will be B movies or just utter rubbish but without viewing them or doing some homework to find out which you want then it could become very expensive.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+ma...e&ie=UTF-8
Now this is where it becomes relevant to the sports link.

Jump to the TV shows you also want to watch, That is another expense on top of the films.
So we jump back to the original post of sport (Football) at £50 per month. £600 per year.
Am now up to £6600 per year. Lets get my TV licence into this. £147.00 per year.
So £6747.00 per year. Could probably reduce that since like I say I wouldn,t want all the 600 movies that come out of the USA per year but as you can see it can get expensive on what you view on your TV whether its football/films/ TV shows or whatever.
The original post talked of kodi being used wrongly. But I got an understanding why. It didn,t get bad press but what it told me is how much it really cost.
The ones to blame is the big company's.
They could cut it down a lot more which in hope gets the poorer people onside to subscribe because they can now afford it.
It could in the long term by reducing prices now make it more affordable to the average person it would take away the vulnerable people who have to turn to piracy in one form or another just to be able to watch?
Hope I have got my opinion across in that little rant.

[speedwell68]

What I draw from this is that Sports subscriptions are too expensive. I watch F1 on my Mum's Sky Go package, which is not strictly legal. But there is no way I can justify the expense. If the sports industry wants to stop piracy they need to look at the whole picture. When a Footballer gets a record pay deal it is the fans that ultimately pay for it. They aren't worth £1,000,000 a week, no one is.

The big problem is the bundling since the Sports channels are not available on their own with no other package, I have absolutely no interest in any of the Sky entertainment channels and yet I'm forced to pay for the basic package of entertainment channels that I won't ever use in order to get the Sports channels.

If the Sports channels were available independently with no other package for say £30, there would be much greater uptake IMHO.

I ditched Sky a couple of years ago when my box failed and they wanted me to pay for a replacement. It had come to the point that we were watching more and more on demand and very little was Sky content, it just wasn't worth it. The only thing that I really watched was the F1. If I could pay for just the F1 I would be more than happy to do so.