Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television The Courts Communications Entertainment

Mayweather-McGregor Streaming Glitches Prompt Lawsuit Against Showtime (hollywoodreporter.com) 118

Posted by BeauHD from the potato-quality dept.
Customers who paid $99.99 to watch the Conor McGregor-Floyd Mayweather fight are suing Showtime due to the quality of their stream and buffering issues. From a report via Hollywood Reporter: Portland, Ore., boxing fan Zack Bartel paid to stream the fight in high-definition through the Showtime app but says all he saw was "grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls." Bartel is suing Showtime for unlawful trade practices and unjust enrichment, alleging the network rushed its pay-per-view streaming service to the market without securing the bandwidth necessary to support the scores of cable-cutting fans. The complaint, which is largely composed of screenshots and tweets, is seeking for each member of the class actual damages or $200 in statutory damages, whichever is greater. The proposed class includes Oregon consumers who viewed Showtime's app advertisement on iTunes and paid $99.99 to stream the fight, but were unable to view the fight live on the app "in HD at 1080p resolution and at 60 frames per second, and who experienced ongoing grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls instead." Showtime senior vp sports communications director, Chris DeBlasio, says: "We have received a very limited number of complaints and will issue a full refund for any customer who purchased the event directly from Showtime and were unable to receive the telecast." DeBlasio recommends users contact their cable or satellite provider if they experienced any issues.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mayweather-McGregor Streaming Glitches Prompt Lawsuit Against Showtime More

Mayweather-McGregor Streaming Glitches Prompt Lawsuit Against Showtime

Comments Filter:

  • Here in Seattle... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream, so they're obviously not taking about us.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nyder ( 754090 )

      I don't know anyone with a connection fast enough to stream, so they're obviously not taking about us.

      Ain't that the truth. Not to mention data caps now.

    • But now you know that is Showtime's fault. Sue!

    • Any more info on this? Curious why bandwidth is so bad in Seattle... I was considering moving there at some point.

  • I'm going to spend a hundred to buy a nice dinner and movie, enjoy a game of mini golf, give a few bucks to charity, and then go on Amazon to buy a miniature violin. Said violin should also prove useful when dealing with people who pay a thousand dollars for an "Ivery(TM)" plastic backscratcher.

    • I'll need to see an itemized receipt for how/where you can do all that for $100. Not saying it can't be done, but ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      So you don't care about fraud and corruption so long as you have a reason to make fun of the victim? Nice.

      I will take your "few bucks" and add a zero or two.

      That's not a pissing match you are going to win.

      • I think it's pretty hilarious you're angrily declaring you'll do more good than me while getting annoyed that I don't feel compassion for one percenter problems. I'd be angry if someone stole a nickel from a child. This...fails to measure up against a gas pump not charging properly.

  • You know there's some fine print about may not be blah, blah, blah, etc. blah. Basically they aren't responsible. They'll blame your hardware, the cable company, Trump, the RUSSIANS, and everyone else they can. Just think next time before you wad 100 bucks up and throw it away.

    • The company said they'll give refunds so can't see how this complaint has any legs.
      I'm not sure why anyone pays for this shit anyway. Go to your local bar and spend the $hundred on beer and snacks support your local business and watch the show for free. The atmosphere is usually much better than at home or the actual event.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • My usual watering holes were not showing it (though they will often do other PPVs). Reasons varied between the cost to them and security concerns.

          Terrusts? Getting hacked? Or drunk paddies?

      • The company said they'll give refunds so can't see how this complaint has any legs. I'm not sure why anyone pays for this shit anyway. Go to your local bar and spend the $hundred on beer and snacks support your local business and watch the show for free. The atmosphere is usually much better than at home or the actual event.

        Exactly this! As a card carrying introvert, the bar environment is the perfect place to watch boxing bar none..

        And I don't have the wife telling me that boxing is brutal (duh) or thinking I'm watching gay porn if I have an MMA fight on.

        • I'm watching gay porn if I have an MMA fight on.

          Well, to be honest...

          • I'm watching gay porn if I have an MMA fight on.

            Well, to be honest...

            I know. Just did a DuckDuckGo search on MMA porn, and sure enough, there is a lot of it. But it's like the real thing is almost a Poe thing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Khyber ( 864651 )

            ...wanna know how I know you watch Wrestlehard? :D

      • Most local bars were charging admission for this (or any big fight). Typically $20-50 per person.

        Also, a lot of people who are purchasing the fight for home viewing are hosting parties. I'd much rather view the fight with 15-20 friends than with 100-200 strangers.

        • Most local bars were charging admission for this (or any big fight). Typically $20-50 per person.

          You must live in a strange place. Pubs are where most people go to watch major sporting events and I've never heard of any charging a door fee.

          I'd much rather view the fight with 15-20 friends than with 100-200 strangers.

          Personal preference I guess. You can't beat a vocal crowd for atmosphere...

    • Showtime should turn around and sue his ISP for sucking so badly. Considering the press on this story, Showtime could argue that his ISP damaged their image.
  • He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.
    If he actually goes ahead with the suit, he's likely to be counter sued; and he'll probably lose.
    Unless he's a total idiot, he'll take the offer of a refund.

    • Re:Just an idiot making noise (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @02:57AM (#55101647)

      He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.

      Yep, because the fight was totally delayed due to the streaming issues because of a bunch of end user ISPs.

    • Re:Just an idiot making noise (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @03:09AM (#55101677) Journal

      He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.

      Unlikely to the extreme: these problems were reported so widely, Showtime even moved the main event to mitigate the problems caused by the unresponsive servers.

      If he actually goes ahead with the suit, he's likely to be counter sued; and he'll probably lose.

      Countersued? For what? At this point I think you must be trolling.

      • He can't prove the problems were caused by Showtime. Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.

        Unlikely to the extreme: these problems were reported so widely, Showtime even moved the main event to mitigate the problems caused by the unresponsive servers.

        If he actually goes ahead with the suit, he's likely to be counter sued; and he'll probably lose.

        Countersued? For what? At this point I think you must be trolling.

        It was one of those educational and cultural moments that lift all humans to a more enlightened plane.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Khyber ( 864651 )

        "Countersued? For what?"

        Violation of the arbitration clause in his service contract.

    • as they said the issues where caused by them not having enough bandwidth for the demand and you payed frigging 100$ for it i would be pissed to.
    • Showtime isn't going to sue him. Even if they won and were awarded everything the guy has it wouldn't pay for their lawyer time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Most likely they were caused by his internet provider.

      So, a net neutrality problem then?

      Showtime should just refund anyone who had problems their $100. And then go after the ISPs for throttling or otherwise harming their streaming feed and costing them the refund.

  • One disgruntled 'sportsfan' complained

    I paid good money to watch these two guys beat each other to death and all I saw was 'grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls'. How am I supposed to feed on someone else's misery under these conditions!?! Waaaaa"

  • History Lesson (Score:5, Informative)

    by magusxxx ( 751600 ) <magusxxx_2000@yaOPENBSDhoo.com minus bsd> on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @02:21AM (#55101599)

    During the 1980's the big thing was to go to a stadium and watch a fight on a large projection screen. Price was $50. ($160 in 2017 money.)

    One fight lasted less than a minute. No refunds.

    • Re:History Lesson (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @05:45AM (#55101959)

      One fight lasted less than a minute. No refunds.

      1980's boxing events werent single fight though. While Mike Tyson often finished off his opponent somewhere in the first 3 rounds, it was still a multi-hour event with other weight classes often also having important bouts.

      • So in other words, they bundle fights like cable companies bundle packages to make you feel like you're getting a decent deal.
        • I guess, sort of but some of the best fights I've ever seen were on the pre-fight card of people I didn't know.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          "So in other words, they bundle fights like cable companies bundle packages to make you feel like you're getting a decent deal."

          Apparently you've never looked at the ranking system, boxing rules/regulations, etc. Multi-class exhibitions are standard fare for boxing matches. How else do fighters get known if each full-scale event only has one fight that lasts maybe 20 minutes at best?

        • Exactly, and it completely counters the "history lesson" hand waving peddled by magusxxx, which was trying to insinuate that in the 1980's that people paid $50 for a 40 second fight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      No. There were PPV sporting events during the 80s.

      Some of us were actually alive then and remember this stuff.

      They charged an insane amount for Star Wars when it finally hit PPV.

      • Well, I was also alive and remember they did do these events.

        Go to Google Images and type:1980 closed circuit boxing

        You'll see several posters for these closed circuit broadcasts. They occurred at civic centers and convention halls. Not to just anyone who had a cable box.

  • We have received a very limited number of complaints

    Well then maybe all the people attending the actual event should sue then for the unjust delay to the fight caused by streaming issues, if they were actually so limited.

  • Ok, so I'm like 100 percent certain that there's going to be some sort of EULA or shrink-wrap/click-wrap/whatever license that releases them from liability for streams that fail to reach the maximum possible quality due to an insufficient internet connection.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So what? It's like those trucks hauling rocks with big "not responsible for broken windshields" signs. You can SAY you're not responsible for something all day and, like those signs, your EULA might discourage people from doing something about it perhaps, but in the end you are absolutely responsible for things you do and things you control. Paying $100 to watch a fight is very different from paying $100 to MAYBE watch a fight due to circumstances you have no control over.

      Now, you're going to point out t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Khyber ( 864651 )

        "it isn't realistic to load test it under actual live circumstances when those circumstances differ sharply from normal use"

        Bullshit. We have VMs for just this reason - spawn up a fuckton of instances and connect to the service to see if it can handle the load. Make the automated connections spread themselves out or clusterfuck together so you can see where your weaknesses lie.

        This is basic fucking IT work, boss. Hell, this is basic network building - ensure you've got the bandwidth and connection capabilit

        • The company mentioned they only had a small amount of user complaints meaning the problem was probably on the users end not the company's. If the guy throwing the suit had a bad internet connection and his wifi couldn't handle the load of the HD stream then it's not the company's fault.

  • Dammit, the RIAA was right! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @05:08AM (#55101881)

    Pirates are getting an inferior product. Instead of watching the fight flawlessly, they could have watched it with stutter and get paid for it now!

  • Hooli [hooli.xyz] Clowns can't get streaming right.

  • each member of the class actual damages or $200 in statutory damages, whichever is greater

    Minus the class action chasing lawyer fees, good luck with that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      > Minus the class action chasing lawyer fees, good luck with that.

      The standard for the lawyer's cut is a third. That still leaves you with a judgement larger than the price of the fight.

  • multicast streaming? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What ever happened to multicast streaming? I thought there was a big push for that a decade or so ago so one stream could service thousands of endpoints simultaneously in order to alleviate disasters like this.

  • I expect I'm going to be watching it in a theater, on a 30 foot screen, or else as a live performance.

    I cannot even begin to comprehend how a person would think that is a worthwhile investment to watch at home.

    • I cannot even begin to comprehend how a person would think that is a worthwhile investment to watch at home.

      For a single person, yes that's insane. However, most people get a bunch of their friends together and everyone throws in a little bit.

      • I was a kid when Mike Tyson was ascendant in the heavyweight ranks. My step-father used to have a few friends over for like $5.00 each and order the fight.

        That was back when 4 friends at $5.00 each would cover the PPV.

        LK

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      > I cannot even begin to comprehend how a person would think that is a worthwhile investment to watch at home.

      I have a 10 foot screen. Anything less than an XD or IMAX screen (at a closer than halfway back the house) is going to be a LESS compelling experience than what many of us have at home.

      Even with a big screen, if the house isn't set up properly it's going to be inferior. A local house with those posh recliners is like this because of how seats are laid out. The screen is great but there's really n

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        I have a 10 foot screen. Anything less than an XD or IMAX screen (at a closer than halfway back the house) is going to be a LESS compelling experience than what many of us have at home.

        Presumably that is the reason that one would be willing to spend a hundred bucks to watch something in the first place. That's a half-day's work at living wage where I live... why would anyone want to spend that kind of hard earned money on being entertained for such a short time in their own friggen home? I would imagine t

  • I don't get why you would file a lawsuit for something like this. Just call Showtime and they'll give you your 99$ back. Done. End of story. If this ever reaches a judge, it should be laughed out of court and kick the lawyer in the pants for accepting such a stupid case.

  • Burn your money (Score:3)

    by gsslay ( 807818 ) on Tuesday August 29, 2017 @10:49AM (#55103137)

    Paying $99.99 to watch two large sweaty men punch each other for a while?

    I'm finding it really hard to sympathise with these people.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      to watch two large sweaty men

      Large?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        >> to watch two large sweaty men

        > Large?

        The person that called McGreggor a Leprechaun really wasn't exaggerating. =D

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Khyber ( 864651 )

        They're large if you go by weight class - they're both three classes above me (though that means nothing when it comes to technical ability and my nearly 80cm reach. Us tall and lanky outboxers get our wins by keeping the opponent the fuck away from us. Mayweather's got reach but no connection capability unless you're in close. A few taps to the side of his temple and he's done for, it's one of the weakest points he has because it's always been guarded and not hit so often as to be able to know and withstan

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Khyber ( 864651 )

      What, you've never watched Bumfights?

      Most of those were far more entertaining than the MacGregor/Mayweather match, and usually last only a couple of minutes.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close