Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 42,003
- Location
- Cornwall
Owen's such a dull commentator. No emotion to his voice and most of his comments so far have been about himself and who he played with.
BT Sport
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 167
- Location
- North West
I hope they put him back to the studio where i only have to tolerate him during half time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I appreciate the idea of trying to break Sky's monopoly, but ultimately this just means that consumers who want all the matches need to pay for two services rather than one
Rugby Union used to be split between Sky Sports and ESPN. I’ve already had Sky Sports (for the F1 & Cricket), and adding ESPN was £10pm.
Now all of the Rugby Union is going to be on BT Sports (rather than split between Sky & ESPN), but that’s going to be £15pm instead – a fiver more expensive than it used to be for me.
Can’t go and cancel Sky Sports, as that would lose me the Cricket and F1.
It's the same with the whole LoveFilm vs Netflix thing. Yes it's competition etc and the Competition Commission encourage it, but it just ends up with each of them having half of the movie studios signed up exclusively and the consumer then has to buy both products so double the cost.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,363
or switch your internet to BT, keep tv with SKY, and get it for free?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
Does Jake Humphrey ever go home?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 1,488
- Location
- Nottingham
Clare Balding is a national treasure.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,767
- Location
- Welling, London
Amazed. I thought McManaman and James would be a bit of a disaster, but they're actually better than Redknapp and Souness imo.
Yeah I don't mind them too much at the moment.
Until his viewing card details don't tally up with the address on their system? BT check that the address matches.
£12 a month for SD, £15 for HD. Phone BT directly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
Quite like BT sport so far, some interesting stuff on. Hope they stick it to Sky and take more matches next time the contracts are up for bidding.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
Get BT Infinity and its free 
which has all the bike racing She's awfully rude. Disappointed with Rebecca Adlington because she was only the 3rd best in the World, telling a jockey "Oh, aren't your teeth yellow" on television. Hardly classy.
Cannot stand her.
i set it up last night as im a BT customer, just watching a bit of DTM racing atm to check the quality which seems ok.
il mainly be using it to watch the UFC but im wondering what will happen with the PPV events... i presume they wont be free, will BT give us the option to pay to watch?
il mainly be using it to watch the UFC but im wondering what will happen with the PPV events... i presume they wont be free, will BT give us the option to pay to watch?
i watched it round my folks earlier and they had the emirates cup on; arsenal v galatasary. good angles and the mini cam was good too.
hargreaves and james were decent pundits but their discussion over the penalty felt a little forced and went round in circles.
hargreaves and james were decent pundits but their discussion over the penalty felt a little forced and went round in circles.
WILL THEY NEVER LEARN?
Dear BT Sport,
After the complete ****ing train crash that was Sky Sports' attempt at introducing the concept of putting the football score at the bottom of the screen during live broadcasts about five years ago - so appalling an idea that it was dropped about two weeks into the season - why do you feel it necessary to resurrect such an abhorrent catastrophe?
It's quite simple really. The default camera angle that is used the majority of the time, will have the pitch at the bottom of the screen most of the time. Most players, with the possible exception of a mid-90s Eric Cantona, will be spending their time on the pitch, not in the crowd on the far side of the ground, which under said camera angle will usually appear at the top of the screen, except for when the ball is close to the near touchline.
So when choosing where to put a permanent opaque box showing the score, why do you think it wise to place it at the bottom of the screen, where it is most likely to obscure vision of what is happening in the match? Most broadcasters put it at the top of the screen, because it is least likely to be intrusive there. A lot of the time, it will simply cover an assortment of spectators, perhaps offering some friendly advice to Ashley Cole on how he might like to spend his time by means of hand gesticulation.
I can only imagine it must be an attempt to 'innovate' - and don't get me wrong, I am not against innovation in sports broadcasting. The little 'mini screen' that pops up every now and then, showing the reaction from the bench or whatever, maybe that will work. But moving the scores from the top left to bottom left isn't innovation. It's changing something for the sake of it, a desperate plea to be seen to be innovating. Worse than that, it is bloody annoying to boot. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, 90mins ticked up and the "+2" indicator to show how many minutes of added time were due appeared not alongside the existing score and timer, oh no. It appeared above it. On a new line. Higher up. Encroaching even further onto the playing area.
Sort it out BT. It's been tried before, and people hated it. Not because it was new, because it was an absolute crock of ****e.
Thankyou.
Dear BT Sport,
After the complete ****ing train crash that was Sky Sports' attempt at introducing the concept of putting the football score at the bottom of the screen during live broadcasts about five years ago - so appalling an idea that it was dropped about two weeks into the season - why do you feel it necessary to resurrect such an abhorrent catastrophe?
It's quite simple really. The default camera angle that is used the majority of the time, will have the pitch at the bottom of the screen most of the time. Most players, with the possible exception of a mid-90s Eric Cantona, will be spending their time on the pitch, not in the crowd on the far side of the ground, which under said camera angle will usually appear at the top of the screen, except for when the ball is close to the near touchline.
So when choosing where to put a permanent opaque box showing the score, why do you think it wise to place it at the bottom of the screen, where it is most likely to obscure vision of what is happening in the match? Most broadcasters put it at the top of the screen, because it is least likely to be intrusive there. A lot of the time, it will simply cover an assortment of spectators, perhaps offering some friendly advice to Ashley Cole on how he might like to spend his time by means of hand gesticulation.
I can only imagine it must be an attempt to 'innovate' - and don't get me wrong, I am not against innovation in sports broadcasting. The little 'mini screen' that pops up every now and then, showing the reaction from the bench or whatever, maybe that will work. But moving the scores from the top left to bottom left isn't innovation. It's changing something for the sake of it, a desperate plea to be seen to be innovating. Worse than that, it is bloody annoying to boot. And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, 90mins ticked up and the "+2" indicator to show how many minutes of added time were due appeared not alongside the existing score and timer, oh no. It appeared above it. On a new line. Higher up. Encroaching even further onto the playing area.
Sort it out BT. It's been tried before, and people hated it. Not because it was new, because it was an absolute crock of ****e.
Thankyou.