Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan_L
It is a service, and they charge a fee.
What is the problem with that?
Do you pay a fee for your internet access?
If it provides something you want, (content, audio/video quality, convenience {like pause record and scheduling} then you decide if it is good value or not.
I use the internet a lot, but I get more "entertainment" from Foxtel per month for around the same fee.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04Stefan07
Totally agree. It's another service provided just like the internet. Same as a mobile phone!
|
Completely correct, but it misses the point IMO.
Yes, Foxtel is a service, but it is one wanting to charge monopoly rents to access that service, and it is STILL using a decades old delivery model, one that no longer has the benefit of watching no ads. Given we can get everything else we ever would have watched on Foxtel for under $200 per year and watch it when we want not when they decide we can, I am not going to support the creaking old model of stitching up content monopolies so that you can then charge an arm and a leg for it by paying at least triple that amount so that I can watch content they have whisked away from free to air purely in order to make a profit on it. not to mention the careful packaging of heaps of dross in the packages with the good stuff just so they can sell advertising into "The voice Antarctica on the "Obscure and unwatchable content channel" because it has 100,000 subscribers, 3 of which actually watch it.
I am with Julian, if they created an F1 streaming service at around $200 per year and made it one worth having so HD, choose your camera feed at will, or just sit back and watch what the director thinks, stream, pause, rewind and retain access to past races for a reasonable period (Like perhaps keep an entire season available so you can watch live if you like but can also watch the whole lot later on) it would be a "Shut up and take my money" situation.