BBC world cup web coverage = crap quality.

Jimbo · 18 Jun 2006 at 20:28

JohnnyG said:
Not really, @£10 a month is nowt for what you get

Your kidding right?

Gilly · 18 Jun 2006 at 20:30

JohnnyG said:
Not really, @£10 a month is nowt for what you get

Agreed

JohnnyG · 18 Jun 2006 at 20:32

Jimbo said:
Your kidding right?

Nope, it's not really a small fortune is it?
Aren't Sky charging an extra £10 a month just to upgrade to HD?

Red and White · 18 Jun 2006 at 20:33

JohnnyG said:
Nope, it's not really a small fortune is it?
Aren't Sky charging an extra £10 a month just to upgrade to HD?

sky is a complete rip off these days. i remember when it was £30 a month and that was expensive. now to get all the services like HD and Sky + its just totally ridiculous

Jimbo · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:52

Cracking match by the way.

*FLASH* · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:21

JohnnyG said:
Not really, @£10 a month is nowt for what you get

they could at least throw in some topless darts for 10 a month

Ex-RoNiN · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:53

Jimbo said:
Why is the quality of the bbc world cup online so bad? i mean its so blocky and pixelated, whats the point?

I have it on the highest quality setting too.. 340kbs and it still looks parp.

Be happy that there is a webstream!

HangTime · 18 Jun 2006 at 23:38

ballistic said:
hm trying to cater for everyone? so why not have the option of a very high quality? everyone with the bad connections can choose the worst quality. In fact they do have a higher quality options, but it's still not good enough.

I think the point is that they simply can't afford to have higher quality streams available, because that would mean less viewers being able to watch. Even a 1gbit connection can only service ~3000 viewers at 340kbit, so any higher than than and they would have to reduce the maximum number of connections even further. And that's assuming that they have sufficiently fast servers to handle that number of clients in the first place.

ballistic · 19 Jun 2006 at 02:28

HangTime said:
I think the point is that they simply can't afford to have higher quality streams available, because that would mean less viewers being able to watch. Even a 1gbit connection can only service ~3000 viewers at 340kbit, so any higher than than and they would have to reduce the maximum number of connections even further. And that's assuming that they have sufficiently fast servers to handle that number of clients in the first place.

well hopefully by the next world cup the technology should be in place or at least cheap enough for them to stream it in much higher bandwidth.