US Viewers Using Proxies To Watch BBC Olympic Coverage 373
DavidGilbert99 writes "NBC is the sole broadcaster of the London 2012 Olympics in the U.S., having paid $1.1bn for the privilege. While NBC is providing live streaming through its website, you need to have a valid cable subscription in order to view the events. This has seen many tech savvy U.S. viewers turning to proxy servers to view the BBC's Olympic coverage, which doesn't need any sign-in to view — once your IP address looks like it is coming from the UK. One provider of VPN services has seen a ten-fold increase in new customers signing up for their services since last Friday."
Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. Here comes another amendment to the DMCA. The "Protect Our Networks, Mom, and Apple Pie--And I Support The Colorado Shooting Victims Act of 2013" which will make it illegal to circumvent the licensing agreements of your local network affiliates and outlaw all VPN's that refuse to turn over all server and user data to the FBI and NSA. And it will sail through Congress, and be signed immediately by President Obama--who will say to liberal supporters that he really doesn't WANT to sign it, but is doing so anyway.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason SOPA was stopped was because corporations were opposed. But now the corporations (all of them) (except mozilla) are in favor of CISPA so it will pass eventually. Might be another name but it was pass. When the corporations and the Congress are in collusion, what we the People desire has no relevance. Witness the debacle of the TARP2 which passed even with 80% of people calling representatives and saying no. And Obamacare which had almost 70% of people calling and demanding "no". TARP2
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Funny)
The ironing is delicious.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
state run (nominally) broadcaster
Not so much state run, more chartered by the state to fulfill a public service role. Outside the chartered requirements, the BBC can put on what they want, regardless of what the government may say.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a random thought: NBC video should be free. They were given a license to broadcast over the airwaves (which belong to the People) and should be sharing the NBC-Broadcast video for free over the air and the net. Else they should have their license revoked.
In my case it's actually a monopoly over the internet (Verizon FiOS or Comcast). No real choice there and why I think these companies should be government-regulated the same way the electric, natural gas, and water companies are regulated. They can't raise their prices without permission of the State PUC, and it should be the same with Verizon and Comcast.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Interesting)
First, I agree largely with your sentiment, but I would point out...that NBC *is* broadcasting video free over the air, all you need is a tv and an aerial to receive and watch it.
But, that license isn't applicable to anything they do over the internet....? I mean, that is money above and beyond air transmission....and wasn't included in the broadcast license for the spectrum they are licensed to use.
The FCC really only has say over transmission over the air...not what companies do over the internet, if they did, then I'd have to get some kind of approval or license from the FCC for anything you or I put up or stream over the internet ....and I kinda would like to keep it that way...
Re: (Score:3)
If there was ever such a stupid rule, the networks would just switch to directly providing cable companies and satellite TVs with their signal, and eliminate their affiliate stations altogether
Good, that would leave room for more ethical companies to broadcast.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha! That is a good one! The only people stupid enough to go to the expense of operating a TV station and producing content under such a system are religious and political whackos. And the only people who would go to the trouble of putting up an antenna to receive such drivel are people in the same category. And it is far easier and cheaper to just use the internet for that.
Re: (Score:3)
First, the OTA stuff is, of course, free.
Second, I hate to think what kind of twisted logic you used that leads to the conclusion "if you have a license to use part of the spectrum, everything you do (including that not using any of the spectrum) must be free".
Third, "NBC" does not have a license to broadcast over the airwaves, their affiliated stations do (yes, in some markets the affiliates may be owned by NBC).
Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (w
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
I'm happy for overseas people to pay to be able to get access. I see no reason why overseas subscription isn't an option. The BBC is wonderful and the content should be seen.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could pay.
You give me Sherlock, Dr Who and sporting events live and available for a month after showing and I would gladly pay right fucking now.
INSERT TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE SIGN HERE.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they are, but they are at least a full season behind.
I end up watching them on DVD a year late, rather than on streaming two years late.
I want to watch F1 races, without paying for some stupid channel that shows nascar races and other hill billy type sports.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do wish they'd all stop trying to remake the shows and sucking so hard at it, though. I'm looking at you, Top Gear USA.
Re: (Score:3)
100 times this.
Top Gear USA sucks and should die.
Take the funding and make one or two more episodes of Top Gear per year. Shoot them in the USA and show US versions of cars in that episode. Show all the episodes in both regions.
Re: (Score:2)
They have topgear UK, USA and Australia. Possible they have sold rights to other countries and those shows use another name.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what he means. They sold the brand and allow others to make/remake Top Gear.
Top Gear USA sucks, it should be canceled and the funds used to make more Top Gear episodes per series.
Re: (Score:3)
If we could pay a reasonable fee (not as much as you pay, since we're not benefiting from your broadcast system) then many of us would. If we could pay a la carte to see some things, I bet many of us would do that, too. But even if the BBC were game, the IOC wouldn't be.
Re: (Score:3)
I would pay the whole amount if they let me use the streaming service. $20 a month does not sound too bad.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
I'm happy for overseas people to pay to be able to get access. I see no reason why overseas subscription isn't an option. The BBC is wonderful and the content should be seen.
Basically, the oversite board ruled that if the BBC sold "internet license" to non-UK residents, it would be canabilizing the overseas alternatives like BBC-America, BBC-Canada etc. and thus reducing there profits
Re: (Score:3)
Those networks suck. I will not subscribe to them, but I would buy an internet license, so no canabalizing there.
Re: (Score:3)
we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. ... Watching without paying is illegal.
It's certainly the case that certain "watching" is illegal absent a licence, but it might be worth being clear as to what is required here:
A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence..
Communications Act 2003, s393(1) [legislation.gov.uk]
So, whatever a "television receiver" might be, mere ownership or possession of one does not require a licence — the requirement only kicks in if the receiver is "installed or used." ("Using" a TV means "using it for receiving television programmes"
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason why overseas subscription isn't an option.
The BBC's contract with the people who provide the programmes almost always only give them the right to broadcast in the UK. If they were to make their Olympic coverage available outside of the UK, they would be in breach of their contract with the IOC.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
This is not true.
You can get out of paying it if you do not own a TV, not sure about computers.
I wish the USA had something like this, or if the BBC would let us sign up.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Informative)
The licence is compulsary for any device capable of receiving broadcast media. That includes Internet, TV and radio.
If you can honestly declare that you don't use anything with those capabilities, then you do not have to pay.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Funny)
What about the penguin on me telly?
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. If all you watch is catchup services on a device that cant receive live TV then you don't need a TV license.
From here. [tvlicensing.co.uk]
Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Funny)
catchup services?
First, it's ketchup.
Second, what a strange service to provide.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Informative)
The licence is compulsary for any device capable of receiving broadcast media. That includes Internet, TV and radio.
No it is not. You do not need a TV license to access the internet or to listen to the radio. You technically need one to watch or record live streamed content which is also being simultaneously broadcast on TV, but content which is not on TV or which is not live streamed does not need one and this does not amount to needing a TV licence just because you have internet access which could theoretically be used for this. There is also an effective presumption that if you own a TV then you will use it to receive television but if you do not use it for that then you don't need a licence either.
Re: (Score:3)
There are 2 tvs in my house. The main one is used for iPlayer (not live), 4oD, ITVplayer, Sky player (not live), Netf
Re: (Score:2)
Having the device is, as I understand it, fine so long as you don't use it to receive live broadcasts (I was told that it doesn't matter whether those broadcasts are license fee funded). So if your PC isn't used to stream live broadcasts, it doesn't need a license. Using a TV as a monitor or for console gaming should also be fine, even though the device could receive TV in principle.
However, I think they tend to hassle addresses that have recently bought a TV and they tend to be somewhat threatening and v
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, I don't mean broadcasts of live events but rather simultaneous viewing of something as it is broadcast. So for instance, watching Doctor Who (somehow) through the internet as it is broadcast would require a license. Waiting until the episode finishes and then watching it on iPlayer (catchup) doesn't require a license.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a capable device, but not use it.
I don't pay a TV license, as the TV is only used for console gaming and DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
The licence is compulsary for any device capable of receiving broadcast media. That includes Internet, TV and radio. If you can honestly declare that you don't use anything with those capabilities, then you do not have to pay.
you only require a license IF you you view live broadcasts. not for iplayer or any other recorded online stuff that the BBC,ITV or channel 4 or anyone puts online on their sites.
i do NOT pay a TV license even though i have a very large TV here, then again it's NOT capable of receiving a digital signal and thus exempt and it's only connected to my desktop and not an antenna.
Also if the TV muppets ever come to your door they actually have no legal right of entry onto your premises. they only have an "implie
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Radio is free. And excellent. I can't recommend Radio 4 enough for anyone with a brain - check out "The Infinite Monkey Cage", "More or Less", "In Our Time" or "The History of the world in a 100 objects". Or "Just a minute" if you're after comedy.
I didn't realise you need one if you have a computer but no telly - that's new. But bear in mind that one license covers the entire household, and BBC TV is advert free (if you exclude them plugin their own shows in between shows).
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Informative)
This is false. You only need a licence to watch broadcast media as it is originally being broadcast. If you want to watch the BBC (or any broadcast media) on a TV as they broadcast or on their streaming feed on the Internet, you need a licence. If you only watch programmes on catch up services, you are OK.
Re: (Score:2)
> it's because the BBC can make more money selling the content to PBS, Syfy Channel, and so on. It all comes down to $$$.
Don't forget about the overpriced DVD releases. Some of them even put Star Trek to shame if you look at it from a dollars per hour point of view.
High prices. Short seasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Let foreigners pay a license fee as well?
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless they've changed the rules quite recently then you don't need a license unless you're using the device to view TV simultaneously with its broadcast. If you watch as catch-up (e.g. iPlayer) then a license is not needed - and if you just don't receive TV on the device at all you still don't need a license, even if it's a television or somesuch.
The licensing people are sometimes quite good at harassing people until they fork out for licenses that aren't needed; they come on relatively strong with the implied legal threats, so you need to be fairly sure of yourself if you're not buying a license. Nevertheless, in my experience, the actual written rules are more lenient than the impression the licensing people project.
Re:Expect networks to run to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
You only need to pay if you have a laptop AND access the live stream on the BBC website, or use a DVB card/dongle to receive live broadcasts.
If you only use the iplayer catchup service, you don't have to pay, but I can see that changing soon...
I pay because I have a TV and FreeSat - so no escape for me.
However, the BBC is really a very good broadcaster. The amount of good stuff on the telly that comes from the BBC - Planet Earth/Human Planet, Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes, Merlin, Doctor Who, Panorama, Proms, News, F1, Olympics, and the list goes on and one - is more than worth the small fee I have to pay. Best of all - no commercials and no pandering to advertisers!
I dread going back to the world of 500 cable channels with nothing on apart from sitcoms and re-runs of "World's Toughest Trucker".
Re: (Score:3)
I know of people that DONT have a TV and DONT watch BBC but because he owns a laptop he is forced to pay the "tax".
Then they're stupid for paying the TV license when they don't need to.
Cable Subscription? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cable Subscription? (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not need a cable subscription to view things that were aired on NBC, however if the event was televised one of NBC's cable channels then that content is not available online.
I would pay for coverage offered by a disinterested third party, somewhat like Monday Night Football, where you aren't getting commentary from someone who has a real vested interest in the team and instead is just covering the event.
Re: (Score:3)
The best is that when you have, say Charter Business Class, you cannot stream the Olympics even if you have TV. Why? Because you are required to have a charter.net e-mail address, something you cannot get on business class.
This is the most ridiculous and obnoxious thing that has ever happened for the Olympics. I'd rather have NOTHING available than this.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are not required to stream their content online for free. So they don't.
When they provide their service over the airwaves, it is required to be free, so it is. When they provide it over the internet it isn't required to be free because the internet isn't regulated in that way. Hands off the internet, right?
Also note that if you watch NBC over cable/satellite there's a good chance the local affiliate you are watching is also receiving carriage fees from your cable/satellite bill.
WTBS was a broad
Good (Score:3)
Jeez (Score:5, Funny)
Not just Cable... (Score:5, Informative)
I tried to log into the NBC app, and they bounced me. I have the basic cable package, that gives me the first 15 channels, plus TBS and GSN. Because I am not "subscribed" to MSNBC and CNBC they wouldn't let me in.
I'm very, VERY dissapointed in NBC and their olympic service delivery.
Re:Not just Cable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus it would be nice to have coverage that wasn't oriented toward idiots.
It started before the opening ceremonies, with the NBC presenters delivering what sounded like drug-addled, free association platitudes over a montage of US athletes. It went on through the parade of nations when one of NBC's presenters gave us a fat dose of his personal political opinions. It was not so much that the leadership of those countries he targeted wasn't contemptible, as that I don't need a sports announcer to tell me what to think. It goes on through interview after interview where the idiot interviewers ask "how does it feel to win" and try to pump as much emotion out of the athletes as possible. Discuss how the event went, or cut to a sport you're not covering, for Pete's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind commentary but it has its place... and this is like trying to watch a movie while a reviewer sits next to you and critiques the director and the movie in real-time. I would like to have the commentary in a separate audio track, o
Re: (Score:3)
I have scoured the web for a good recording of the Beijing Opening Ceremonies (amazing, IMHO) that is not marred by unwelcome commentary, and have not found it. The US, UK, French, and Japanese versions are all similar - all of them are full of blabbing commentators.
Beijing's opening was a great show all right.
The BBC commentary on the London opening ceremony was first rate. They spent most of the time in silence letting the visuals do the talking, and only ever interjected occasionally and discreetly to add a bit of context. I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC coverage.
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
As a Canadian, it's fun to watch the Americans finally have to struggle to find content.
We've been forced to use proxies for years.
Let me add a "HA! HA!" from Brazil also :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Shouldn't that "HA! HA!" look a little more like HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the first time I have gone without watching the oloympics every day they are on, and it sickens me that corporations are forcing people into unnecissary services to watch it. I pay for my internet service, that means I should be able to watch what I want online. PERIOD.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
No, stop being so wrong.
You are paying your ISP to provide internet, regardless of the content. It does not imply any rights to have content available, so tough cookie if it isn't. Net neutrality, wot.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
No, stop being so wrong.
You are paying your ISP to provide internet, regardless of the content. It does not imply any rights to have content available, so tough cookie if it isn't. Net neutrality, wot.
well, maybe not.
but the olympics being funded out of worldwide collected taxes, the olympics haven been given special exemptions and special rights with specially tailored laws sort of would imply it. not to mention the whole thing about olympic spirit..
it's a fucking travesty. maybe we'll have some Red Bull Realympics in 4 years as competing event where athletes can mention whatever the fuck they want on social media, wear whatever sporting goods they want and which will be streamed live to everyone who wants to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
but the olympics being funded out of worldwide collected taxes, the olympics haven been given special exemptions and special rights with specially tailored laws sort of would imply it. not to mention the whole thing about olympic spirit..
Really? I've never paid the Olympic tax! Sure, some (maybe most) of the athletes get government funding, but it's not that impressive. In the main the bulk of the costs of running the games are paid by the hosts.. NBC giving them $PILESOFMONEY helps with that, but it cost a $EVENLARGERPILEOFMONEY to set up.
it's a fucking travesty. maybe we'll have some Red Bull Realympics in 4 years as competing event where athletes can mention whatever the fuck they want on social media, wear whatever sporting goods they want and which will be streamed live to everyone who wants to watch.
I'm amused that you think that a corporately sponsored version of the Olympics would be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation? (Score:3)
It's very easy to get around and also means that license payers abroad can't use iPlayer, including servicemen. I'm quite happy paying my license fee, and don't really see why I should help fund free viewing for the rest of the world. However, I don't think they're using the best option.
I'd prefer to have a login that is provided when I pay for my license fee. The BBC could then stream concurrently to [for example] 4 clients using the same login details.
I've set myself up a proxy in work so that I can use iPlayer when abroad - works very nicely too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert, but I do know they offer BBC America "subscription" services to stations like PBS and NPR, and I think it might be bundled with some cable packages. I would imagine it's difficult to compete with your own free services. Or some variation thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
So charge for it?
I would gladly pay to use iPlayer, I will not pay for cable though.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?
Because the BBC isn't licensed to distribute content beyond the borders of the UK.
I'd prefer to have a login that is provided when I pay for my license fee.
That would require an Act of Parliament to redefine the BBC's broadcasts to include internet distribution (a TV license is not a legal requirement to watch iPlayer, a fact that you can verify at the TV licensing web site - the TV license only covers video that is watched at the same time as it is being broadcast).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite happy paying my license fee, and don't really see why I should help fund free viewing for the rest of the world.
I do. The rest of the world watching British TV is better than them watching, for example, American TV. It promotes our culture and values.
(I think the BBC World Service radio is partly funded for this reason.)
NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad (Score:5, Interesting)
To be blunt, the Olympic organisation needs to step up in its bid process to make sure that not only is it about getting money in to work within the machinery of an Olympics, but that any partner, and in particular its broadcast partners behave with minimum standards. These would be max advert time per hour, and min coverage required.
Any broadcasters who paster the coverage with advert time and clearly ruin the spectable could be eliminated. Any that don't plan to cover enough get the chop and so on. It should not merely be about the money.
I'm not a fan of the BBC. But its coverage of this Olympics has been stellar, and I can watch any - and all events. No coverage has ever been this vast or all encompassing.
Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad (Score:5, Insightful)
NBC's coverage has ALWAYS been bad. The worst part is that they smother everything with "human interest" stories to the point where you're not sure if you're watching the Olympics or some daytime talk show. Also, they commentary has been ridiculous - and sometimes outright offensive (particularly during the opening ceremonies).
I am incredibly annoyed that the Olympic Committee has started this broadcast monopoly business. It's terrible. NBC paid cash, so they can be as terrible as they want with impunity.
Which is why I have a new VPN account so that I can watch the BBC's coverage.
I would be happy to pay $20 or so for an Official Olympics Streaming Account or somesuch.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, is the BBC site organized so you can pick a specific sport and watch the prelims and final? I find the Olympics a bit ove
Re: (Score:2)
You can watch any event you want with NBC too. And you were able to do so at the 2010 Olympics (Canadian CBC did it too). And you were even able to do it at the Olympics on NBC!
http://www.nbcolympics.com/online-listings/day=august-1/index.html [nbcolympics.com]
So yeah, coverage has been this vast and all encompassing before. Glad to hear you finally came to the party. I guess you just didn't notice NBC in the room when you got here.
This idea began in the US 20 years ago with the (failed) Olympics Triplecast.
http://en.wikiped [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. I live in Britain and was born and bred here.
I can criticise the NBC coverage because being a well infoemed person generally, I have gathered some information and understand it to be so.
I have also found some NBC material that I have checked and examined the quality/content myself.
As for the BBC, my viewing can allow me to be critical or in the case of the Olympics, congratulatory about how its coverage has been.
The critique of the BBC outside of the Olympics is because its unbalanced, has severe left
Superb coverage (Score:3)
I'm really impressed with the amount of events that you can watch on the BBC's website. I initially thought it would just be a couple of events here and there, such as, you can either watch the badminton or the hockey.
Nope, you can choose from a massive range, so much so that I keep chopping and changing just to make sure I catch a bit of everything.
Except for the women's weightlifting. That's just scary.
Re: (Score:2)
It does suck (Score:2)
It does kind of suck that there's not a legal option to watch online. From what I understand, the only feeds available in the states are only available to people who subscribe to cable.
I wouldn't mind if there was a service that was charging or making you watch ads, but do I really need to pay for cable?
UK coverage can't be worse that the US one. (Score:5, Insightful)
With constant focus on pouty teens and their families, i was half convinced I was watching some new drama show.
If I want to know more about the athletes themselves, I'd watch the news. Please just stay focused on the performances. |:
Take this... (Score:5, Funny)
Take this you d*mn Yankees and get a tast on how it feels to watch "Game of Thrones" months later or through a TBP-proxy ;-).
NBC deserves it. (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, NBC hasn't gotten nearly enough shit over their treatment of the opening ceremony. Constant chattering, inane commentary, and the absolutely insulting audacity to cut to commercial during the 7/7 London Bombing memorial.
The coverage of the games themselves hasn't been too great, either. I'm not going to bitch about a tape delay because that's just a fact of life when the games are 7 hours ahead of local time. But when results are spoiled by fucking promotional commercials just minutes ahead of the event in question, that's just incompetence.
So, screw NBC. I hope someday the BBC allows foreigners to pay for access to its content without having to do VPN hacks. I know I'd subscribe in a heartbeat (hello, Doctor Who Series 7).
Re:NBC deserves it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
NBC coverage has always sucked, in my opinion, even more so with Mr. Costas at the helm. When we lived in Detroit, my wife and I would watch CBC coverage from Windsor. Absolutely blew away anything from the States. One of the few reasons we miss the Detroit area. That and the regular water main breaks...
balkanization turning web into TV 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
With the balkanization of #London2012 and other worldwide events, the web is being turned into TV 2.0 by the content cartels. Originally one of the beautiful things about the web was that content was open to all. Someone from Mozambique had access to all the same data and resources as someone from USA or France. But increasingly, everything is becoming locked down and controlled for the benefit of the big media companies. Only through illegal means most don't even know about can this be circumvented, so a few tech savy people manage, but the vast majority do not.
Who is to blame for this? Well, sure, those media companies, but all of the web users are to blame. As long as we support this balkanization, it will continue to happen. As long as we are tuning into their content en mass, they will never stop this. The end game is TV 2.0, rather than the open and free internet we COULD have had. If we let this happen, it's our own fault.
NBC has made me not care (Score:2)
I don't know about everyone else, but I find myself completely disinterested in the Olympics this round due to all the commercial bullshit attached to it. NBC et al can go fuck themselves; they have thusfar not received a single view of Olympic advertising from me. I haven't even bothered to watch a single event.
And that's pretty sad, because the ideal of the Olympics is something worth protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
I've felt that way for several Olympics now, which pretty much coincided with me getting old enough to have a valid opinion about anything like that.
And that's pretty sad, because the ideal of the Olympics is something worth protecting.
And that's why I'm boycotting it until the IOC is unfucked or unfucks itself.
Re: (Score:3)
the ideal is long dead and buried by the IOC. Olympics have been comercialized to the core and they are nothing more than a money making machine for all interested parties except the host city paying through the nose for years. Same thing with Fifa World Cup or Uefa Euro - organizations skim the cream off the top, while hosts are left with all the bills and responsibilities.
Total crap... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's outrageous enough that you need to be a subscriber of their services and partner companies to watch anything online. But then they mislead you all the way in. They advertise it on tv and online make it seem like all you need to do is click on a feed and start watching. So despite having logins for three of their services I couldn't watch with any because I didn't have one of their crappy cable networks as part of those packages.
And to add insult to injury, coverage on NBC has been abysmal. Take last night's broadcast of women's gymnastics. There was no rhyme or reason to it. They showed a bunch of random events, several times not even waiting to show scores. They barely showed any of the competition, so who the hell knows why China ended up being so far behind, for example. They wasted too much time with goofy drama. And despite being so overly America centric, for whatever reason they spent the first hour in primetime broadcasting diving which featured no American even close to being in medal contention. And, last but not least, let's not forget the endless commercial interruptions.
It's pathetic and my interest in following the Olympics for anything to other than medal counts is quickly evaporating. NBC seems incapable of handling a broadcast of this scale. You'd think that for prerecorded broadcasts, with the massive staff devoted to the games that they'd do a better job of editing.
Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee! (Score:4, Interesting)
they can't sell it to you (Score:3)
It's basically the HBO issue (the BBC and HBO are very similar models).
The BBC is required by law/charter to minimize their financial costs to UK citizens (the TV licence fee). So they sell their overseas rights as part of this. This brings in money and minimizes their overhead.
However, these overseas licenses are also exclusive. They just can't get much money for non-exclusive licenses. So in the process, the BBC gives up the right to stream their own produced shows to you in other countries even for a fee
I still don't get it... (Score:2)
How in hell is it accepted that the Olympics, perhaps one of the longest standing symbols of solidarity and friendly competition among countries, is sold whole to single providers? Here, there are two cable providers covering the Olympics and they're doing a pathetically bad job at it, so much so that you can effectively say I might as well not know there are Olympics going on.
I think it is utterly pathetic that such a thing is allowed to happen. If anything, the Olympics should be open to any network (be i
Now you've your UK proxy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
tvcatchup.com is clever and blocks access from various VPN networks it knows about.
Same applies to several other UK internet TV services, especially those run by broadcasters. The BBC are rare in not doing this.
I'm one of those people signing up for VPN (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both Facebook and Microsoft cut a huge deal with the olympics committee to broadcast it free over their website. Let me say that again - FOR FREE. ON THE INTERNET.
I think this would had been great opportunity for Google to do their usual push marketing. Just put olympics streaming on their homepage and require Chrome to view it (like they do on several other HTML5 sites). But they most likely lost the bidding war. There's no doubt they tried tho.
Funny, another very pro-Microsoft post from h111 the day after another one by a user named h105 that claimed not to be a shill. Odd indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of restricting "rebroadcast or retransmit" by the copyright holder do you not understand? They broadcast warnings about this all the time. Legally, making over the air TV signals available to the public on your website is something the copyright holder can ask you to not do, even if you don't make money on it. If you now start making money on advertising you can bet the folks that own the content will want you to license their content (i.e. get paid).
Re: (Score:2)
It being legal doesn't make it right.
It being illegal doesn't make it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is another good argument for the BBC becoming a subscription service.
To turn it into another SKY or ITV? Full of middle-of-the-road-must-please-everybody trash. I shudder at the thought. And you'd certainly have no more iPlayer...