Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Web Team - Celia Sutton

Match commentary

Recommended Posts

The point by Brum ( most football club websites are Premium TV controlled ) is understood. However, those football clubs, if they have ears tuned to their fans at all, are all aware of the quality problems that have been encountered. If those football clubs truly care about their fans they would collectively lobby their resources in the direction of Premium TV to effectively deal with the quality problems once and for all and then, and only then, apply pressure to local newspapers ( and their websites ) to refrain from publicising free websites to cover the match. To do it the other way around shows not just disdain from Premium TV but also local football clubs, including Norwich City. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIC - I don''t think it is an issue of not paying licence fees, for example, World Service is focused on people outside UK. I think it is that the intellectual property rights for radio and Internet broadcasting are sold and owned separately. I don''t think you can listen to Radio Norfolk over the Internet in the UK. Not sure about 5 live but I think the same applies.

Glad Canaries World works well for you. My experience is if you log in from a standard place it works OK but if you try from different locations it seems to get confused!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Mad - you can listen to Radio Norfolk on the internet in the UK (haven''t tested abroad yet - will check next month!) at any time except the football.

I was reading a column on the BBC News Online Editor who was talking about worldwide access of it''s services with the UK license fee payers having to bear the costs for John Doe in the US etc... It really isn''t too much of a difficult thing to set up, but websites are able to block people from viewing their content just by filtering the IP address (each country has a range of IP addresses which the website will identify and then allow access if it falls within a particular range). This already happens with the BBC News video player, so why not make it happen with all the local radio streams as well?!?! The way around that of course is to use a proxy server (my uni one has been helpful on occasion )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brum - my apologies I was not very clear on my previous post. When I was referring to Radio Norfolk, I was actually referring to the match commentary on Radio Norfolk. The situation is the same outside the UK as within, i.e. you can listen to the match build-up etc. but the commentary is blocked. My point is that they block it for all Internet users (and not just those outside the UK) because they do not own the intellectual property rights to distribute it over the Internet. Frankly (and selfishly), it would be easier if they blocked it for non-UK users only because I am sure it would be possible to fool the system into thinking I was  in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got to agree with...errr well, every poster really.

Nice way to alienate all exciled City fans around the globe.

1) The BBC needs to pull its finger out and make local radio streams available to all licence payers.
2) Norwich City Football Club needs to remember who pays the bills, the wages and everything else.
3) If this is anything to do with that fat Australian owner of Sky, then I''m not suprised and he should be shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Got to agree with...errr well, every poster really. Nice way to alienate all exciled City fans around the globe. 1) The BBC needs to pull its finger out and make local radio streams available to all...[/quote]

I totally agree about license payers having the ability to listen to any BBC stream in the UK. We pay for it (well the majority of us), but it would just never happen because the BBC know that it can be beaten by proxy servers.

Fair enough that people abroad should pay to listen to the commentary, but what about the exiles in the rest of the UK?!?!

The good thing about Canaries World IMO is being able to watch the news and clips of the goals which I won''t be able to see in Italy. If anybody who subscribes is being ripped off, it is the ones who just pay for the Match Live bit - if that is £20, then how come the video bits only cost an additional £15? I made that mistake 2 seasons ago when it was often difficult to access the stream. Surely the production of the video clips etc is far more expensive than rerouting an audio stream from the BBC.

In answer to your 3rd question...Murdoch has nothing to do with it thank God....PTV appears to be run by a bunch of former NTL execs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that anything to do with the Canaries world could be described as expensive. Chucking up a few video clips doesn''t take much time or technical knowhow (it would be nice if the quality was good enough to actually tell what has gone on without watching 50 times too!). As for the TV News, hmm, QVC has significantly higher production values. I mean, that bloke stood in front of a wall with his mate''s camcorder pointing at him as he fluffs his way through some badly written lines isn''t exactly pricey. I have had no problems with the commentary though and the text update feature is nice.

How can the BBC not own the rights to their own broadcasts!? However they are transmitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPat - I agree it is bizarre that the BBC do not own the rights to broadcast their own commentary via the Internet but they don''t. What I am not clear on is if they get something from Premium to allow them to broadcast their commentary over the Internet. As I mentioned earlier, I can''t imagine Sky agreeing to such an arrangement?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing to do with NCFC, totally out of their hands.

First off, no radio is ''free''. Its paid for by the TV licensing money. If you have no TV it becomes effectively free, us TV owners effectively subsidising you.

The Football League control the selling of all broadcasting rights (over whatever medium) not the clubs. The BBC have not paid for the rights to broadcast games over the internet, so stop the commentaries over the internet (or they would get sued). They do have the rights to broadcast locally over the radio though. Lucky locals.

Premium TV have brought the rights to broadcast games over the internet, and buy the content from the BBC to save their costs. PTV are also the Football League''s Internet Service Provider, and 76 league clubs pay PTV to look after their websites too (including NCFC). PTV have paid money to enable them to provide us with a service enabling us to hear live commentary over the internet, and sell it to us as Canaries World. Their contract for this is with the Football League NOT NCFC!!! If you think the quality is too poor or costs too much, complain to PTV don''t whinge about the club!!

I don''t know if NCFC can opt out of the standard broadcasting deals with the Football League, but if they can you can bet your life that it would cost NCFC a fortune. The most cost effective method for the club is negotiating their rights with the rest of the football league. Bigger clubs, with substantial foreign support (think Man U/Chelsea etc) might find this costs in, NCFC won''t.

As to the quality, I find it pretty good. However, the internet delivered to a home address just isn''t set up to deliver measurable Quality of Service yet. Its mainly out of PTV''s hands once it leaves them (but I agree that their part of the service has been poor at times!). Remember that the feed to your home is just copper wires designed years ago to deliver phone calls -  advanced internet services such as live ''streamed'' commentary can be easily disrupted by (for example) your neighbour starting a massive film download. BT are in the process of upgrading their infrastructure, but it will take years.

I don''t think the service is so poor or expensive that I won''t pay for it.

I don''t know why NCFC are ''policing'' the Pinkun board, but you should remember that if you listen to the service without paying, you are effectively stealing. Perhaps the League is leaning on clubs to lean on message boards to stop publishing illegal links, as the clubs will have more sway with the message boards especially if its a local newspaper run board.

I hope that all makes sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are right in all you say, Putney, but it doesn''t get over the fact that I/we are shafted purely because of living away from my home location. I can listen to the local radio station at any time prior to 5mins before kick-off/c20 mins after. 

I actually live closer to Fulham/Chelsea than anyone else, but Norwich is where I was born and raised so I support them.  It would be so easy for me to go with friends (who have season tickets) and watch the currently most successful side in the country, but I choose not to - even though it takes c6hrs to get to/from home games, costs £40 on petrol and £300-odd on my season ticket...so don''t really feel I should be asked to pay more just to listen to local bbc radio! [Jeez reading this back meakes me realise just how mad I must seem to others, my wife included!!!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putney - although much of what you say might be technically right, I find myself strongly disagreeing with almost everything you say! Radio in the UK is essentially free to the users, paid either by advertising or the TV licence fee which I guess all of us pay in one way or another. I think there used to be a radio licence but this was abolished with the rise in TV ownership.

I am glad your experience of Canaries World is positive. Regretably mine is not. It''s not really about telephone line quality (I have managed to listen to it in remote parts of China for example) but there are often glitches in the program so that it is possible to get Radio Norfolk (where the broadcast is blocked) but not Canaries World. My real beef is that there is almost no support offered. You suggest complaining to Premium TV, but having done this I would say it is a waste of time.

I still subscribe to Canaries World and listen to it when it works (for example, at home I find the quality better than BBC Norfolk on the radio) but if it is not working I would have no qualms going to an ''illegal'' link, if I can find one.

I think your statement that this is ''stealing'' is a bit lame - although I know this is what the film and music industry try to argue. Imagine a baker giving away loaves of bread free. Someone else puts them in a plastic box and sells them to me for a fiver but I can''t get the lid off. Someone else, who gets the bread free from the baker, puts it in a plastic box and gives to me for free. I open it - according to you this is stealing because of some obscure law which only allows one person to put bread in a plastic box. It''s just daft!

I understand the argument that companies have to protect their intellectual property because if they did not they would not invest in developing new products and delivering existing ones but what exactly are Premium producing here. It is the BBC''s commentary after all. I can see them claiming ownwerhip of that but they are not actually copyrighting the product but the medium of transmission. It''s like saying you can give me a book but if you send it to me by post, you are breaking the law!

As far as I know I have not whinged about the Club. But I would defend those who have. Essentially, this debate started because the club asked the Pink Un not to publish the link. If you are right that it is nothing to do with the club, why do they get involved in policing this? They should just butt out and leave it Premium and the Football League?

If Premium want to charge directly for the product, I think they have to provide something worth buying including back-up services. Given that this is the Internet we are talking about, I think they should be more imaginative, provide the service for free but make their money in other ways, like Google and Skype do, either through advertising or charging for spin-off services. Incidentally, a recent survey found that Google was the most trusted brand globally. I don''t think they would have got there if they had charged us for their service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post No Mad!
Putney a couple of things - read some of my previous posts on this thread as it gives the amount needed for get out clauses. Your bad quality phone cables for internet is hardly a reason - all copper wires in the UK can carry up to about 24Mbps and the most modern ones can carry up to c.60Mbps. We don''t have that because the government and the phone companies decide to hold most of this bandwidth back - we are currently lagging way behind in the xDSL market...look at the Japanese who have connections of up to 60Mbps!
I''ve been on cable connection for the last 2 years and had all the problems, even though they can carry more information....it is entirely the occasionally poor service that PTV provides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Mad - I was trying to put across the technical aspects of the situation, not my personal feelings. You agree I am technically right but disagree with what I am saying - I''m not sure how to respond! 

I''m not trying to argue the legal side - this is black and white, whether we like it or not. The film and music industry don''t just try and argue the legality, they successfully take people to court and sue them.

I think a lot of this comes down to expectations. For Skype, the quality is worse using them for a phone call compared to say BT, but as it is so much cheaper we put up with the quality. For PTV people''s expectations are different, they perceive radio to be free and the quality is high, and if they are expected to pay for a service they perceive should be free, they expect top quality service. This just isn''t economic to provide today. Although I agree there probably is much more PTV could do (remembering to turn the damn service on at 3pm would help!) I expect their margins are tight and improved quality of service would up the price. People seem to think this is a simple service to provide - it isn''t - and whilst I have no desire to defend PTV ( I started out defending NCFC board!) I have worked in this part of the IT industry for long enough to understand the difficulties and commercial realities. This must have lowered my expectations, for better or for worse.

From my experience, it works enough for me to hear most of the game and it costs the same as a ringtone a month - good enough for me. If that isn''t good enough for you, you have the choice not to pay! I just wanted to point out that this isn''t NCFC''s fault, its a contract centrally negotiated by the Football League.

Brum Uni Canary - you are right and wrong... Whilst you can get get 60Mb over the copper, it is also hugely dependant upon how far from the exchange you are, and how many other people are using the bandwidth. You can''t guarantee any bandwidth to a home over copper, BT will not guarantee a connection speed as they just can''t control it. Similar things happen over cable too - your neighbour can disrupt your webcast by starting a large download. Currently the max realistic over copper commercially is about 6Mb to 8Mb, roughly the same as cable. 60Mb is currently only in labs, is experimental and hugely expensive. My friend in Tokyo gets 1Gb to his flat, but he has a direct fibre optic connection. I can''t think of a Japanese telco providing 60Mb using xDSL, they will be using fibre. I doubt this is of interest to most on here though so I won''t go into an essay on the subject! I do have lots of white papers on this very subject if anyone is interested though.

If it costs NCFC £1.5m just to buy out of the contract (as it did Newcastle in your previous post), it will cost them hundreds of thousands to buy in the right infrastructure, hardware and staff to run it. These services are not standard IT, and need specialist staff and usually damn Accenture consultants for several man years to set up. So it would cost us at least £2m, it could be double that. Bang goes our transfer kitty for at least this year! I would be very upset if the board did this!

Re NCFC policing this, as I said I don''t fully see why either but presume its because they are getting leaned on by PTV / the football league. NCFC *might* get revenue per subscriber from canaries world, but if they do I doubt its significant. Everybody is worrying about enforcing copyright and intellectual property rights so they don''t get sued - its a good area to be a lawyer in

5 years ago I couldn''t listen to commentary in Putney either over the radio or the internet. Now I have a choice; to not listen, to listen illegally (but this is getting more difficult) or to pay and list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putney - I don''t think I agreed you were technically right. I said you might be. Big difference legally methinks :

I don''t think the legal issues are black and white at all, particularly on the Internet as countries have different laws on this and not all are part of WTO agreements. The fact that there are so many cases proves this point, I think. As far as I know the nasty industry types tend to go after websites and distributors rather than individual users. Even then, they may be winning battles but are losing the war. For example, as far as I know Napster is still there and you can download music for free if you wish. However, many people, including me, chose to download music legally given that it is now cheap and easy to do.

Skype is not only cheaper than BT - it is FREE!

You say it is impossible to offer a good, free service. Is Google bad then? I agree everything has to be financed but there are other ways than fleecing the users.

You think Premium has narrow margins. Give me a break! Frankly, it is a very simple service to provide. Just don''t block the Radio Norfolk website. What is hard about that?

Frankly, I don''t like your ''take it or leave it'' approach to choice. If there were alternate suppliers, I could have real choice. Monopolies like this just encourage poor quality, expensive services. If I pay for a service, I expect to receive it. If the supplier fails to deliver it, I don''t think I should be criminalized for seeking an alternate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guess I''ll have to drive to the highest point in braintree and tune in to a poor reception of radio norfolk for those away draws and defeats I don''t attend.

I certainly won''t be paying for it.

 

So what have ncfc achieved? Just inconvenienced and p*ssed me off further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I gave up on Canaries World 2 years ago when I couldn''t get live commentary for the fifth game in a row - which happenned to be the TOTLAPR game.

Like most of you who live away from Norwich, Canaries World is just about our only link with the club for commentaries, highlights etc, esp since we''ve gone down.

However, having spent over a month trying to get PTV to sort the problem out, I was totally apoplectic when I couldn''t get the ITFC game and was "briskly" told that all of a sudden PTV didn''t work with Apple macs.

I voted with my feet and cancelled the service. £25 odd a month was a lot to pay for some fuzzy highlights and some downright awful customer service.

I now pick up an illegal link 5 minutes before the game - they are easy to find - and get better sound quality without paying a penny.

But that''s capitalism for you - if your service is rubbish, people won''t use it and go elsewhere.

And at the end of the day, that''s the only language PTV will understand. Write them all the emails you like, call them as often as you like. The only time they''ll bother to improve the service is if they''re losing enough business.

Money is the only language they understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fillet - isn''t Braintree in Essex?

Now according to Putney (on another thread) BBC Radio Norfolk only have a licence to broadcast to Norfolk - so you might not only be in a high place and listening to a c**p signal - but you might be accused of stealing too!!! I am in Suffolk so could also be breaking the law every time I listen to Radio Norfolk?!?!? [Makes it seem more exciting and somehow more worth doing - I can just imagine the police cruising round Stowmarket, Braintree and the like looking for illegal RN listeners! And there was me thinking it was only the Ipswich fans I had to avoid!!]

Incidentally, could we set up a competition for the furthest place that you can get the Radio Norfolk signal. How far is Braintree from Norwich? I suspect you are the current winner. Unless you count Brum who got it in Birmingham (?) somewhere but as this was aided by a BT phone line, I think he would probably be disqualified!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that there are five pages on this subject now, but as far as I can see no-one has asked the most pertinent question of all...one which no doubt the moderators can answer....
 
Why are the Pink''Un acceding to the club''s request to refrain from allowing the link to be published?   Have they actually legally threatened the paper or have they threatened to restrict access to the club?   There is more to this than the issue of not being allowed to follow your club...
 
Could the moderators actually explain why they''ve bowed to pressure from the club and what that pressure was?
 
Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no ''pressure'' from the club, simply a courteous request for us not to promote a free link to a service for which some fans were paying.

I did tell the club that in my opinion a link which was paid for, but which could be accessed freely, was not the best of secure services.

However we have said in other threads that if Norwich City asked us to remove the link, we would.

Celia

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no ''pressure'' from the club, simply a courteous request for us not to promote a free link to a service for which some fans were paying.

I did tell the club that in my opinion a link which was paid for, but which could be accessed freely, was not the best of secure services.

However we have said in other threads that if Norwich City asked us to remove the link, we would.

Celia

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pieman - I agree with a lot of what you say but are you sure about the price? I thought it was £34.99 per year. I am afraid I still pay because it works sometime. I have previously cancelled it because everything else on the web site is c**p but I don''t find the ''illegal'' links easy to find.

I have had same experience of their customer support - they seem to blame the user when things go wrong. I could not get it on my laptop but could on my desktop. They said it was my version of Explorer even though it was fine with other radio commentary. I reinstalled it. No better. I tried Firefox. They say it doesn''t work with that. In the end I have bought a new laptop!!! It now works on that but not sure how long for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Personally, I gave up on Canaries World 2 years ago when I couldn''t get live commentary for the fifth game in a row - which happenned to be the TOTLAPR game. Like most of you who live away from Norwi...[/quote]

Pieman,

I use an Apple mac and can run the commentary fine - though I have emailed their technical support in the past when the service was going wrong.

I dont like the way it uses Windoze Media Player for the streaming as even other versions of WMP ''cant recognise the codec'' in my experience. It is a poor service, the match window doesnt work too well.

If you ever get back to PTV on your Mac then when you click on Audio Commentary, Option - Click on the ''Click here for commentary'' link. This opens a new window with the so called media player and it should start streaming.

Why they dont use Quicktime Ill never know!

Cheers

KC

PBTi G4 867

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Mad - OK the legalities are in some circumstances far from black and white, but enough people (end users too now!) have been succesfully sued for illegally downloading films and music. The company I used to work for were legally threatened for allowing their computers to be used for Napster a few years back, and took the threat seriously enough to ban the likes of Napster from company machines - other companies had been taken to court for such ''offences''!

Many free services such as Google are very good, but its an entirely different kettle of fish from something like streamed audio or video. Currently these bandwidth hungry services are impossible to guarantee quality of service for, although I''m sure there is more PTV could be doing. Skype are seriously worrying the likes of BT

I stand by what I said about not blaming NCFC, it is effectively like blaming our board for the price hike for Sky services. Although NCFC obviously works closely with PTV to build content for Canaries World, the price/quality of the live commentaries are out of their hands.

We all expect so much these days - I remember being on foreign holidays and having to wait for English papers to arrive to get the weekend''s scores, now we are demanding live commentary wherever we are on the planet! Soon we will get commentary streamed to our mobile phones, then it will be live TV on our phones... imagine being in China and watching our boys live on your phone!

I am now officially bored of the subject - I left my job in IT in February because I just couldn''t stand it any longer, and this thread has opened up some memories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mad - forgotten how much it cost! Even more pleased I cancelled it now.

Thanks for the advice Kent. I had it up and running on my mac for a few months - albeit intermittently - till it stopped completely. I tried just about every option under the sun to get it restarted over the weeks it wasn''t working - believe me! PTV were less than helpful, treating me as nothing but an irritant when I called and rarely deigning to answer emails. In the end I paid nearly £50 for 5/6 weeks of no service whatsoever. When I asked for my money back, I was offered a discount on the next seasons subscription...REALLY useful that was.

My real point is that rather than having a go as us supporters who simply want to hear the game, wouldn''t the club be better off spending its valuable time and effort trying to persuade PTV to offer a half decent service no-one would want to leave in the first place?

Seems like a sensible option to me.

But then again, when has any business ever listened to the man - or woman - in the street until they talk with their wallet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and Mad, I''m sure if you have a gander at other bulletin boards - say Wrath of the Barclay - on a Saturday, people might be able to give you some advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]There was no ''pressure'' from the club, simply a courteous request for us not to promote a free link to a service for which some fans were paying. I did tell the club that in my opinion a link which w...[/quote]

Celia - what about if some of those fans who are paying asked you to allow the links to be posted?

Incidentally, is it illegal for you to allow the link to be posted on your forum? I doubt it and am very doubtful that the Club would prosecute. So why not just courteously say no to their request. I am sure they would understand and we would appreciate it!

Also you got me thinking the Canaries World system is simply accessed by using a password and username so perhaps we could just share those... but then can two people log on with the same username and password - or do they have a system to block that? I will try this for the Watford game if I remember. I would not like to give you my details and then find I couldn''t log on!!

Incidentally, Putney, do you think this forum is not good as it is free (isn''t it?). Perhaps I can ask the moderators why Archant run this free system. Presumably Archant is a private company and in the business of making money? Why does any news organization have a free access website, come to that?

Presumably Putney, you think the Guardian or BBC websites are c**p?

Could it be about ''building brand value''? I used to have the official website as my home page but found it so bad I switched to the ''Pink Un'' (which I remembered from when I was a kid living in Hellesdon and trekking every Sat evening to the shop to buy it). I tell my friends how good this is compared to the c**p official site, which I now only go to for the audio commentary. I regret that I very rarely buy the Pink Un newspaper but the last time I did I was tempted to put it in a plastic bag and give it to my son who took a diving course off the Croatian coast in an effort to try to outdo the guy at the top of Everest - but sadly I didn''t!!!

Finally, what exactly is banned on here - racism (undoubtedly), bad language (presumably) and personal abuse (perhaps). Anything else along with the heinious crime of weblink posting! I vaguely remember a stream on the boxing being removed because it wasn''t linked to NCFC, although it was being held at Carrow Road and promoted by the club?!?!? Actually, I was glad when it went as I, like others, was convinced we were signing someone and wasn''t getting any work done!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putney - my apologies for opening any unpleasant memories. I have enjoyed discussing this with you and others. Made a slow day pass pleasantly!

Love or hate Sky, I think they offer a good service and excellent customer service. They replaced my multiroom box even though...

Sorry, I was forgetting myself!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the pink''un has strong ties with the club and doesn''t wish to upset them by publishing the free link but there are a lot of sites out there who will publish it.

Of what use is freedom of speech to those who fear to offend?
-Roger Ebert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celia
 
If the club asked courteously to stop posting derogatory comments about the manager would Archant do it?
 
Sorry I don''t want to be an old stick in the mud here, but what has happened appears to smack of censorship?   I don''t know of any link between Archant and NCFC, the link is freely available on other sites and on the internet.   I can''t see any reason why Archant would bow down to the "courteous" request other than some form of legal or other threat...
 
It''s a shame that such request was acted on so quickly - or was there a great deal of soul searching within the Web Team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...