Remove this Banner Ad

Online viewing

  • Thread starter Thread starter tryonthis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

tryonthis

tryonthis

Club Legend
Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Posts
1,013
Reaction score
904
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm not prepared to pay $80p/m as a uni student for just footy (and ~2 other sports channels). In order to watch footy on Foxtel, you'll need to pay for their basics package which is a crock of shit. I'd be more than happy to pay for individual channels or to pay for an online subscription similar to what overseas viewers do to view AFL games. All the TV shows are available online (illegally and legally), so I don't understand why when someone complains that they can't view a footy game on FTA, that the logical response is "OMG it's 2013, get Foxtel already", because apart from live streaming sports, everything else can be accessed online. It just goes to show how far behind Australia is in regards to media/entertainment services.
 
tryonthis said:
I'm not prepared to pay $80p/m as a uni student for just footy (and ~2 other sports channels). In order to watch footy on Foxtel, you'll need to pay for their basics package which is a crock of shit. I'd be more than happy to pay for individual channels or to pay for an online subscription similar to what overseas viewers do to view AFL games. All the TV shows are available online (illegally and legally), so I don't understand why when someone complains that they can't view a footy game on FTA, that the logical response is "OMG it's 2013, get Foxtel already", because apart from live streaming sports, everything else can be accessed online. It just goes to show how far behind Australia is in regards to media/entertainment services.
Click to expand...
I pay $30 on the tbox for basic package, sports and footy channel.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BornPort said:
I think it is. But it depends on how good your internet connection is. I have 30Mbps down on my cable connection and it's crystal clear. But if I'm using a fair bit of bandwidth downloading the quality can drop sometimes.
Click to expand...

I get 200kbps if I'm lucky. :(
 
Stormageddon said:
I get 200kbps if I'm lucky. :(
Click to expand...

where do you find this information?? whats a good amount??

made the mistake of letting my gf organize the internet at our place. i thought she knew what she was doing.

massive fail. she chose mobile broadband at $50 a month ( but always get bills $120+, worst was $450) and it is slow and crap. the plan has ran out now and i have to find something new. im doing it this time. the last 2 months i have had about a 1/4 success rate of downloading a 4 min youtube clip, and even then it takes between 5- 10 mins to watch a 4 min clip. if it finishes before it stops that is. epic rage.

before you speculate im living in bosnia im actually in norwood. yeah , im the joke of some little kid in afganistan because his uncle can upload a jihadist propaganda film while im trying to refresh a simple 30sec youtube clip.
 
why don't you get actual internet connected to the premises because mobile broadband is shite. It'd cost you a shit ton less!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

CrimsonRaven said:
I'm on 11.5 Mbps on Internode which isnt bad. 200gb a month for $70
Click to expand...

I'm on 120Mbps on Bigpond cable - 200GB a month including line rental and unlimited local calls for $80p/m.

Whilst the speed is great, if I had my time again, I'd probably stay with Internode who have the far superior customer service (and unmetered Steam content and gaming servers).

For the poster asking which Internet Service Provider they should go with, the answer is Internode (or Adam)!
 
tryonthis said:
I'm on 120Mbps on Bigpond cable - 200GB a month including line rental and unlimited local calls for $80p/m.

Whilst the speed is great, if I had my time again, I'd probably stay with Internode who have the far superior customer service (and unmetered Steam content and gaming servers).

For the poster asking which Internet Service Provider they should go with, the answer is Internode (or Adam)!
Click to expand...

Would you happen to know why Telstra ran the cable(Which is shared with foxtel services) only down some streets and not others?
It's really pissing me off that cable isn't available in my area, leaving me stuck on adsl2 until the nbn decide to get their asbestos smashing asses to my area one of these years.
 
FPPF said:
Would you happen to know why Telstra ran the cable(Which is shared with foxtel services) only down some streets and not others?
It's really pissing me off that cable isn't available in my area, leaving me stuck on adsl2 until the nbn decide to get their asbestos smashing asses to my area one of these years.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't hold your breath in regards to getting fibre in your area.

056997-tony-abbott.jpg
 
You know the minimum speed on his network will be faster than the minimum you are guaranteed on labors?

I believe you can get 30mbit cable from Telstra in all metro homes.
 
BornPort said:
I wouldn't hold your breath in regards to getting fibre in your area.

056997-tony-abbott.jpg
Click to expand...

Fibre will go ahead regardless of who wins the election.

Labor have locked contracts in with the NBN contractors for quite a few years, to cut it off now would cost them more than to actually finish it.

That said, the liberals NBN plan isn't too bad either. All it is is guaranteed maxed out ADSL2+ speeds to all houses as you will have a mini exchange every 10 or so houses. 24MBit would be the lowest speed you would get.

Draw back is it uses multiplexing, meaning that you get the age old problem of some **** wit using all of the bandwidth while the other suffer in your group of 10 houses.

The problem with labors plan is it will cost $2000 dollars per household to complete, an economically infeasible thing to do. They can't do it.

Liberals plan would allow just about everyone in Australia 24mbit connections.

Both have their merits and limitations, to me, as I work in the security and networking sector, It's of no consequence who wins. I like them both, it's just one is more legitimately planned and costed than the other. Sure, I want fibre. However, I don't want to foot 2 grand for every house in the nation.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Doctor Feel said:
Fibre will go ahead regardless of who wins the election.

Labor have locked contracts in with the NBN contractors for quite a few years, to cut it off now would cost them more than to actually finish it.

That said, the liberals NBN plan isn't too bad either. All it is is guaranteed maxed out ADSL2+ speeds to all houses as you will have a mini exchange every 10 or so houses. 24MBit would be the lowest speed you would get.

Draw back is it uses multiplexing, meaning that you get the age old problem of some **** wit using all of the bandwidth while the other suffer in your group of 10 houses.

The problem with labors plan is it will cost $2000 dollars per household to complete, an economically infeasible thing to do. They can't do it.

Liberals plan would allow just about everyone in Australia 24mbit connections.

Both have their merits and limitations, to me, as I work in the security and networking sector, It's of no consequence who wins. I like them both, it's just one is more legitimately planned and costed than the other. Sure, I want fibre. However, I don't want to foot 2 grand for every house in the nation.
Click to expand...


I don't think those contracts cover as much as you think and there is a massive difference between the two plans. The Lib's FTTN plan is down right awful. They are going to spend $29billion getting us not much further then we already are, but hey it's cheaper in the very short term. Where as the NBN will cost $43 billion but will be a first class network with, Gigabit already being offered by the end of the year. Saying the NBN is economically unfeasible when compared to the Lib's plan is just ridiculous. The Lib's NBN will also continue to rely on the antiquated copper network. You don't want to spend $2000 per house on top of the line internet but you're ok spending the estimated $1500 per house on a piece of shit network.
 
BornPort said:
I don't think those contracts cover as much as you think and there is a massive difference between the two plans. The Lib's FTTN plan is down right awful. They are going to spend $29billion getting us not much further then we already are, but hey it's cheaper in the very short term. Where as the NBN will cost $43 billion but will be a first class network with, Gigabit already being offered by the end of the year. Saying the NBN is economically unfeasible when compared to the Lib's plan is just ridiculous. The Lib's NBN will also continue to rely on the antiquated copper network. You don't want to spend $2000 per house on top of the line internet but you're ok spending the estimated $1500 per house on a piece of shit network.
Click to expand...

Locked in for the next 3 years. I would say that is pretty significant. Enough for me to get mine anyway, everyone else can get stuffed.
 
StrappingTape said:
You know the minimum speed on his network will be faster than the minimum you are guaranteed on labors?

I believe you can get 30mbit cable from Telstra in all metro homes.
Click to expand...

I got on Telstra's site, did the check you can do to see what services are available from them in your area.
Not even ADSL is available from Telstra in my area apparently, although that might be more to do with my existing ADSL and/or port availability at the exchange.
But I'm more then happy to be wrong and Bigpond Cable to be available.
 
BornPort said:
I don't think those contracts cover as much as you think and there is a massive difference between the two plans. The Lib's FTTN plan is down right awful. They are going to spend $29billion getting us not much further then we already are, but hey it's cheaper in the very short term. Where as the NBN will cost $43 billion but will be a first class network with, Gigabit already being offered by the end of the year. Saying the NBN is economically unfeasible when compared to the Lib's plan is just ridiculous. The Lib's NBN will also continue to rely on the antiquated copper network. You don't want to spend $2000 per house on top of the line internet but you're ok spending the estimated $1500 per house on a piece of shit network.
Click to expand...

Lurk3r said:
One will have to be changed in about 5 years, the other won't. The Liberals plan is ******ed.
Click to expand...

The NBN is costing way more than $43billion, it's already years behind with stuff all take up. NBN is only guaranteeing speeds of 12mbps, the plan you hate guarantees twice this as the minimum. Not only that the plans are more expensive with less data for less speed than people get now on adls2.

The future is in wireless, it's rapidly advancing in speeds and coverage and even now consumers are moving away from wired connections and the desktop computing setup of the past. It's better to spend a bit and give people the option if they want to have FTTH then they can pay the $5k for the wiring but otherwise NBN Co I think is going to end up a massive white elephant.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom