Slashdot Mirror


US Viewers Using Proxies To Watch BBC Olympic Coverage

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."

10 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Not just Cable... by bytor4232 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
  2. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Britain we all have to pay a T.V. licence fee. This money funds the BBC. Watching without paying is illegal. So you are "stealing".
    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.

  3. Re:Finally by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was going to say, It's funny to see things going the other way for once. Living in Canada, I know a lot of people who have signed up for proxy services to access to US Netflix Catalog, as well as things like Hulu, and even things like the shows that ABC, NBC, and CBS put on their websites. The nice thing about Netflix is that even if you sign up on the Canadian site, as soon as you use a proxy, it shows a nice message along the lines of "Looks like you're travelling, Content may be different from what you're used to". You can get a US VPN for $6 a month. Which is well worth it considering how much extra content you can get.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by h4rr4r · · 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.

  5. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by Jetboy01 · · 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.

  6. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by japhering · · Score: 4, 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

  7. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by BenJury · · Score: 4, 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.

    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.

    --
    Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
  8. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by tomtomtom · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by jeremyp · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  10. Re:Expect networks to run to Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Support for/against Obamacare has run about even with both sides claiming a near 50% stake. The highest opposition ever reached was near 60% in the beginning, but as more people learned what it actually was, and there were no "death panels" deciding who lived, it went back to about 50%-50% more or less depending on the week and who was poling. The opposition numbers never reached near 70%.