Comments on: $50 for Foxtel’s Winter Olympics

By: jason

jason — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:52:50 +0000

If you’re in New Zealand, they have Prime (free to air channel) who are showing the games from 6am-6pm daily. That’s far superior to Nine’s coverage. Sky Sports have 4 dedicated channels however the big difference is that Sky are not charging their customers anything extra (as long as you have the sports option). Foxtel are ripping us off !

By: derek major

derek major — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:14:09 +0000

way too expensive on top of what I already pay – leave me out

dont need 4 venues at once

By: Perth Canadian

Perth Canadian — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:04:45 +0000

By the way, I have Foxtel as well and i totally agree that $50 to $65 is way too much. Yes, it’s broadcast in SD and HD, but for us customers who already pay a pretty penny for Foxtel, it’s not fair to be charging us that much. If anything, it should be free! I’ve given them enough money over the years that at elast they could reward their customers with something like the olympics. Once every two years (summer and winter) wouldn’t be hurting them too much profit wise….

By: Perth Canadian

Perth Canadian — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:01:07 +0000

I’m a Canadian, and I guess becuase of that, I love the winter and the winter olympics. I can understand aussies not being interested, but once you’ve been in the snow and experienced what it’s like, you’ll miss it when its not there. Sure, it’s cold, but you get used to it and of course you dress for it. For those of you who are knocking back the winter games just because you’ve never experienced snow/winter, you’re missing out. Whatever the coverage channel 9 gives, watch it and give it a go! Isn’t that the australian way???!!!! Besides, the winter games are so much more visually stunning and appealing than the summer games….
Wathc it, then judge it guys….Cheers!

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:25:22 +0000

I can’t believe how many people are complaining about this, blah blah blah. I currently pay $90 for Fox a month, and with this I get all the sport I need LIVE around the world, Super 14 rugby, Tri Nations, golf, cricket, MLB, NFL, NBA, I could go on. I would in fact pay the $90 just for the live sport alone. On top of this there are great channels like Discovery, Food, Lifestyle, How To, National Geographic, Music, Kids programs, etc, so I think I’m getting something decent for $90. Now to pay another $50 for full Winter Games coverage is again, well worth it. To even get the choice of being able to watch it is a great thing. I probably couldn’t even name one competitor, but I will definitely be watching these games as it’s an amazing event. A true sports fan wouldn’t be whingeing and complaining like everyone on here. Be thankful we have the option rather then not seeing anything at all. I won’t even mention FTA coverage.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:04:19 +0000

Who are the “faces of the coverage” the people who do the talking? Will they be US or Canada or UK people? Coverage from an Amercan or UK POV? Or will Australian Fox people go over and front the shows?

EG: When the Kangaroos tour the UK and we have to listen to the UK commentators calling the game, you get the game from a UK POV, and it makes it less enjoyable.

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:46:21 +0000

I purchased the early bird at the last Com.games, even after confirming my order it did not activate on the night, they told me it was ok, they would sort it just keep pressing the buy now red button each day, cost me a fortune they charged me the early bird and the price the daily price. it took months to sort it out, in the end they knocked the money off the monthly charge over a period of months. Never again will I pay/book for any movies, sport, etc. where you change things out of the normal monthly pattern. They can’t cope with changes.

By: Venessa Lee

Venessa Lee — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:24:29 +0000

My understanding is that Foxtel will show stuff in long-form – so you’ll see the entire round or event. Nine will dip in and out much more. $50 seems pretty reasonable if Winter Olympics are your thing. It’s certainly far more visually spectacular than the Summer games. I imagine in HD it will look pretty amazing.

By: Andrew B

Andrew B — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:52:05 +0000

@ Axel – $160 a month? Platinum only about $100, at most $125 if you have IQ2 and all the HD channels. Did $160 include pay per views or something?

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:45:38 +0000

I love the winter games and I’d love to say I’ll just stick with the 9 highlights, but knowing they’ll just feature a few failed aussie competitors and not actually the real highlights I’ll probably be signing up, $50 sounds fair for 4 channels in HD.

By: Heléna

Heléna — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:02:05 +0000

$50 sounds fair to me – even the $65 to be introduced in January
I’m not that interested in the Winter Olympics – so won’t be watching

By: Cleavy

Cleavy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:22:36 +0000

Skeleton!!!

By: DAN

DAN — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:26:11 +0000

I might consider paying it for the summer games but defiantly not for the winter games

By: Baggygreen

Baggygreen — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:23:55 +0000

really dont get this one. Most sports nuts arent into this stuff..it just not in our culture. Fox couldnt make a dedicated AFL channel work at $100 per year, I have no idea how this will be cost effective. Would make more sense to give it to us in our sports package as a tease to show how well it can be done in the hope that it will temp people for Commonwealth & Olympic games. Fox havent poached any ch9 programmers lately have they??

By: Danny Wu

Danny Wu — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:28:16 +0000

$50 is good value when you compare it to a WWE PPV. I think Foxtel make most of the profits from ads not from the $50 fee. The $50 fee is to cover transmission costs.

By: gerry

gerry — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:05:32 +0000

Winter Olympics is not that good anyway, so I’ll just watch it on Nine. They certainly will do a better job than seven did.