Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Verge)   You can now get legal, unlimited, HD sports streams online. The cost is a mere $450 per month. At that price, pirate streams will surely be a thing of the past before long   ( theverge.com) divider line
35
    More: Amusing, Sky Sports, Stream capture, streams  
•       •       •

3007 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Mar 2013 at 9:58 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
wildcardjack
2013-03-19 10:00:15 AM  
Sounds like a great deal if this is your entertainment center

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.netView Full Size
 
red5ish
2013-03-19 10:06:28 AM  
For some reason I read the headline as stating "Pirate's dreams will surely be a thing of the past before long."
imageshack.usView Full Size

And I thought "They have been for a long time."
 
HeartBurnKid
2013-03-19 10:11:44 AM  
And yet, a seat in The First Row for your .TV is still free.
 
MindStalker [BareFark]
2013-03-19 10:16:12 AM  
Yes, and if I order 24/7 pay-per-view movies I'll pay more than this over a month as well. $15 a day isn't bad if you plan to buy it only a few days a month, if you need it more there are probably other ways to get it.
 
Electromax
2013-03-19 10:43:29 AM  

HeartBurnKid: And yet, a seat in The First Row for your .TV is still free.


I had to resort to that for the Blackhawks game last night because stupid Comcast CSN pre-empts Hawks for the Bulls when they overlap in my area.

Enjoyed the game, but it was nowhere near HD on my stream. It was like watching hockey back on the old SD TV. Manageable, but still not enough for me to cut the cord. Plus (as I've been watching sites like that and ATDHE as viable sports alternatives the last couple years to see if I'm willing to drop cable) some of my college team's football and bball games don't make it up there.

It's definitely getting there and a price closer to $30/month would get my money, but I only pay $100 or so for TV+internet both. This package seems aimed at journalists or something. Because of sports alone I'm not willing to give up cable yet.
 
theurge14
2013-03-19 10:44:47 AM  
Sky Sports access is available for a £9.99 (around $15) per day, with unlimited access to live football, Formula 1, tennis, cricket and other high-profile sporting events.

Yikes, people in the UK pay to watch those sports?
 
Abe Vigoda's Ghost [TotalFark]
2013-03-19 10:54:31 AM  

theurge14: Sky Sports access is available for a £9.99 (around $15) per day, with unlimited access to live football, Formula 1, tennis, cricket and other high-profile sporting events.

Yikes, people in the UK pay to watch those sports?


And it's not even real football. Those crazy Europeans.
 
meanmutton
2013-03-19 10:56:00 AM  

theurge14: Sky Sports access is available for a £9.99 (around $15) per day, with unlimited access to live football, Formula 1, tennis, cricket and other high-profile sporting events.

Yikes, people in the UK pay to watch those sports?


Yes, and people in the US pay to watch football, NASCAR, hockey, and baseball.
 
stuhayes2010
2013-03-19 10:58:00 AM  
Why?  You can watch any sports on one of the 4,000 ESPNs on cable.  Do we need MORE sports coverage?


/not a sports fan
 
farkeruk
2013-03-19 11:05:13 AM  

theurge14: Yikes, people in the UK pay to watch those sports?


The point of cricket is to have an excuse to sit in the sun at a ground with an ice box of beer and some friends.

Tennis? Bring back wooden racquets and I'll start watching again.
 
StoPPeRmobile
2013-03-19 11:10:44 AM  

Electromax: HeartBurnKid: And yet, a seat in The First Row for your .TV is still free.

I had to resort to that for the Blackhawks game last night because stupid Comcast CSN pre-empts Hawks for the Bulls when they overlap in my area.

Enjoyed the game, but it was nowhere near HD on my stream. It was like watching hockey back on the old SD TV. Manageable, but still not enough for me to cut the cord. Plus (as I've been watching sites like that and ATDHE as viable sports alternatives the last couple years to see if I'm willing to drop cable) some of my college team's football and bball games don't make it up there.

It's definitely getting there and a price closer to $30/month would get my money, but I only pay $100 or so for TV+internet both. This package seems aimed at journalists or something. Because of sports alone I'm not willing to give up cable yet.



It's the only reason. Unless you love comercials.
 
DemDave
2013-03-19 11:35:38 AM  
Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.
 
digistil
2013-03-19 11:47:59 AM  

DemDave: Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.


This, though I have a feeling that for all NFL, F1, EPL, CL, EL, NHL, NBA and MLB games the price would be at least double that (I'd pay double).
 
digistil
2013-03-19 11:48:35 AM  

digistil: DemDave: Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.

This, though I have a feeling that for all NFL, F1, EPL, CL, EL, NHL, NBA and MLB games the price would be at least double that (I might pay double).


FTFM
 
Jubeebee [BareFark]
2013-03-19 11:54:36 AM  

DemDave: Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.


I would love that as well, but my understanding is that sports subsidize most of the other channels on cable. ESPN alone would probably run you $35 a month.
 
Aar1012 [TotalFark]
2013-03-19 12:00:27 PM  
If ESPN did WatchESPN as a pay in (on top of the cable provider model) and it was reasonable then I would hop in. ESPN3 had it right with (almost) everything at the touch of a button. They had a good chunk of providers but now have it to about five for WatchESPN. I don't have cable and my ISP doesn't qualify. It sucks because I would pay for just sports but not cable.

The NCAA had it right last year with the $4.99 fee for ALL college basketball tournament games. This year? You have to have a provider that is in the group and the channels that get the games. Why not both?
 
DemDave
2013-03-19 12:02:44 PM  

Jubeebee: DemDave: Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.

I would love that as well, but my understanding is that sports subsidize most of the other channels on cable. ESPN alone would probably run you $35 a month.


I'd consider paying $35 a month for WatchESPN access. But yeah, a la carte pricing of any kind is wishful thinking. $60 just to watch 4 sports stations - much of which I'm going to be watching at a friend's house or sports bar, anyway - just isn't practical.
 
This Face Left Blank
2013-03-19 01:37:17 PM  

red5ish: For some reason I read the headline as stating "Pirate's dreams will surely be a thing of the past before long."
[imageshack.us image 480x301]
And I thought "They have been for a long time."


ARGH!  Right in the feels!
 
BudTheSpud
2013-03-19 01:51:58 PM  
Will it pay for the 100 dollar overage on my 100 gig monthly bandwidth too?
 
InmanRoshi
2013-03-19 03:21:04 PM  

wildcardjack: Sounds like a great deal if this is your entertainment center

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 630x420]


I miss living in Las Vegas when that actually was my entertainment center.
 
InmanRoshi
2013-03-19 03:22:10 PM  

theurge14: Sky Sports access is available for a £9.99 (around $15) per day, with unlimited access to live football, Formula 1, tennis, cricket and other high-profile sporting events.

Yikes, people in the UK pay to watch those sports?


They left out professional darts.
 
10up
2013-03-19 04:09:12 PM  
wiziwig and first row are great.  to get full HD streams you have to use sopcast or streamtorrent.  some flash streams are okay, and get up around the 540p mark, but they have to be pushing it out around 750kbps or more which is rare.

if there isn't a sopcast or streamtorrent link, watch a more popular sport/team
 
weapon13
2013-03-19 05:33:55 PM  

stuhayes2010: Why?  You can watch any sports on one of the 4,000 ESPNs on cable.  Do we need MORE sports coverage?


/not a sports fan


I couldn't sit and watch sports even if Sky paid me £9.99 an hour to do so...
 
MrHappyRotter
2013-03-19 05:55:24 PM  
This is exactly the solution I've been looking for.  At $450 a month it's a steal.  I'd be willing to pay twice that (or more) depending on how reliable the service is.  Guess I'll be signing up if it's available to me in the U.S.
 
Kanemano
2013-03-19 06:00:42 PM  
my sports package costs me $25 bucks for 4 beers, (w/tip) for almost all games I am actually interested in. this is why sport bars were invented.


plus beer, and women.
 
havocmike
2013-03-19 06:51:17 PM  
Yea, if there's one thing everyone loves it's "You still pay for cable? hahaha bro, I get all my shiat for free from a Latvian torrent. Sucks that you don't know technology, dude! (follow with 4 minute rant about UFC or some other bro-shiat)"

/LOVE that guy....
 
jonny_q
2013-03-19 07:35:26 PM  

MrHappyRotter: This is exactly the solution I've been looking for.  At $450 a month it's a steal.  I'd be willing to pay twice that (or more) depending on how reliable the service is.  Guess I'll be signing up if it's available to me in the U.S.


That is sarcasm right? I'm sorry if I'm slow today.

$40/mo for Sunday football is too much. I would consider a for-pay streaming service just for sports, but nowhere near $10/day, which for most people means $10/game (Except for Sunday football and even then...)
 
Thisbymaster
2013-03-19 09:27:03 PM  
I still cannot understand why people pay to watch sports, you would need to pay me to watch that crap.
 
divx88
2013-03-19 09:42:34 PM  
Well at least it's a step in the right direction.  Now just need to drop the ridiculous pricing.
 
Alonjar
2013-03-19 10:08:09 PM  
Its billed $15 per unique day.... its likely you would only use this service to watch games you cant get any other way.  Its not like you'd be using it every single day.

Not that unreasonable.
 
Bennie Crabtree
2013-03-19 10:26:04 PM  

Electromax: HeartBurnKid: And yet, a seat in The First Row for your .TV is still free.

I had to resort to that for the Blackhawks game last night because stupid Comcast CSN pre-empts Hawks for the Bulls when they overlap in my area.

Enjoyed the game, but it was nowhere near HD on my stream. It was like watching hockey back on the old SD TV. Manageable, but still not enough for me to cut the cord. Plus (as I've been watching sites like that and ATDHE as viable sports alternatives the last couple years to see if I'm willing to drop cable) some of my college team's football and bball games don't make it up there.

It's definitely getting there and a price closer to $30/month would get my money, but I only pay $100 or so for TV+internet both. This package seems aimed at journalists or something. Because of sports alone I'm not willing to give up cable yet.


It's a farking sport. Why would you need HD tv?
 
thrasherrr
2013-03-19 10:30:48 PM  

Jubeebee: DemDave: Make it closer to $450 a year and we can do business. All I need are the sports channels. I just don't want to pay for a full cable subscription to get them. $35 a month seems reasonable.

I would love that as well, but my understanding is that sports subsidize most of the other channels on cable. ESPN alone would probably run you $35 a month.



Your understanding is backwards
 
Electromax
2013-03-19 10:34:44 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Electromax: HeartBurnKid: And yet, a seat in The First Row for your .TV is still free.

I had to resort to that for the Blackhawks game last night because stupid Comcast CSN pre-empts Hawks for the Bulls when they overlap in my area.

Enjoyed the game, but it was nowhere near HD on my stream. It was like watching hockey back on the old SD TV. Manageable, but still not enough for me to cut the cord. Plus (as I've been watching sites like that and ATDHE as viable sports alternatives the last couple years to see if I'm willing to drop cable) some of my college team's football and bball games don't make it up there.

It's definitely getting there and a price closer to $30/month would get my money, but I only pay $100 or so for TV+internet both. This package seems aimed at journalists or something. Because of sports alone I'm not willing to give up cable yet.

It's a farking sport. Why would you need HD tv?


Puck is tiny, moves fast and is difficult to follow. I don't need it, I prefer it so I keep it. For football or basketball it's generally fine.
 
CroakerBC
2013-03-20 05:48:44 AM  

MrHappyRotter: This is exactly the solution I've been looking for.  At $450 a month it's a steal.  I'd be willing to pay twice that (or more) depending on how reliable the service is.  Guess I'll be signing up if it's available to me in the U.S.


As someone who worked on NOWTV, I can safely tell you that it is not. Sky don't allow out-of-market playback.
 
picodenico
2013-03-20 09:45:32 AM  

Aar1012: If ESPN did WatchESPN as a pay in (on top of the cable provider model) and it was reasonable then I would hop in. ESPN3 had it right with (almost) everything at the touch of a button. They had a good chunk of providers but now have it to about five for WatchESPN. I don't have cable and my ISP doesn't qualify. It sucks because I would pay for just sports but not cable.

The NCAA had it right last year with the $4.99 fee for ALL college basketball tournament games. This year? You have to have a provider that is in the group and the channels that get the games. Why not both?


Every f*cking word right here. Every one.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.
Report