Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No question that the coverage is awful but isnt it bad that Sky's only real competition for live footy is going to the wall?
Competition is a good thing - and I cant see ITV or BBC (or even Virgin directly) paying for live coverage
yes and no, I don't half wonder if Sky monopolise exactly how much bandwidth they get(itv also) and make running a hd channel simply too expensive just to make them inferior.
Personally, I find the pre-match, post match stuff dire on all channels, Andy Gray constantly gets things wrong, as do they all, bias, irritating and just crap commentry by all. The only issue I have with Setanta is picture quality, but for those who watch streams, its plainly obvious to see in other markets Sky don't run Setanta have HD channels going.
I think Sky just make running a HD channel through them to prohibitavely expensive, and frankly, if Setanta are filming in HD then they can clearly sort out a high quality standard def signal, think of BBC's standard def, it looks amazing. But the higher quality uses more bandwidth, and again Sky get to dictate how much bandwidth people can use. Seems to me that sky are forcing competition out in an anti competitive way just so they have the monopoly. Which is bad for all of us at the end of the day

As others said, the boxing coverage, and getting decent matches without making it PPV is fantastic. Sky manage to put almost every big matchup on PPV and almost every last one has been an utter rip off and not remotely worth the money.
Considering Setanta can afford the HD costs involved in other markets, and the broadcasters there obviously still make money off their hd channels, theres something amiss with the situation here.

D). Their coverage is awful and I'm yet to see a full flawless game on the channel.