Correct... we have more immediate concerns. Like how Peacock has crapped 3-4X already 21 minutes into the Bournemouth-Arsenal match. And it's not just me... nearly everyone on the matchday thread is complaining. Maybe 6 EPL matches at once is a bit much for them to handle? Really a bad advert for the reliability of the new streaming landscape.
I'm looking for discount codes for Peacock and Paramount+. The ones I've found on the usual "click to show" websites don't work, despite them all claiming success rates.
Paramount+ had a big deal (50% off) going from 8/20-9/20. It will probably be Black Friday before the next deals come around.
Yeah. I'll probably end up doing the "monthly with commercials" option and then doing the Black Friday offer. ...and a few hours after this post, I saw an offer on the Peacock website $2.99/mo. Of course I can't get it because reasons. Say what you want about traditional TV providers, but I haven't paid full price in years via constant retention rates. (This goes back well before streaming providers.) You'd think the streaming apps would rather take some money vs no money.
Not the strongest analyst team In Stamford this morning: Tim Howard & Phil Neville. And apparently they might not like each other too much because they haven’t been in a room together, since they both played at Everton… 20 years ago!
Happy to be watching CFC-AFC on old reliable and linear NBC channel. But I also have it running on my iPad's Peacock app which is a full 29 seconds behind NBC on my TV (and DVR, which itself adds a few seconds of buffer). What legitimate reason could Peacock be so far behind LIVE?
Do you seriously not understand how a direct antenna feed is faster than something that has to filter through an ISP, cable/satellite company, an iPad app, and through either cable or fiber itself?
Actually I do understand about digital latencies. But 29' is absolutely ridiculous. And my TV is fed by a cable provider and then my DVR which, as I said, adds a bit of buffer delay itself. So the fact that a Peacock stream (for a live sporting event) is behind by a good half minute is inexcusable in my book. YMMV.
I smiled at that. Truly. But serious question: do you consider 30 seconds of streaming delay acceptable?
I find it typical, and unless you're constantly refreshing Twitter or having someone at the game or watching on cable texting you all the time, it's negligible.
And that’s precisely the point. I interact live with friends during matches, who are both online and in the stadium. So it’s not negligible for me. 5-10 secs delay probably would be just tolerable. But 15, 20, 30 secs is not. And I know from experience that they can do better. So I want them to.
If people really cared about that delay, streaming TV wouldn't be as popular as it is. But since we live in a world where people watch primetime shows 2-3 days later, 29 seconds won't matter to the vast majority of the population. I have friends who tailgate right outside a stadium. They have a TV connected to Dish Network (Joey, I think) for people who don't have tickets. I can only imagine how bad the delay would be if they streamed it off a phone and onto the TV. When east and west coast feeds are simulcast, such as baseball playoffs or NBA, I've noticed the west coast feed is slightly ahead of the east coast. I have zero idea why, but whatever. My U-Verse was behind my antenna TV. When the antenna TV swapped out for an Amazon TV with Hulu, the U-Verse TV became the "ahead" TV.
True, but LIVE SPORTS streaming is a big deal worldwide. I didn't just make that up. I keep hearing about how key it is because it's basically the last bastion of TV that isn't mainly consumed time-shifted on delay. And I guess that's a big deal to streamers and advertisers? So they should fix this. If they make it a priority I'm sure the can and will. Other sports streamers don't have 30 secs delay. Shoot, even NBC is sometimes a lot better than 30 secs delay... IIRC they're typically more like 10-20 secs. When they get it down to 5-10 secs (if not 0-5!) it'll be tolerably good.
Whenever I watch rugby it always reminds me of where soccer coverage was 20 years earlier in this country. Peacock's coverage of the WC semifinal began about 30 seconds before kickoff. No buildup, no anthems, no haka, no lineups. For a World Cup semifinal! I guess not many people will care, but at the same time it does it require any added effort or money at all to start the coverage 10 minutes early?
A pleasure listening to Martin Tyler and Andy Townsend doing the Spurs x Fulham match. See, that's the problem when a channel uses their own commentators even if they only do so for a select 20% or so of the matches. Those 20% are usually the biggest matches and so a) you're more likely to be watching those games, and b) it is often instead of the best international commentary crew. And then we are meant to feel guilty for watching pirated content.
ESPN would go all-out for the World Cup because they knew the diehards were watching...but come MLS/USMNT/USWNT time, it'd be a 5-7pm window with kickoff at 5:07 and maybe a brief comment from the coach after the game. Their UEFA CL coverage was always ideal to me. They started at 2:30 with kickoff at 2:45. After the game from 4:45 to 5, they'd simulcast ESPNNews' Hotlist show where Tommy Smyth would sometimes stop by and talk UEFA CL.
Once again, ESPN before they figured out how to do it. They'd use Jack Edwards and Ty Keough for the biggest games... Ty was basically only there because his dad was on the 1950 team. For WC games that weren't the final or ones involving the US, they'd use the ESPN International guys like Tommy Smyth, Seamus Malin, Derek Rae, et al. Didn't Shep Messing and Steve Cangialosi pair up? IIRC, they were the ones who would routinely put me to sleep. At least Fox figured out to shitcan Gus Johnson. Several years ago, I posted an article in this forum about how Jim Nantz (CBS) said he wouldn't announce The Masters the same way as the NCAA basketball final...for reference, those events are typically days apart. Gus has yet to understand that.
Watched the replay of THFC-CFC on Peacock. But the stream started at KO and finished immediately after FT. OK I thought, I’ll just find the pre/post-game coverage elsewhere… but no. Not on Peacock or NBCSports app. Surely they had that on the live stream, so why excise it from the replay. If it’s a rights permissions thing, that would seem dumb.
I just tried to cancel my Peacock and they're giving me 3 months of Premium for $2.50/mo. So...no commercials for three months is something like $8.50/mo.
And I just canceled that for their year-long offer thanks to the Black Friday sale. $20/yr plus the $6/mo extra for no commercials. $92/yr instead of $120/yr? I'll take the savings. It's something the online chat agent was happy to assist me with.
Peacock got me with the $1.99/month Black Friday deal. I got the monthly instead of the $19.99 annual because it's only $4 more for the year and I want to avoid auto-renewing for the following year at regular price if I forget to cancel.
Whenever I sign up for an annual plan, I cancel minutes after signing up to avoid forgetting to cancel.
The NBC sports app on my iPad doesn’t allow any rewind or fast forward during a live stream. Whereas the Peacock app does, along with virtually all other streaming apps. What could be NBC’s rationale for consciously limiting the usability like this? Seriously. Edit: Oh, maybe they're spending all their effort and money on a sophisticated buffering system which ensures that the stream is never less than 30 seconds behind live action.
Hey! As I watch today's game, I found a good use of the NBC Sports app which is, as usual, about 1 minute behind my cable TV feed... I keep the app streaming on my iPad and use it to rewatch replays of key moments after the game continues in live action on my TV.