FFCTv

[arnieb]

Does anyone else have to sign in to FFCTv nearly every time they use it?It's really annoying!

[Slaphead in Qatar]

Well if that's your only problem with ffctv then I would be happy if I were you.

I have not been able to see one match properly this season so far - can not get it on my iPad and on my laptop the picture keeps freezing

[Matt10]

I do not think they use cookies, which can prevent you from being automatically signed in. They also do not include an option/button for this.

I've sent them an email a couple weeks ago, but no response unfortunately.

In terms of streaming, no issues for me. I feel bad for others that do though. Definitely jump on these boards with any questions though.

Having a new streaming service is one thing, but not having the live, or prompt, support needed is a bit of a miss to me.

[jarv]

Good timing. I was about to post a question asking how it is working.  I sent an email to them stating that in USA it seems a lot of us have problems (including me when I purchased it last season). I asked some questions and got a prompt reply BUT I had to respond to them saying "you did not answer my questions". I asked again and got another prompt reply, still no answer to my question (I reduced it to 1 question in the hope they might actually be able to handle one at a time).  I gave up, will not pay for anything until I know it works perfectly. I get most of my Fulham news from all you guys.  Thanks.

[Southcoastffc]

Extract from the recent FST minutes:

The Trust provided feedback from some members that the level of support provided for the new FFCtv service could be improved.  CM explained that the Club receive detailed reports from the new service provider and regularly monitor support activity.  The average number of queries raised on a matchday is 75, most of which have been local internet or browser version issues.  CM also explained that
-The FAQs on the Club web site do resolve many of the common issues found by users and they will be made more prominent
-Users are asked to log any errors or issues via the online support team immediately (email: [email protected])
- On non-matchdays queries should be responded to within 48 hrs. On match days, additional dedicated support is available with all email enquiries answered asap
- A number of issues have been solved by installing browser updates (latest version of Chrome, Internet Explorer, Safari)
- Accessing FFCtv via Google Chrome is the recommended browser.

The FFCtv app that has been discussed in previous meetings is close to completion, with internal testing complete. It is undertaking final external tests with Apple and Google prior to planned release soon.  The app will allow customers to stream matches using a tablet as well as a phone.

The Trust re-iterated our suggestion that the recent interview with Tony Khan on the transfer window should be made free to view now that a number of weeks have elapsed.  AM said that on balance he is not in favour of this as premium content is required to provide value to FFCtv subscribers.

I don't think the Club takes the failings of ffctv seriously enough.

[jarv]

Thank you southcoast for the info. I agree with your last sentence. I do use google chrome and they suggested that in one of the answers, so no further forward. I will bide my time until I read that everythng is working like a charm.

[toshes mate]

I tried to find evidence about streamamg's record as a stream provider without a great deal of success.  They are a part of the PA media group, the multi-media news agency.  I did find evidence of service issues in relation to provision of streaming to a football club (which I'll leave unnamed at this stage) as long ago as 2014 which bear a close resemblance to the issues stated so far. Sadly this is a sign of the times so far as these streaming services are concerned.  Frankly any service that quotes a preferential browser to improve use in this day and age is mocking its users IMO, and most would simply say 'x' works but 'y' doesn't, and give that as a guarantee, period (i.e. money refunded if it doesn't do as we say).   Is it partially FFC fault?  Difficult to say without knowing who tendered for the business.   

[Matt10]

I think they choose Chrome over anything because Chrome runs all plugins without as much issue compared to other browsers. In addition, Chrome is more popular and therefore most common to be used. It's not necessarily a preference, rather than a safeguard to get the best experience.

As someone who works in technical support, we are at the mercy of the technology in what certain plugins and codecs allow. There are too many variables to consider when it comes to computers/devices, so it's best to make the best requirements to ensure the very basic start of the process is agreed upon. This makes it easier to troubleshoot and isolate if issues arise.

The problem here is lack of live support. Either chat or telephone. Answering tickets is email correspondence via Zendesk (for example) and that is not the most immediate process. Especially when a match has an average 2 hour window to troubleshoot, because there is no way to test beforehand.

[toshes mate]

Compared to even five years ago browsers are now much more reliable, in principle because supported OS systems have become significantly more stable.  Since the stream player is embedded code in the stream source website it should work as designed without issue aside from buffering problems which can often be deductively traced to the internet service provider of the user rather than anywhere else.  Connectivity to the service shouldn't be an issue and yet that was a feature of the 2014 scenario I mentioned above.  I have used Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and a few lesser known browsers, and only Firefox delivers consistently to the same level.  Chrome often refuses to connect to the commentary audio stream and so I do not use it.  Opera has log-in sensitivity but works fine once this is overcome via trial and error.  These are almost certainly issues at the source of the stream, again referred to in the 2014 scenario mentioned above.  Streaming is no big deal aside from content protection issues, and there is plentiful evidence in the marketplace that this can and does get in the way of the service provided.  It means that protecting content can override the service to genuine customers.  It is up to the service provider to ensure this cannot happen but without a good customer interface how are they going to know what issues there are?  Wouldn't a caring provider want customers to have instantaneous access to effective customer service when things don't work as they are advertised to work? 

     

[Matt10]

Compared to even five years ago browsers are now much more reliable, in principle because supported OS systems have become significantly more stable.  Since the stream player is embedded code in the stream source website it should work as designed without issue aside from buffering problems which can often be deductively traced to the internet service provider of the user rather than anywhere else.  Connectivity to the service shouldn't be an issue and yet that was a feature of the 2014 scenario I mentioned above.  I have used Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and a few lesser known browsers, and only Firefox delivers consistently to the same level.  Chrome often refuses to connect to the commentary audio stream and so I do not use it.  Opera has log-in sensitivity but works fine once this is overcome via trial and error.  These are almost certainly issues at the source of the stream, again referred to in the 2014 scenario mentioned above.  Streaming is no big deal aside from content protection issues, and there is plentiful evidence in the marketplace that this can and does get in the way of the service provided.  It means that protecting content can override the service to genuine customers.  It is up to the service provider to ensure this cannot happen but without a good customer interface how are they going to know what issues there are?  Wouldn't a caring provider want customers to have instantaneous access to effective customer service when things don't work as they are advertised to work? 

     

Even if it is embedded code that doesn't automatically mean it will just work without issue. Buffering cannot be just about speed, it can be access to the network's signal (WiFi vs wired), securities (firewall) or software access (Antivirus). You can go further with certain OS versions that have compatibility issues such as MacOS Mojave not allowing access to certain software or audio/video devices.

FFCTV, have to use the most commonly used base requirements to produce a starting place for troubleshooting. Without that, there are too many factors at play. I imagine they have a very small sample size thus far of their top issues. Whether it's 2014 or 2019, the constants remain with end users in general. The level of depth should further promote the need for Live customer support:

- System - PC/Mac/Linux/Mobile
- System Specs - Processor, memory, GPU
- System status - CPU usage, hard drive space, peripherals, firewall
- Network - Connectivity regarding speed, firewall, antivirus, user permissions
- Compatibility - Browser type, browser version, browser permission, browser security, plugins, codecs, extensions

They need to procure Zendesk chat or some other form of chat access to start troubleshooting live. Till then, it's going to be a crapshoot each and every time. I feel quite bad that the multiple factors at play are not considered here because it does not seem to ever get to that point. Having the base requirements to stream in general are not enough, and FFCTV is setting up their reputation to be unreliable.

If we can start a thread of the top issues reported, maybe sticky it, then go from there and provide possible solutions - I think it may go a long way to at least get on the same page.

[toshes mate]

Whilst I agree that a user's antivirus software can interfere with connectivity to a site this should only happen if the site is insecure and/or potentially dangerous to the user's machine integrity.  It should be noted that although is a 'switch' takes place between the more secure financial information webpages and the less secure general access portals propriety antivirus software notes that neither is an issue for the user.  Likewise a firewall will distinguish this difference in the same way - neither poses a security threat. 

I have also sometimes used a very secure VPN access and this is not even registered by antivirus (it cannot see it) and neither FFC or FFCTV note the way the software and connection are implemented.  The VPN tunnel is invisible to them but could be detected as an issue if the provider were looking for it.  The BBC website has a user location detector that blocks users it doesn't like even if they are license payers (i.e. content protection is everything)! 

The notion that it is 'always' the user's machine was in place when I worked for Microsoft (briefly) way back when internet access was dial-up and Windows didn't have a built in browser and even then it was largely found to be untrue.  Sometimes a lengthy cold reboot would solve an issue but a user may have been left with a problem that would only resolve at the next Windows update.   A stock public response for email issues was a lightning strike over Seattle when the truth was the email server had simply collapsed under a software/hardware fault and engineers were still trying to figure out why.  That is why I am a computer cynic.  Good software will work each and every time because I have written good code which remains reliable even now after two plus decades of software iterations and big changes in hardware.   Debugging poor code is a truly horrible job for even the best support technician.

I remain pretty sure that the real issue is about how the content is protected from user abuse and how that potential abuse is being detected.  This has been true about both Apple and Microsoft machines for quite a long time.  It is nowhere near such a problem for Linux but then we can argue that Linux isn't pushing so hard to be so called user friendly or universally applicable because it costs nothing and isn't about making things easy for corporate sellers to make money.

FFCTV and FFC need to deliver a reliable product across all the supported platforms and that should have been a requirement of the tendering process.  It also needs to guarantee fast resolution of issues or money back without question.  Those things alone drive companies to be better.   If FFCTV and FFC want FOF (and others) to assist them then maybe they should think about paying for that service and input, because it is really their job to do this.
     

[jarv]

Having read all this, my head is spinning and my eyes have probably glazed over. Thanks Matt and Tosh for the insight. :54:

[Matt10]

Whilst I agree that a user's antivirus software can interfere with connectivity to a site this should only happen if the site is insecure and/or potentially dangerous to the user's machine integrity.  It should be noted that although is a 'switch' takes place between the more secure financial information webpages and the less secure general access portals propriety antivirus software notes that neither is an issue for the user.  Likewise a firewall will distinguish this difference in the same way - neither poses a security threat. 

I have also sometimes used a very secure VPN access and this is not even registered by antivirus (it cannot see it) and neither FFC or FFCTV note the way the software and connection are implemented.  The VPN tunnel is invisible to them but could be detected as an issue if the provider were looking for it.  The BBC website has a user location detector that blocks users it doesn't like even if they are license payers (i.e. content protection is everything)! 

The notion that it is 'always' the user's machine was in place when I worked for Microsoft (briefly) way back when internet access was dial-up and Windows didn't have a built in browser and even then it was largely found to be untrue.  Sometimes a lengthy cold reboot would solve an issue but a user may have been left with a problem that would only resolve at the next Windows update.   A stock public response for email issues was a lightning strike over Seattle when the truth was the email server had simply collapsed under a software/hardware fault and engineers were still trying to figure out why.  That is why I am a computer cynic.  Good software will work each and every time because I have written good code which remains reliable even now after two plus decades of software iterations and big changes in hardware.   Debugging poor code is a truly horrible job for even the best support technician.

I remain pretty sure that the real issue is about how the content is protected from user abuse and how that potential abuse is being detected.  This has been true about both Apple and Microsoft machines for quite a long time.  It is nowhere near such a problem for Linux but then we can argue that Linux isn't pushing so hard to be so called user friendly or universally applicable because it costs nothing and isn't about making things easy for corporate sellers to make money.

FFCTV and FFC need to deliver a reliable product across all the supported platforms and that should have been a requirement of the tendering process.  It also needs to guarantee fast resolution of issues or money back without question.  Those things alone drive companies to be better.   If FFCTV and FFC want FOF (and others) to assist them then maybe they should think about paying for that service and input, because it is really their job to do this.
   

I can understand where you are coming from then. Having worked in technical support for about 10 years, I can say 80% of the time it is the end user's system though. What you bring up is a possible source, but what is needed to troubleshoot is the symptom. Having poor code or logic isn't enough to troubleshoot, it's only enough to give up in the first place. This day and age, you have to self diagnose issues, and deferring it to poor coding is easily debunked when other users have no issues. Sure, it can be content protection, but it can be multiple other things. Outdated drivers, CPU usage at 100% trying to stream a high CPU usage browser (Chrome) for example.

You are right, Linux is probably less of a headache. In addition to my Windows 10, I have a Chromebook, which uses ChromeOS, a linux kernel based, which has no issues in streaming FFCTV. The CPU usage is unmatched, and the audio/video drivers are seamless with the OS. Yes, it is basically a tablet with a keyboard, but it's a great little device that isolates a lot of the possible issues a PC/Mac can run into.

I don't have too much to comment on content protection because I believe that is a possible source, without any tangible symptom - therefore it is difficult to troubleshoot, or even start. Can you provide more specifics on this, and how one would start troubleshooting? I just want to make sure I'm understanding where you are coming from and perhaps something is lost in translation, if so I apologize.

I'll say it again, live support is needed for FFCTV. Email is just not going to do the job. Reading through the previous troubleshooting thread: https://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=72490.40 , a lot could have been isolated and identified with live support versus emailing back and forth, with that short two hour window in play.

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

Having read all this, my head is spinning and my eyes have probably glazed over. Thanks Matt and Tosh for the insight. :54:

Me too.
Thanks all but it's completely above my pay grade.
My monthly memberships fee is automatically withdrawn.
Then all I want to do is sign in and pay the extra to watch each game.

It's a bit of a con really, making us pay a monthly subscription for an
an additional service I can't get.
They even made me pay twice last month to join and I still couldn't get the live match
I've given up now and normally manage to find some stream or other.

Shambles

[toshes mate]

I can understand where you are coming from then. Having worked in technical support for about 10 years, I can say 80% of the time it is the end user's system though. What you bring up is a possible source, but what is needed to troubleshoot is the symptom. Having poor code or logic isn't enough to troubleshoot, it's only enough to give up in the first place. This day and age, you have to self diagnose issues, and deferring it to poor coding is easily debunked when other users have no issues. Sure, it can be content protection, but it can be multiple other things. Outdated drivers, CPU usage at 100% trying to stream a high CPU usage browser (Chrome) for example.

You are right, Linux is probably less of a headache. In addition to my Windows 10, I have a Chromebook, which uses ChromeOS, a linux kernel based, which has no issues in streaming FFCTV. The CPU usage is unmatched, and the audio/video drivers are seamless with the OS. Yes, it is basically a tablet with a keyboard, but it's a great little device that isolates a lot of the possible issues a PC/Mac can run into.

I don't have too much to comment on content protection because I believe that is a possible source, without any tangible symptom - therefore it is difficult to troubleshoot, or even start. Can you provide more specifics on this, and how one would start troubleshooting? I just want to make sure I'm understanding where you are coming from and perhaps something is lost in translation, if so I apologize.

I'll say it again, live support is needed for FFCTV. Email is just not going to do the job. Reading through the previous troubleshooting thread: https://www.friendsoffulham.com/forum/index.php?topic=72490.40 , a lot could have been isolated and identified with live support versus emailing back and forth, with that short two hour window in play.

My complaint about it 'always' being the user's machine is fact based from academic study, is borne out statistically, and also conforms with my work as a consultant for customers.  About one in five issues are down to the user's machine, whilst a good one in three are down to OS updates that go awry because they haven't been checked properly by the provider.  Even Windows v1903 update is still battling with things it should be doing easily but are apparently beyond Microsoft's workforce six months after release.  But that is really the tip of the iceberg.   

The issue is about conflicts which began to show their ugly heads when DRM (Digital Rights Management) became an integral part of the end user OS (e.g Vista).  The first attempts were a disaster with a lot user licensed material being blocked by the OS (courtesy of ill thought out probing and layering of detection code) even to the extent your machine would refuse to let you use it.  This work was the first attempt by Apple and Microsoft to move towards common strategies and it was the moment Bill Gates decided he had had enough.  DRM is a nightmare.  The copy right broadcast owner imposes strict limits on those it licenses; the material moves around several different outlets all of them uniquely transmitted to your machine but carrying code that identifies source; the players each have unique identifiers.  The embedded OS software works overtime to try to put all this together when it was never properly designed to do that and, just like Windows v1903, the designers can say 'well it works okay for most' so the problem must be you and your machine!  Sorry Matt10 but that isn't the deal people enter into and part with good money for a bad product.  One exception is bad luck; several exceptions is just plain carelessness but is also taking money under false pretences which should be a crime.       

[Logicalman]

I have had no real issues since the first day of signing up, either with logging in or the video/audio feed (barring the fact that Jim seems to know two seconds in advance as to what happened on the pitch before the video catches up).

I have a set process for logging in that has served me well (thus far)
1. Goto Fulham Home page
2. Click the FFCTv link on the lower menu bar
3. Click My Account (don't be fooled if you also see a Log Out button)
4. You will then get the prompt to enter your credentials (arnieb: to your point, I can store my credentials which auto-populate, so I don't have to enter them each time)
5. Log in and then click the Home button (top right)
6. Scroll down to the viewing/Listening section

I use a Dell Laptop, Win 10, Chrome (Version 76.0.3809.132 (Official Build) (64-bit)) recently updated to Version 77.0.3865.90 (Official Build) (64-bit))

Hope this assists

[toshes mate]

I offer this for 'free' because it is such very basic design for any premium (i.e. paid for) website accessed by any PC.  It is very easily modified for other devices.

1.   You direct your browser to the required website which has the required access portal.

2.   You press the member access portal button if you are already a member. (Goto 8 )

3.   You press the Join button if you are not already a member. (Goto 4)

4.   The screen asks you for basic member details  (usually an email address, password, name, home address, but not payment details) and press continue (Goto 5)

5.   You are asked to authenticate your email which is achieved by sending one automatically to the email address you have provided.   The email you receive has a link that you press to confirm receipt (Goto 6).

6.   On a new screen you are given the available options as to the level of membership you require, what they offer, and the cost of each.  You select one as appropriate. (Goto 7)

7.   You are asked for payment method and details (e.g. credit card, etc)  and taken through the payment process (sometimes offsite).  (Goto 8).

8.   You are now asked to log on to the site as a member with your email and password entered at step 4.

9.   This is the member screen which should confirm you are a member and inform you what is available to you and your level of membership.  It should show as relevant the following:  recorded media, live broadcast (either commentary or full audio and visual), and, perhaps the dates and times of the next available live broadcast material.  It should also have access to your membership details, payment method etc., ability to amend password, and cancel membership, etc., etc.

10.   When you have finished you log out and the screen confirms this (minimum basic security requirement).

Issues I have with FFC and FFCTV
One of the problems I see with the current set up is that material available only to members of FFCTV appears on the FFC site and is made accessible to FFCTV members via that site (albeit with the log in requirement).  That seems to compromise the smooth working of the FFCTV site only because it means that you may forget to log-out of the FFCTV element which is not only a security risk to the user and to the site but is also not good practice since personal details are stored in your membership record.  All the portal elements should be secure.  FFC could still advertise the members only material but require the user to go to the FFCTV portal to access them and open that access in a new window or tab.   
   

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

I have had no real issues since the first day of signing up, either with logging in or the video/audio feed (barring the fact that Jim seems to know two seconds in advance as to what happened on the pitch before the video catches up).

I have a set process for logging in that has served me well (thus far)
1. Goto Fulham Home page
2. Click the FFCTv link on the lower menu bar
3. Click My Account (don't be fooled if you also see a Log Out button)
4. You will then get the prompt to enter your credentials (arnieb: to your point, I can store my credentials which auto-populate, so I don't have to enter them each time)
5. Log in and then click the Home button (top right)
6. Scroll down to the viewing/Listening section

I use a Dell Laptop, Win 10, Chrome (Version 76.0.3809.132 (Official Build) (64-bit)) recently updated to Version 77.0.3865.90 (Official Build) (64-bit))

Hope this assists



Hi Tony,
Thanks for this.
I've got this to show I'm a monthly member geezer.
"You already have an active subscription, starting a new subscription will result in you being billed multiple times,
if you wish to change the subscription check in My Account to see if you can upgrade your existing subscription.
Match Video Pass: Sheffield Wednesday v Fulham
Today's Payment: £5.00
You will be charged £5.00 for your live video pass today.


I get to your last line but I can't get past the "Join" button to get to somewhere I can pay for todays game
I'm sure as people have said "it's normally an end user error, but if the site doesn't direct me  zzzzzzzzzzz
Cheers Chappie