I'll give it until 7:00 tonight and then request a refund. If this is a fraud I'll somehow not be surprised. This is the problem with not having major world championship sports on TELEVISION. Fans are forced to seek out shady dealings such as this.
I'll give it until 7:00 tonight and then request a refund. If this is a fraud I'll somehow not be surprised. This is the problem with not having major world championship sports on TELEVISION. Fans are forced to seek out shady dealings such as this.
did they actually promise that the bislett meet would be archived? i thought just the WC from Helsinki would be archived?
and for all of us who watched the meet, i'm pretty sure it wasn't a fraud. that was worth $4.95 itself.
This was the first time I had ever watched live, European track coverage in the United States. Until yesterday, I would have to wait weeks or months to get it on tape from Europe.
And I paid $5. They could make a lot more money off of guys like me. I hope they keep up the good work and I'll be looking forward to the Helsinki coverage.
Some of you dudes are remarkably cheap bastards. $4.95 is less than lunch, it's less than two beers. What is your problem?
$4.95, I'd rather spend it on gay pornography, OK? I am bullemic and a homosexual. I am not cheap. I live off of food stamps, OK??? SO FUCK OFF!
The coverage was excellent, well worth the money.
seriously. i'm probably in the minority, but i would have paid $4.95 just for bislett. the world championships (what, 60 hours of it?) will be gravy for me. very reasonably priced.
trackhead wrote:
This was the first time I had ever watched live, European track coverage in the United States. Until yesterday, I would have to wait weeks or months to get it on tape from Europe.
And I paid $5. They could make a lot more money off of guys like me. I hope they keep up the good work and I'll be looking forward to the Helsinki coverage.
Not everyone can sit in front of their computer screen for 2 hours watching a meet.
For this reason, archiving the meets would be practical. Walt Murphy, the guy in charge, promised it would be arhived and available by 5:00 yesterday. It's nearly noon and there is no archived coverage. In short, what was promised was not delivered. The customer pays the money and can expect delivery of the product. It's time for them to deliver.
All of you that are righteously defending the efficacy of these broadcasts probably sat there and watched the meet. There are many others on this site who have to work and do not have time to sit there and watch. Archiving the meet is necessary for these paying customers to partake in the service they've paid for. The reason you are so quick to defend the coverage is because you've become accustomed to the absolutely atrocious "coverage" in the United States and so anything superior (and it doesn't take much to be superior to that) has you flying off the handle with excitement.
chuck d wrote:
seriously. i'm probably in the minority, but i would have paid $4.95 just for bislett. the world championships (what, 60 hours of it?) will be gravy for me. very reasonably priced.
The price is not the issue.
The issue is that anyone who wasn't at their computer yesterday from 2-4 ET and paid the money will get nothing for it. Even if it's only $5 they should give it as advertised, and archived coverage was promised.
considering the bislett meet is considered a "bonus", you didn't really pay for it. like i said, i don't recall any promise that the bislett meet would be archived but whatever.
and the coverage was good. actually, it was fantastic. the archiving of the meet is a separate, technical issue from the coverage. service issue not a coverage issue.
For the record, Walt Murphy is not in charge of the webcast, which he has made clear. I'm sure he was just passing along the info he was given. And remember, Bislett was a freebie anyway.
whats the quality of it in kpbs?
some of us WERE sitting there for two hours trying to watch the meet live. i don't know how or why some people were able to get in and watch it, but you should consider yourselves lucky. others, including myself, could not access the live feed. we kept being taken to a page saying the requested file was no longer available. my calls to the support line were ignored and never returned. OK, i said, I'll wait for the archived files to become available. no luck there either.
who cares about 5 lousy bucks, but its the principle of the matter. people paid money. wcsn did not deliver the product to some of those people. and more importantly, they have not acknowledged or addressed the issue, or made any attempt to rectify the problems.
Walt says on T&FN site that there were technical probs and archive of Bislett should be up by Monday. So chill. I'm sure the reason Bislett was included as a bonus was so they could test their technical plans in a live environment before Worlds, and now they have.
picky wrote:
some of us WERE sitting there for two hours trying to watch the meet live. i don't know how or why some people were able to get in and watch it, but you should consider yourselves lucky. others, including myself, could not access the live feed. we kept being taken to a page saying the requested file was no longer available. my calls to the support line were ignored and never returned. OK, i said, I'll wait for the archived files to become available. no luck there either.
who cares about 5 lousy bucks, but its the principle of the matter. people paid money. wcsn did not deliver the product to some of those people. and more importantly, they have not acknowledged or addressed the issue, or made any attempt to rectify the problems.
You have my sympathy, I had no problems with my reception. However it's clear that WCSN did supply the transmission, what's most likely is an equipment problem at your end, perhaps inadequate bandwidth or pop-ups blocked? Have you downloaded the latest version of Media Player? At least now you know there is a problem and can try to fix it in time for the WC (which is what you have paid for). Good luck, it's well worth it.
I just called WCSN, said they are having problems with it for some reason and are working to get it up. Did not give a time when it would be up.
radon wrote:
whats the quality of it in kpbs?
i think it was at 350 kbps. looked sharp in the small scren, got a little fuzzy in full screen mode.
zubrek wrote:
I just called WCSN, said they are having problems with it for some reason and are working to get it up. Did not give a time when it would be up.
That's what I suspected, smart of them to offer the freeby ahead of time to help debug everything!
It was well worth my $5