Golf on TV (paying for it)

[evemccc]

I get more enjoyment from 30 mins of watching Dan & Paul Hendriksen, James Ruth and Joe the Pro on DHG YouTube channel > any random pro Tour TV golf event

Seemingly very decent men, and very decent golfers, having light-hearted fun and ribbing with no hammed-up ladz-bantz, on courses I’ve either played or have a chance of playing

And the Masters and The Open YouTube channel do a very good job with anything else I would like to watch

 

[IanM]

I get more enjoyment from 30 mins of watching Dan & Paul Hendriksen, James Ruth and Joe the Pro on DHG YouTube channel > any random pro Tour TV golf event

Seemingly very decent men, and very decent golfers, having light-hearted fun and ribbing with no hammed-up ladz-bantz, on courses I’ve either played or have a chance of playing

And the Masters and The Open YouTube channel do a very good job with anything else I would like to watch

You nippers and your fancy new fangled ways!

So, Sunday week while the Masters is coming down the stretch, you'll be watching Dan's Vlog from Llanwern Golf Club? I'll message you with the outcome?

 

[road2ruin]

Few guys I golf with have been talking about them seem great but think you need really good internet?

It’s a common misconception with IPTV that you need fast internet, you don’t, you need stable internet. The thing that screws up streams more than anything else is changes in speed. You can have quick internet but if it has changes in speed it can screw with the quality of the stream. If you have 10mb broadband but at a constant speed then that’s easily good enough.

The other thing to bear in mind is that you need to be happy to maintain it, there is always an element of housekeeping to do and possibly investing in a decent VPN depending on what you’re trying to watch. For some this results in a pretty frustrating experience.

Anyway, that’s from what I have heard anyway…….

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yeah but there isn’t enough public support to produce wall to wall golf coverage every week for free. It’s a niche market and so the only way it can be produced is by charging the people who want it.

Nothing is for free in this case. It never has been and was never going to be. We only get what we pay for.
I just imagine that if we could have organised things in a much better way, we could have been able to see all the things that we see now, such as and including all the golf coverage, without paying as much as we do now for what appears to me to be an expensive uncoordinated wasteful mess.
We can't go back in time and change it and there is no magic cure right now. We are stuck with what we allowed to happen.
I firmly believe that it did not have to be this way and that it really could have been so much better for everyone.

(Oh, and I do have much more than a first clue about how much it all costs. And right now it costs the consumer way much more than it should.)

 

[Mel Smooth]

I get more enjoyment from 30 mins of watching Dan & Paul Hendriksen, James Ruth and Joe the Pro on DHG YouTube channel > any random pro Tour TV golf event

Seemingly very decent men, and very decent golfers, having light-hearted fun and ribbing with no hammed-up ladz-bantz, on courses I’ve either played or have a chance of playing

And the Masters and The Open YouTube channel do a very good job with anything else I would like to watch

I wonder how much golf content is watched now on You Tube, in comparison to traditional televised golf. The youth wouldn't watch anything from any tour on TV, unless he happened to walk into the room while I was watching it, but it doesn't hold his attention. He does however watch quite a lot of content from Good Good - who obviously appeal to his demographic, and a bit of Rick Shiels. We have Sky Sports Golf, but I rarely tune in, I find the flexibility of watching a little You Tube much more convenient. Often bang a vlog from Gary Martin or James Robinson on while I'm having my lunch, or watch Golfmates or DHG in the early evening when I've got in from work.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Nothing is for free in this case. It never has been and was never going to be. We only get what we pay for.
I just imagine that if we could have organised things in a much better way, we could have been able to see all the things that we see now, such as and including all the golf coverage, without paying as much as we do now for what appears to me to be an expensive uncoordinated wasteful mess.
We can't go back in time and change it and there is no magic cure right now. We are stuck with what we allowed to happen.
I firmly believe that it did not have to be this way and that it really could have been so much better for everyone.

(Oh, and I do have much more than a first clue about how much it all costs. And right now it costs the consumer way much more than it should.)

when it comes to golf you are only able to watch you can now because of Sky

You can only watch all 4 majors , all the US events , all the LPGA events , all the ET events , challenge tour , even sunshine and Asian tour because of sky

You can watch live golf every single week bar Xmas because of Sky

Before Sky you were able to watch

4 days of the Open , Masters and Ryder Cup , the Saturday and Sunday of a handful of other events - that’s it’s

BBC and other terrestrial channels did not have the scope and never can have the scope in terms of bandwidth , cost and channel space to broadcast anywhere near the same level of Golf as a subscription service can. It’s impossible to do - the media spectrum evolved

As for it “costing” too much - how much should all that golf coverage cost the consumer beyond £50 a month , £600 a year to watch all the sport you want

This weekend alone there is live

Football - Prem , FL , WSL and Scottish, Australian , Spanish , Italian
F1 - practise , qualifying and live races
Rugby -matches from both league and union top divisions
Golf - pga , lpga and woman’s amateur at Augusta
Cricket
The list goes on

And you have a choice - you can take the full package or split it up

Value for money will always be subjective

But it’s plain false that a terrestrial service could get anywhere near the same level of programming that subscription does

There are over 20 dedicated sports channels
how could a terrestrial service get anywhere near that with the budget they have ensure they also cater for all the other non sport viewers

So yes I don’t think you do understand the overall cost to a broadcaster to broadcast all the sports it does

 

[sunshine]

Children have always had short attention spans. YouTube is ideal for this. 20 years ago it was CBeebies and when I was a kid there was always the slot 3pm-6pm on BBC1, ending with Neighbours before the six o’clock news. I’d expect your son to have a short attention span, my kids do.

It’s different for adults, we mature and learn to appreciate nuances and details so it’s fine to watch the slower paced live coverage.

Obviously as adults we have more time constraints, but the content is typically different and not “child like”

 

[Voyager EMH]

when it comes to golf you are only able to watch you can now because of Sky

You can only watch all 4 majors , all the US events , all the LPGA events , all the ET events , challenge tour , even sunshine and Asian tour because of sky

You can watch live golf every single week bar Xmas because of Sky

Before Sky you were able to watch

4 days of the Open , Masters and Ryder Cup , the Saturday and Sunday of a handful of other events - that’s it’s

BBC and other terrestrial channels did not have the scope and never can have the scope in terms of bandwidth , cost and channel space to broadcast anywhere near the same level of Golf as a subscription service can. It’s impossible to do - the media spectrum evolved

As for it “costing” too much - how much should all that golf coverage cost the consumer beyond £50 a month , £600 a year to watch all the sport you want

This weekend alone there is live

Football - Prem , FL , WSL and Scottish, Australian , Spanish , Italian
F1 - practise , qualifying and live races
Rugby -matches from both league and union top divisions
Golf - pga , lpga and woman’s amateur at Augusta
Cricket
The list goes on

And you have a choice - you can take the full package or split it up

Value for money will always be subjective

But it’s plain false that a terrestrial service could get anywhere near the same level of programming that subscription does

There are over 20 dedicated sports channels
how could a terrestrial service get anywhere near that with the budget they have ensure they also cater for all the other non sport viewers

So yes I don’t think you do understand the overall cost to a broadcaster to broadcast all the sports it does

I don't really understand why you are comparing Sky with terrestrial telly. You might as well compare it with radio coverage or newspaper reports.
Technology to broadcast that sky uses is not all patent protected.
Any company can be set up to use such technology.
It is the fact that we allowed such companies to make huge amounts of money and charge us hundreds of pounds a year, dominate and dictate what we are allowed to watch at at a price that they decide - I don't think that was an inevitable and desirable outcome. We could have taken more care and scrutiny as that happened and imposed conditions and controls in the consumer's interest.
Money had to be put in to create what we have - our money.
Money perpetuates it - our money.
We could have created a much better service for ourselves.
We allowed and created a service that charges a heck of a lot to broadcast things that are taking place that you can point cameras at.
We get what we pay for - but we have paid more than we really needed to and we continue to do so.
I have no magic immediate cure - we are stuck with what we've got.
It could have been better, if we had gone about it in a different way.
It was opened up for those companies with money to make more money.
They made and make the money - we pay the money - that's what we get.
My imaginings are pointless.
Imagining a worse outcome than we currently have, and then saying what we have is better than that, is also pointless.
We have paid the money - but my opinion is that we have overpaid - and it did not have to be that way.

 

[sunshine]

I don't really understand why you are comparing Sky with terrestrial telly. You might as well compare it with radio coverage or newspaper reports.
Technology to broadcast that sky uses is not all patent protected.
Any company can be set up to use such technology.
It is the fact that we allowed such companies to make huge amounts of money and charge us hundreds of pounds a year, dominate and dictate what we are allowed to watch at at a price that they decide - I don't think that was an inevitable and desirable outcome. We could have taken more care and scrutiny as that happened and imposed conditions and controls in the consumer's interest.
Money had to be put in to create what we have - our money.
Money perpetuates it - our money.
We could have created a much better service for ourselves.
We allowed and created a service that charges a heck of a lot to broadcast things that are taking place that you can point cameras at.
We get what we pay for - but we have paid more than we really needed to and we continue to do so.
I have no magic immediate cure - we are stuck with what we've got.
It could have been better, if we had gone about it in a different way.
It was opened up for those companies with money to make more money.
They made and make the money - we pay the money - that's what we get.
My imaginings are pointless.
Imagining a worse outcome than we currently have, and then saying what we have is better than that, is also pointless.
We have paid the money - but my opinion is that we have overpaid - and it did not have to be that way.

I don’t really understand where you’re going with your argument.

Phil has set out clearly what sky has added. They saw a gap, recognised there was demand for it and charged people accordingly. It’s a free market so if a competitor believes sky is overpriced they are welcome to undercut them. It’s what is happening in football with BT Sport, Amazon etc entering the market.

I sense maybe you are looking at old coverage with rose tinted spectacles. Before sky, golf was available on the BBC included in the licence fee, but it was a crap product. The investment required to deliver what we have today is significant.

 

[Voyager EMH]

[QUOTE="sunshine, post: 2617235, member: 25514"]I don’t really understand where you’re going with your argument.

Phil has set out clearly what sky has added. They saw a gap, recognised there was demand for it and charged people accordingly. It’s a free market so if a competitor believes sky is overpriced they are welcome to undercut them. It’s what is happening in football with BT Sport, Amazon etc entering the market.

I sense maybe you are looking at old coverage with rose tinted spectacles. Before sky, golf was available on the BBC included in the licence fee, but it was a crap product. The investment required to deliver what we have today is significant.[/QUOTE]

I know exactly where I'm going with what I've been saying - NO WHERE.
But I don't call it an argument - I call it imagining something much better.
Its only a free market if we allow it to be so - not always the best option.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

[QUOTE="sunshine, post: 2617235, member: 25514"]I don’t really understand where you’re going with your argument.

Phil has set out clearly what sky has added. They saw a gap, recognised there was demand for it and charged people accordingly. It’s a free market so if a competitor believes sky is overpriced they are welcome to undercut them. It’s what is happening in football with BT Sport, Amazon etc entering the market.

I sense maybe you are looking at old coverage with rose tinted spectacles. Before sky, golf was available on the BBC included in the licence fee, but it was a crap product. The investment required to deliver what we have today is significant.

I know exactly where I'm going with what I've been saying - NO WHERE.
But I don't call it an argument - I call it imagining something much better.
Its only a free market if we allow it to be so - not always the best option.[/QUOTE]

Can you explain how it can be better and how it’s achieved

 

[Dando]

It’s a common misconception with IPTV that you need fast internet, you don’t, you need stable internet. The thing that screws up streams more than anything else is changes in speed. You can have quick internet but if it has changes in speed it can screw with the quality of the stream. If you have 10mb broadband but at a constant speed then that’s easily good enough.

The other thing to bear in mind is that you need to be happy to maintain it, there is always an element of housekeeping to do and possibly investing in a decent VPN depending on what you’re trying to watch. For some this results in a pretty frustrating experience.

Anyway, that’s from what I have heard anyway…….

I totally agree, as my friend told me

 

[Deleted member 31467]

The reason Ronaldo was getting a squillion bucks a week at Utd was because of the cost of Sky sports. No thanks.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

You must be a bundle of laughs at parties.

Depends who is at the party and if there are a load of tight old hits there stealing my beer.

 

[GB72]

I think any argument about golf on terrestrial TV is a moot point. They just do not want it. There was a story going round only a few weeks ago that the BBC were basically offered a highlights package for free and still turned it down. There has also been plenty of opportunity for one of the commercial stations to step in but, again, no interest. Same with no end of sports. Offer them football and they are in like a shot, most other things, not so much.

With some sports, golf included, you have to ask whether it would have any live coverage without Sky or BT. Like them or loathe them, a lot of sport is still on TV because of them.

 

[sunshine]

I know exactly where I'm going with what I've been saying - NO WHERE.
But I don't call it an argument - I call it imagining something much better.

What are you imagining?

 

[Voyager EMH]

I know exactly where I'm going with what I've been saying - NO WHERE.
But I don't call it an argument - I call it imagining something much better.
Its only a free market if we allow it to be so - not always the best option.

Can you explain how it can be better and how it’s achieved[/QUOTE]
No.

I think if things had gone differently from 1995 onwards we could have arrived at something better than what we have now in terms of service to the customer and for a cheaper price.
I think I've said it about three times already, so here's a fourth - I have no magic immediate solution.

I don't think what we have now was how it had to be. I don't think it is the best value for money that it could ever have been.
Telly for our entertainment seems a very uncoordinated expensive wasteful mess to me.
People here keep prompting me to respond, but all I can do is repeat myself.
I don't think the telly service we have is a good service in terms of value for money.
But it came about the way it did and now we are stuck with it.

 

[Voyager EMH]

What are you imagining?

Something better, but cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I have conversations like this at work all the time.

A person. This thing/process is rubbish.
Me. Oh, why is it rubbish.
AP. It’s just rubbish, I could do it/something else/design a new process better myself.
Me. Oh that’s great. Can you tell me how/what you would do differently.
AP. Errr, no.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Something better, but cheaper.

Now I know you’re on a wind up