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."

Comments

Expect networks to run to Congress

[crazyjj]

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

[macromorgan]

Normally I'd agree with you, but after the SOPA/PIPA debacle the Internet community is mobilized and on alert for crap like this. Although it would be interesting to see the Cat Signal be turned on...

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, not even an elected official would support the PONMaAP-AISTCSV Act of 2013.

Now the Protecting Real Online Numberings From Alien Proxies Act of 2013 is something we can all agree on.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Dunbal]

Once again, yet another idiot that requires education: Oligopolies are NOT "free markets". When you have the power to sign an exclusive contract and shut out absolutely everyone else, there's nothing "free" about it at all.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

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.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the best part of this is that US viewers are apparently abandoning the oligopoly of US television for...a state run (nominally) broadcaster in another country.

The ironing is delicious.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[cpu6502]

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 was shoved through because it had pressure from the banking corporations, and Obamacare because it had pressure from the insurance corporations (who gained ~50 million new customers via the mandate). We the People have no voice when It the Corporations decide to pass a law.

P.S.

And just in case someone says, "The Heritage Foundation originated the mandate idea"..... I don't give a shit. I am not allied with the Pat Robertson-created Heritage kooks. They also would round-up gays and force them to attend church reeducation camps, if they thought they could get away with it. Their bigoted opinion has zero weight in my book.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

What about folks in Britain without a television watching the online coverage? Are they "stealing"?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the BBC site it is 145 pounds (around 250 dollars) per year. I would happily pay it if I could get the BBC and stream their site.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also a license payer. I don't mind our overseas friends getting it for free: I was happy to pay for it anyway. I consider it a small gift to the world.

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[cpu6502]

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

[drinkypoo]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Jetboy01]

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

[jedidiah]

> 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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[japhering]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Lumpy]

What about the penguin on me telly?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[homsar]

No, it's paid by those who consume live TV (online, via an aerial, or otherwise). If you don't consume live TV, you aren't required to pay (even if you own a TV used to watch prerecorded materials only). The firm responsible for collecting it, though, will use as much misinformation as possible in making you think you have to pay it, though.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[BenJury]

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.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Look, this is very simple:

Radios do not require a license.
Your computer does not require a license.
A television almost certainly does require a license if it is functional, plugged in and tuned to BBC channels.

However, if you use your computer to watch LIVE broadcasts on BBC iPlayer, you DO need a license. If all you ever do is watch on-demand, you DO NOT need a license.

The long and the short of it is that you need a license if you watch or record the BBC as it is broadcast. Nothing else.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[tomtomtom]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

Top Gear USA isn't a remake. the topgear production company made a brand to sell around the world. It is by design.
They have topgear UK, USA and Australia. Possible they have sold rights to other countries and those shows use another name.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Lemming Mark]

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 vague regarding licenses, something which I strongly disapprove of. I've heard that if you're reasonably firm with them it's possible to make them stop hassling, their default just being to repeatedly send you warnings and hope that it encourages you to do the right thing...

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Close. The actual wording at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ is: "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."

Note that: if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need a license (yet!) just for owning a broadband connection and a computer. If you own a TV set but don't use it, you don't need a license, and it's down to TV Licensing to prove otherwise.

You haven't needed a license for a radio since they were called "wireless".

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[BenJury]

Would we get as much content if they couldn't sell it? No. People want to see things like the iPlayer's Olympic coverage, yet the license fee is frozen. How else is it all going to be paid for? Until there is a decent alternative I cant see it changing...

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[xaxa]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Lemming Mark]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Lemming Mark]

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

[h4rr4r]

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

[Neil_Brown]

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)

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" (s368(3)); using it for anything else (e.g. as a monitor for gaming, or for displaying DVDs) is not "use," although, if that was its use, I'd want to make sure it was not tuned for receiving programmes, or anything else which could be used to argue that it had been "installed".)

"Television receiver" is defined in another piece of legislation, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004:

"any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."

(The repetition of "installed or used" in the definition of "television receiver" makes the s393(1) requirement somewhat circular, but ho hum...)

Further:

any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

A "television programme service" is not necessarily limited to something which enables a programme to be received "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by broadcast recipients, as the definition is that the reference to it "includes" this, rather than solely consists of it. However, TV Licensing considers that "catch-up services, like BBC iPlayer or 4oD" are not within the scope of the definition. The BBC's "No Licence Needed Policy" supports this, commenting that a licence is not required for "receiving programmes by means of a DVD or the on-demand elements of services such as i-Player."

The end result is that watching something which is being broadcast to television receivers live or near live requires a licence — it is this "watching" which, absent a licence, is illegal. Proxying to access on-demand content, whilst potentially an infringement of copyright (and potentially an infringement on the part of the serving provider), does not mean that the requirement for a licence is breached. It is possible to watch a TV programme without a licence, fully in compliance with the law, and I would have thought that quite a few people take that option these days.

So you are "stealing".

There are certainly circumstances in which the body responsible for collecting licence fees considers that watching TV programming without a licence is not stealing, even if the law is not crystal clear on this. Whether these people are morally wrong if they watch a lot of programs on iPlayer and so on is perhaps akin to the tax avoidance debate — they are benefitting from something for which others are paying, but are not committing any legal wrong in doing so.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

Those networks suck. I will not subscribe to them, but I would buy an internet license, so no canabalizing there.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[JustOK]

catchup services?
First, it's ketchup.
Second, what a strange service to provide.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Pax681]

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 "implied right" of entry which you can remove by writing them a letter and handing it to the muppet that comes to your door or by posting it in.
[url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=saying+no+to+tv+licensing&oq=saying+no+to+tv+licensing&gs_l=igoogle.3...292.4618.0.6156.25.13.0.4.0.3.620.3977.2j2j0j6j2j1.13.0...0.0...1ac.N1iiO6KQPGM]look at the sites[/url] that have a host of information all about telling them to bugger of and exactly how to do it.
Also for a PC/laptop you have to have tuner hardware to be liable for a license.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bluefoxlucid]

What "people"? 80%? Are you telling me 240 million people called Congress?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[kraut]

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

[MaxiCat_42]

>> If you can honestly declare that you don't use anything with those capabilities, then you do not have to pay.

You can but Crapita will still keep sending you letters accusing you of being a thief and threatening to send thugs round to try and get entry to your house (they have no such right). This is why we Brits love the bloody TV licence and the BBC exec's expenses that it funds.

Phil.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[jeremyp]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[arth1]

According to the BBC site it is 145 pounds (around 250 dollars) per year.

Not necessarily. If you go B&W, it's only £49, and if you're above 75, it's free.

And radio has been license free for a while now (although they may still have the radio purchase fee, I'm not sure. It used to be a paper sticker on the radio).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[robthebloke]

No it isn't. Take a look at the iPlayer app for iPhone. You'll notice that it's not possible to view live TV, however it is possible to view recorded programs. You do not need a TV license to watch the iPlayer on your phone. You do not need a TV license to view the recorded programs on PC either. The only thing that requires a TV license is if you have TV receiving equipment in your home, or you watch live streams online. I imagine the loophole will be closed sooner or later, but for now, it's one way of avoiding the TV license. Mind you, I have no problem with paying the license. It's nice being able to watch TV programs without any Ad breaks. Infact, I'd probably pay a subscription to Channel4 to avoid the adverts (if they offered one).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

Let foreigners pay a license fee as well?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[iserlohn]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[jeremyp]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So if 70-80% of people who call their representatives about a certain issue are opposed to it, it should not pass, and similarly if 70-80% are in favor of it it should pass? That isn't democracy, it's handing control of every issue over to special interest groups. This kind of mentality is why a prime time "wardrobe malfunction" ends up getting the network huge fines, because some interest group bombards the FCC with tons of complaints while the other 99+% of the country rolls their eyes.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[iserlohn]

Maximum trollage.. Do you even live in the UK?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[cayenne8]

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.

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

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%.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[robthebloke]

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.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[wonkey_monkey]

Don't worry, it's time for him to explode.

Burma!

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ffejie]

Overseas subscription isn't an option because the BBC does not have the legal right to broadcast outside of the UK. In fact, NBC/Comcast would probably petition the US Federal Government (via the FCC), internet service providers, and the IOC to shut down the BBC's online broadcast if they didn't put the IP restrictions in place, or worse, offered it for sale to US residents.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Were you expecting a wide loop of elastic when you ordered your broadband?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

I don't think they care how awful the USA version is. The amount of cash must be lovely.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

Well that's a bit shit. I'm happy to pay for iplayer, live on not.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

Bloody communists stopping free trade :)

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[fiannaFailMan]

I was watching a bit of streaming from the BBC via Overplay the other day (I think it was live) and had to click a button to say that I have a TV license. So I clicked yes. Honest, guv!

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

Whilst this thread is filling up nicely with the dull ins and outs for the TV fee. I'd like to have all the yearly content I've paid for on demand.
I'd also like to back date payments to get the years before I move out and had to pay for it. We (UK residents) paid for that, give it back! When you make a box set take it off the on demand part; but don't lock all the great stuff away!.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[CodeHxr]

... The PRON-FAP Act of 2k13? I think you're either insane or a genius. Or both.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

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 (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.

Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?

Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[filthpickle]

You don't have a FOX affiliate over the air where you live? They show just about every F1 race (I don't know if they aired Hungary, I watched it live on speed)....time delayed usually, so a huge fan like yourself may not like that you can't watch it live in the middle of the night (I am assuming you live in America). However, they show "hillbilly" type sports also, so it may be too offensive for you to stomach.

I think maybe that you think you want to watch F1 races more than you actually do.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

not that Americans would get the ironing.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

Antitrust actions occur AFTER a company has been found guilty of antitrust violations. NBC has no monopoly, and no antitrust convictions.

What authority do you think the FCC has to do any of this?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[QuantumRiff]

I'm just annoyed that their digital OTA broadcast can have 3 subchannels.. they are only using the primary for the Olympics.. why not broadcast the Olympics on the .2 and .3 channels? In fact, why not broadcast CNBC, etc normally..

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[dave420]

It pays for some of the best TV the world has ever seen, but if you want to get hung up on some expense accounts, be my guest - just don't expect normal people to agree with you.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

The other gigantic flaw in your proposal is that NBC does not broadcast, and is not under control of the FCC. NBC affiliated stations have FCC licenses to broadcast. Only 10 of the 200 affiliates are owned by NBC. Those affiliates are not producing content (except for local news, etc) or streaming NBC content.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

Because the broadcasters are not NBC, they are independent companies affiliated with NBC (for the most part). They don't have the right to broadcast the other stuff.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Biotech_is_Godzilla]

The licence is compulsary for any device capable of receiving broadcast media. That includes Internet, TV and radio.

Also not true - the license is only compulsory for devices capable of receiving live broadcast TV.

You don't have to pay for radio, ever, and not for having an internet-capable computer, either. You can even watch streamed content on the BBC iPlayer website without a TV license, as long as it's catch-up TV (i.e. not live-streamed). What you can't do is a) use the iPlayer program without having a valid TV license, as they make you declare that you have a TV license in a EULA when you download / run it, or b) watch live BBC TV, streamed from the BBC website or iPlayer.

I expect it's the attitude of the lefties at the BBC that if you're a UK resident you should still be able to watch the BBC even if you can't afford a TV license, and they get around their licensing restrictions by not publicising the fact that watching streamed catch-up TV content is 100% legal for people in the UK. I did this for ages before we finally succumbed and bought a TV (at which point I got a license, as the Beeb totally deserves the cash).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

I cannot believe this is currently modded as Insightful with a score of 5. NBC's video is free. They just restrict the free video to specific nighttime hours, but you do not have to pay to watch Olympic coverage unless you want to do so in real time. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of what NBC is doing, but your specific charge is incorrect. Your gripe about lack of choice on internet providers is just an attempt to change the subject and complain about a real, but unrelated issue you feel strongly about.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[RaceProUK]

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

[Hatta]

The FCC really only has say over transmission over the air/i>

That's easily solved. The public interest demands that anything broadcast over the public airwaves resides in the public domain. No public domain, no license to broadcast. Entirely within the capabilities of the FCC.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Hatta]

And? So what? How does that harm the public?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[PRMan]

While Pat Robertson believes that homosexuality is a sin that can be cured, it's bordering on character assassination to say that he would round people up and force them to do anything.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[PRMan]

It's catsup in England. Duh.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

OK, so you just killed free OTA TV. Please explain how that serves the public interest in the slightest.

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. The cable and sat companies would love it (no more 'cutting the cord'). The only ones hurt are the people who can't afford cable or sat, and the affiliate stations themselves.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[PRMan]

I've actually seen F1 races on in the early morning when I can't sleep and I wasn't even looking for them. They shouldn't be hard for a fan in the US to find. I used to have a guy working for me that watched every single one of them.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Hatta]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[airdweller]

"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".
I'm not sure we're from the same planet.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[japhering]

And? So what? How does that harm the public?

It reduces the stream a licensing royalties the non UK BBCs pay, which in the end would cause the UK Tele license fee to go up.

And I guarantee any money made from overseas tele licensing wouldn't make up for the lost revenue from royalties.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

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:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Hatta]

And I guarantee any money made from overseas tele licensing wouldn't make up for the lost revenue from royalties.

Why not license the BBC UK instead of BBCA for the same price as BBCA? Anyone who watches BBCA would prefer BBC UK, so you're not losing viewers, probably even gaining them.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[JustOK]

Well, yes. But the fat musicians were ok.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[horza]

There was this debate during the '80s, when the only way to use a computer was to plug it into a TV. The computer monitors were essentially CRT tellies. A lot of people disconnected the aerial and claimed they didn't need to pay a TV license, but how could the authorities be sure they weren't disconnecting it the moment they saw an inspector outside their front window? It was always a bit of a grey area, with the authorities claiming anything with an antenna connected or not was due the license and computer enthusiasts insisting they didn't have to pay.

These days computer monitors don't come with TV reception built-in, unless you go for one with FreeView capability, so you shouldn't have to pay a license just for a computer and LCD monitor.

Phillip.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[HappyEngineer]

If it contains advertising then they're getting paid.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

Not keeping up with the income-from-online-advertising discussion I see.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[TFAFalcon]

The same is true in many countries. Are the British people stealing when watching national overseas TV stations without paying?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Darinbob]

How'd 'e know that was going to happen?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[TheRaven64]

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".

Only if he watches live streams. I don't own a TV and don't watch live streaming, therefore I don't need a license. I can still watch the iPlayer on-demand stuff (I could watch things like 4 on demand, but it's full of ads, so I don't).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

They air on SPEED in the USA. I am not a cable subscriber.

I watch them from shady streaming sites once in a while. I am not that huge a fan, just have a passing interest.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

On what network?

Was it OTA or on cable.
http://f1us.co/2012/02/29/2012-formula-1-us-tv-schedule/

Shows that all but 4 races are on cable, which I do not have.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

http://f1us.co/2012/02/29/2012-formula-1-us-tv-schedule/

Only 4 of those are free over the air. The rest are on cable, which I will not pay for.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

I only want one or two.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[amorsen]

No it isn't. Take a look at the iPlayer app for iPhone. You'll notice that it's not possible to view live TV

Are you sure? I can view live TV on the iPlayer app for Android (even if finding it is somewhat unintuitive).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[filthpickle]

Well, maybe I just got lucky. Every time I didn't watch a race live (read "every time I was too drunk/hungover to wake up") I watched it later on the local fox channel.

The races are on usenet in HD pretty quickly after they happen if you care to pay for a newshost, or if you already have one.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[EdIII]

"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".

Uhhhh, yes.

All the content that is being delivered over that spectrum must be free. Meaning, you cannot attempt to charge fees for it, sue people into oblivion that have antennas, sue people that are recording it in their own homes on DVR's, etc. If you push content over that spectrum consider it a public performance in which you did not get paid. Obviously, they have reasons to do so, and it is called advertising dollars.

It's OUR spectrum. We should get something in return for allowing them to use it.

All the money The People have poured into this bullshit corporations and never get anything in return. Ok, we all can't have free Internet, but god dammit, at least put free Internet in schools, *really* rural areas, etc. Give something back to the communities in exchange for everything we gave them. Why should they get all of that for free? So their executives can have lives of luxury? I don't think so....

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).

Ummm, okay. And?

Then NBC should know well ahead of time that the affiliate is delivering the content over public airwaves without direct control over, or compensation from the viewers. There would obviously be separate revenue sharing agreements between NBC and those affiliates so they can make money.

Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.

You imply that license was free. The People pay taxes, in several forms, to ostensibly support our infrastructures that allow us to be able to drive on the roads. Of course I am not obligated to provide free anything. I paid for it.

Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?

We never forced them into agreement that cost 1.1bn to carry anything. That was their choice that they made willingly. NBC is not obligated to provide OTA access. However, if they want those advertising dollars they better convince the advertisers somehow that eyeballs will be available. They could probably go over cable subscriptions instead.

That being said, once you do decide to provide OTA, you are logically forfeiting all rights to bitch and complain. I'm sorry, but if you are forcing anything across the airwaves, over my property, I have the rights to record and do whatever I want with the content, as long as I am not violating copyrights. Copyrights don't say anything about the obtaining of copyrighted material, only the dissemination.

It makes no sense. You have given it away for free already. Stop trying to create a totalitarian fascist state to control me in my own home because of a choice you made.

Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.

No, there is not a choice. NBC is the only option to see the Olympics on TV. Like you pointed out though, it is OTA, so I don't see why anybody should complain when NBC is giving it away for free OTA.

Who is being affected anyways? If you have a cable subscription you can see it, if you have OTA you can see it, if have neither you can still see it because it is highly likely you have become proficient at pirating television and spoofing your location with VPNs.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:

NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.

NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.

NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.

NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.

NBC is putting its free, OTA broadcast on the internet, for free.

NBC is putting its non-OTA broadcast on the internet for free IF you are a cable subscriber and are already paying for those alternate channels.

cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.

I never said anything about OTA broadcasts not being free

I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?

You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[EdIII]

I want to watch F1 races, without paying for some stupid channel that shows nascar races and other hill billy type sports.

So you are not a fan of the

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[EdIII]

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? Most of what you wrote has nothing to do with anything I said. Here are the facts:

Do you?

NBC is a TV network, not a broadcaster. They are not using OUR spectrum.

Then right afterwards you clarified that their broadcast affiliates are doing so, some of them owned by NBC. My comments apply to those affiliates and the principle of private use of public spectrums.

NBC is sending SOME of it's Olympic coverage to it's broadcast affiliates. This is broadcast over the air, for free, just like every other TV broadcast.

I'm not into the Olympics, so I don't know the exact nature of what is being broadcast.

NBC owns OTHER, non-broadcast TV channels (CNBC, MSNBC, Universal, etc). These do not use our precious spectrum. They are not free, they are paid for, in part, by cable subscribers.

NBC is putting SOME of it's Olympic coverage on these other non-free channels.

Does not change any of my points...

cpu6502 is putting forth the ridiculous premise that just because NBC affiliates have broadcast licenses everything NBC does must be free.

Yes, and I agreed that anything that is OTA, must be free. Otherwise, NBC is not obligated.

I would like to know in what world does having a license to do something in one area mean that everything you do (even stuff not in that area) must be free?

I never agreed with that. All I did was separate the two. You keep saying "everything". It does not have to be everything, but the OTA stuff does.

You went on a rant about copying, etc, which has not been brought up anywhere.

It is relevant to the discussion about copyrighted content that is delivered OTA, and why you should not have any legal recourse to content delivered over it. You don't like it? Don't freaking put stuff out in public like that. There are plenty of other distribution channels, not using public spectrum, that can be monetized.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[jroysdon]

> NBC is putting its free, OTA broadcast on the internet, for free.

Where? All I've found is the nbcolympics.com site which requires a paid sub to cable/sat services.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[N1AK]

There may have been debate in the past but the law has never been remotely ambigious. You can be prosecuted for not having a license if someone can prove you were watching or recording live broadcast without a license. Obviously having a setup that would only be useful for that may not look good (a tv hooked up to an aerial) but that would likely just get them to check you more thoroughly.

There are 2 tvs in my house. The main one is used for iPlayer (not live), 4oD, ITVplayer, Sky player (not live), Netflix, DVDs and gaming and none of it requires a license. We've had inspectors call at our house twice in 6 years. Both times we explained our usages, they marked down that we didn't need a license without even asking to come in and we got left alone for ~4 years.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[N1AK]

It'll happen eventually and I'm pretty sure that the BBC doesn't police who uses iPlayer too carefully because they are happy to allow this behaviour in the meantime. They are taking the long term view that building up a large unpaying userbase will allow them to transfer them to paying service one day.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Nyder]

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 (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks? Oh, and BTW - we also get to park in your driveway and camp out on your lawn too, because, you know, you do have that driver's license.

Fifth, NBC paid a whole lot of money to be able to carry the Olympics. They did this for one reason - to make money. Who are you to 'demand' that they give it away for free?

Last, do you know what the 'mono' in 'monopoly' means? It doesn't mean "choices I don't like". Don't like the choices? Too bad, but you do have choices.

Or maybe people want to actually watch the olympics when it happens, not buy it later.

Yes, I have choice. It's circumvent the block to watch it from the BBC, or download it from thepiratebay.se or similiar sites. (I like usenet myself).

NBC paid a whole bunch of money to be dicks about anyone else watching it. So fuck them.

Sooner or later, the Networks are going to finally understand that people can get the shit for free now, so why the fuck are we going to wait to buy it later?

Know the new market.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Nyder]

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". ...

Stealing? Serious? We are taking it from someone else so they can't watch it?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[Genom]

Having seen both NBC's "coverage" and BBC's feeds, I would *gladly* have paid the BBC for access to their vastly superior offering.

Heck, I enjoy enough BBC shows that I'd most likely be willing to pay monthly for access to the *real* BBC lineup (as opposed to the watered down, commercial-ridden BBCA, which cuts significant portions of shows like Top Gear).

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ciderbrew]

I wrote "stealing". If the ironic use of quotation mark passed you by then nothing else I write will help and may only confuse more.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ommerson]

And governments on both sides of the political divide have complained about political bias in the past.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[ommerson]

No it's not - it's compulsory for devices used to receive real-time broadcast TV content.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[RaceProUK]

And in other news, water is wet, and fire is hot.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

None of that has anything to do with anything I said. I understand there are people who want things. I do not understand the position that just because someone wants something, that someone else should be REQUIRED by law to offer that thing for free.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[h4rr4r]

What about my half a bee?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[bws111]

Since you apparently can't be bothered to read back in the thread, here is the exact quote I was commenting on:

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.

Now, the OTA broadcasts are, always have been, and always will be, free. So if that all this poster meant then was absolutely no reason to make this statement at all. So the only way to read that statement is that ALL of NBCs video, including the stuff not currently broadcast OTA must be broadcast OTA and also must be put on the internet for free. This is a stupid position, and attempts to regulate EVERYTHING NBC does just because they have a license to broadcast OTA.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[KingBenny]

mh its weird bbc has this 'we're all educational' vibe going on yet they seem bent on hogging all the goodies, localized internet should be illegal, like copyright trolls :p its bad for the world, monopolizing knowledge

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[SteveyP66]

not that Americans would get the ironing.

IRONY! Ironing is removing creases....sigh...

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[cpu6502]

>>>Fourth, I am guessing that you also have a license given to you - to drive on the roads (which belong to the people). Does that mean that you are somehow obligated to give a ride (for free) to everyone that asks?

Yeah actually I am. In my state the drivers' are forced to pay a gasoline tax. Also tolls. About 10% of that tax/toll is diverted to give people free rides (on the local train). So since I drive a lot, and pay a lot in taxes/tolls I've ended-up giving free rides to about ten people each year.

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[cpu6502]

You don't have to live in the UK to get BBC streams (or see the BBC News via PBS). Did you not even bother to read the top slashdot summary?

Re:Expect networks to run to Congress

[lsatenstein]

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.

I watch BBC reporting nightly. I do it for unbiased reporting of US news. Its not pro democrat or pro republican. I sometimes get a feeling of embarrassment for the USA as they show recorded interviews with congressmen or senators.

Video feeds give errors

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have cable access and was watching events online successfully on the NBC Olympics website. Starting yesterday, however, the live feeds and all archived video are unplayable. Anything recorded before yesterday still works fine. The "Contact Us" page gives consistent errors with a cryptic "your email was not sent" error. So... yes... I will probably be relying on proxies from here on out.

Cable Subscription?

[macromorgan]

If NBC is a broadcast network, why do you need a cable subscription to watch online anyway? I mean other than the obvious that NBC is now owned by a cable company...

Re:Cable Subscription?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Cable Subscription?

[garcia]

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:Cable Subscription?

[YesIAmAScript]

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 broadcast station for decades before it became a basic cable channel. Yet Turner (Time Warner) is not required to stream their content over the internet for free either.

Re:Cable Subscription?

[crispylinetta]

I mean other than the obvious that NBC is now owned by a cable company...

Because NBC is now owned by a cable company.

SNNAAAARRRKKKK!!!!! :)

Re:Cable Subscription?

[cpu6502]

NBC is not required to stream stuff free over the internet but they SHOULD do it anyway. Why block people from viewing just because they don't have a cable subscription? That's discrimination. That's ann example of an asshole company (just like Microsoft, Comcast, etc). Burn ion hell NBC and take your damn peacokc to the barbecue too. Fucker.s

Re:Cable Subscription?

[modecx]

You're missing the point; they're missing out on an opportunity. They should offer internet streaming of the games 1) because it's apparently in demand and 2) they can use that demand to put advertisements in front of those eyeballs, or 3) offer a subscription to the games for a nominal fee, allowing a subscriber to view whatever particular events they want, when they want.

They could probably be raking in the dough hand over fist, but they're too stupid to see it.

Good

[Jamu]

This is for everyone

Jeez

[Flipao]

couldn't keep quiet about it could you

Re:Jeez

[Darinbob]

Well I'm glad to know about this. I've seen almost no coverage. Everything I go to BBC and try to watch a video it's blacked out. Even non-sports videos like reaction to some scandals are blacked out. Now knowing about proxies I may be able to watch some of this, like opening day ceremonies.

Re:Jeez

[purpledinoz]

If the BBC gets overloaded, you could proxy to Germany and watch the feeds from zdf.de. Although the commentary is in German, and it focuses on the German athletes...

Re:Jeez

[tobiah]

I'm using hidemyass.com, it's working rather well. Also the snarky BBC commentators are pretty entertaining.

Not just Cable...

[bytor4232]

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...

[hey!]

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:Not just Cable...

[timeOday]

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.

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, or subtitles, so I can control it.

Re:Not just Cable...

[jslaff]

I'm a big fan of British soccer. Watch a match covered by Brits vs one covered by Americans. The American sports commentators don't ever shut up. They're afraid of silence. If, say, Wayne Rooney got the ball, an American would say "Rooney's on the ball--looking to pass or shoot? What's he going to do?" \\ The Brit would say, "Rooney." They expect you to have half a brain, while the Americans...know their audience.

Re:Not just Cable...

[fiannaFailMan]

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.

Re:Not just Cable...

[alexborges]

Well yes you can, numbnuts: use a brit proxy. Costs 10 bucks.

Re:Not just Cable...

[PRMan]

Most US PxP broadcasters got their start in radio, which requires you to describe the action in detail. While not required anymore because of HDTV, Americans are used to this style. Personally, I don't mind descriptions of the action (even if it's obvious), I hate when they blab on and on about unrelated drivel the whole time, thinking they are so cute and clever.

Re:Not just Cable...

[Luyseyal]

I also find it irritating that scores for non-USA teams are often not displayed, even when they showed their event participation (e.g., Chinese women's gymnastics scores). No, I don't need to see coverage of East Elbonia, but if they're the gold medal team, they deserve to have their names and scores on TV, just like the Americans.

Fer cryin out loud.
-l

Re:Not just Cable...

[Luyseyal]

Or maybe it was the Chinese synchronized divers. I don't remember, but whoever it was, was repeatedly snubbed.

-l

Re:Not just Cable...

[purpledinoz]

Everyone should just boycott the Olympics, it has become too much about money, not about the sport... if they don't want you to watch, then don't watch... don't worry, it's boring anyway..

Re:Not just Cable...

[Norma_Stitz]

Been watching a great European stream that has NO COMMENTATORS! It is absolutely fantastic. And all I had to do was change my DNS servers. Eat a dick, NBC.

Re:Not just Cable...

[Slashdot Parent]

Wait, you can get into European streams just by changing DNS servers? No proxy/VPN needed?

Finally

[j-cloth]

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.

Re:Finally

[morcego]

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:Finally

[Moheeheeko]

The undeniable shame in this story is that we have to struggle to watch a world event, not content intended for a certain country.

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

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:Finally

[DarenN]

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

[fluffythedestroyer]

This proves the people are ready and fast enough to adapt to new technologies...corp, companies and organisations are not. This is what capitalism and bureaucracy is right now. It's not adapting fast enough. My little finger tells me bbc or some other cable company will say at the end of the olympic game "fukk, we could made billions by making people pay to see it online without making them pay others (ie: proxies and other 3rd party provider) to view the event... fffffuuuu"

Re:Finally

[thpr]

As an American, I can say living close to the Canadian border is really useful during the Olympics, so I don't have to struggle to get good coverage. CTV is so much better than NBC.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that "HA! HA!" look a little more like HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

Re:Finally

[gl4ss]

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:Finally

[DarenN]

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:Finally

[nedlohs]

I used to use a proxy to watch Canadian shows online that were unwatchable inside the US. Had to get my Degrassi on.

Have you tried having someone waterboard you? That should be a reasonable replacement without needing to mess aroun with proxies.

Re:Finally

[fafaforza]

As an American wanting to watch proper coverage of non-NASCAR motorsports, I've already had to get creative with getting my content.

Re:Finally

[mister_playboy]

I'm amused that you think that a corporately sponsored version of the Olympics would be better.

That is exactly what we have already. Google for the "olympics brand police" and let the eyerolling begin!

Re:Finally

[Inda]

In the UK, on my Virgin Media box, I have 26 BBC HD channels showing the Olympics.

*snigger*

Re:Finally

[gl4ss]

I'm amused that you think that a corporately sponsored version of the Olympics would be better.

on a story that's discussing nbc-mcd-lympics? the bout about red bull realympics was that 100% commercially done sporting event would be _less_ exclusively commercial event than the nazi-fest olympics have become! even participating would be cheaper!

and sure you have paid, unless you live in a country that doesn't support olympic committees and participating teams at all from government cash. if you're from uk you'd be paying a _lot_ of tax to make this years event happen, if you're in usa you've paid a lot before already. part of that is that it costs so much because it can cost so much, but that's besides the point.

as ioc is actively looking to push more and more of olympics on for-pay channels it _is_ a corporate event, but strangely one that's favored and protected by law. a purely commercial version would be much cleaner event, for one it would involve a lot less bribing and at least the bribes would go the other way!

Atdhe

[Uthic]

Been using Atdhenet for this, have to deal with a British focus, but eh, that's Olympic coverage.

Re:Atdhe

[ciderbrew]

:) The British Broadcasting Corporation does tend to focus on British stuff.

Re:Atdhe

[cayenne8]

:) The British Broadcasting Corporation does tend to focus on British stuff.

Much like Slashdot has an American focus quite often...

Re:Atdhe

[PRMan]

Not to mention NBC. All they show are the sports Americans like and they almost always show Americans in them! Can you believe it? It's almost as if they think their broadcast is only for Americans!

Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[oobayly]

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:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[Hadlock]

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:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[chrb]

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:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[h4rr4r]

So charge for it?
I would gladly pay to use iPlayer, I will not pay for cable though.

Re:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[xaxa]

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.)

Re:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[dr_dank]

Before they went with IP location, they experimented with a challenge/response system to verify UK citizenship:

Which number Elizabeth are we up to now?

What do you call potatoes that are thinly sliced, fried, and sold in foil bags?

Translate this sentence into cockney: "hello friend, I have a stomachache"

Re:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[petermgreen]

Afaict rights to show programs are usually sold on a geographic basis. Some leakage has always been tolerated since it's inevitable with a broadcast. You can get the BBC in most of western europe if you have a big enough dish, the beam from the sattelite is focussed on the UK but some power leaks out elsewhere. I'd think IP geolocation would work similarly, it will leak (since people will use proxies/vpns/etc and also the geolocation databases may not be 100% accurate) but it keeps the service mostly contained and hence satisfies the content owners.

Also afaict the BBC gets traffic to most UK ISPs for close to nothing through peering with them. If someone uses a UK proxy then most likely the traffic will travel from the BBC to the proxy over a peering link, then they proxy operator will have to pay for transit to get the data to the final recipiant (a small provider running proxies in the UK is highly unlikely to be able to send traffic to users in north america).

So IP geolocation makes perfect sense from both a licensing point of view and a financial point of view

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.

The BBC may be able to do this for some content but for a lot of content they won't be able to because their rights to it will be geographically limited.

Re:Why do the Beeb bother with IP geolocation?

[petermgreen]

send traffic to users in north america

That should have said "send traffic over peering links to users in north america"

NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[AdmV0rl0n]

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

[SeanDS]

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.

Are you an expat? I just struggle to see why anyone that lives in America (I am guessing that you do seeing as you've criticised NBC's coverage), and who criticises networks that advertise heavily over the coverage, would have a negative opinion of the BBC.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[KermodeBear]

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:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[YesIAmAScript]

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

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics_Triplecast

They switched to the internet as soon as it made sense and it's been better and better every 2 years since.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[timeOday]

How's the streaming picture quality? I've been recording the NBC feed on my homebrew DVR, which allows me to skip whatever I like, and there are far more hours of coverage than we could ever watch. The picture looks great - the ATSC stream is 6 GB / hr - so I wonder if streaming would look anywhere near as good. Is it about like Netflix HD shows? (They look pretty good IMHO).

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 overwhelming to follow with so many events unfolding concurrently over several days.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[strength_of_10_men]

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

Why would they need to step up? (With apologize to Lily Tomlin) "They don't care; they don't have to. They're the IOC". As long as they have their money, why should they care about the quality of the coverage? It's not like there's a competing Olympics that views can otherwise watch.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[AdmV0rl0n]

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 leftist tendencies, is biased, is politically biased, and gets public money under a premise that it is not allowed to be so. Its reporting and operations do not always slant leftwards, as like any organisations it has a wide ranging employment from many backgrounds. But its politics and news side, and others that are involved in it have leftist views, tendencies, and are biased.

Further, It has an anti British bias, a hatred of British History, a hatred of British institutions and a love of things like the EU - which no real long term understanding of the BBC can really tolerate. Would todays BBC be like World War Two's BBC? Would they refuse the German offer of a Deal even before the government had a chance to? No, Todays BBC spends all of its time being best friends with Terrorism, Immigration, The EU, Leftism, CND, Unions and you can add in plenty of hatred against 'the west' 'the rich west', the 'rich countries'.

If Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland break from the Union, me personally, I expect the BBC scum to be dancing in the streets celebrating. Even though its lost on them that the idea they are dancing about is embedded within their own bloody name.

I find it very very rare that the BBC is representative of me (An English Briton), My Country (England or Great Britain), and its far more likely to be pro immigration, pro foreign institutions, and pro terrorist, with endless critical comments thrown in about Her Majesties Armed Forces.

Some would or might claim that the BBC has to be an impartial entity. Well, its leftism failed today, and in its past it was nominally utterly embedded in being a fundamental pro British institution. So either today or in the past it has not been thus. But I fail to see why an institution that hates Britain so much and operates the way it does should get public support and enforced taxation to support its operations.

There is a vicious, ugly, nasty fifth column that exists in todays UK, and it exists in large parts of the media, the BBC, the Guardian, and other locations. They are not impartial, they are not balanced, and they operate with an agenda that is fifth column, damaging, invasive, and counter to the state and people's well being. And this same bunch going back decades ago would have only been happy if Moscow had waltzed its armoured divisions up downing street. They are all a bit older, they are all a bit wiser, Moscow is gone, but the stupidity leftist garbage embedded into them when younger remains their driven ideal. They can't get Moscow today, so Its moved onto Green power, The EU, Immigration and other 'policies', all destructive to a state, country, people they detest and hate.

And they infest everything, and have reached most levels of things that happen.

And I'll add a little note on the Olympics ceremony. And I say this not because I have an axe to grind, but if you tell a story, tell the story, don't warp it for political purpose. Black people were portrayed in the Industrial revolution, as the Business leaders who led the revolution. They were included in suits, and the pretence is that this is done for equality. And the CND badge was on display because of course - CND persuaded the UK to disarm and have no Nuclear power //sarcasm off// . They would have been happy too if Moscow had tanks in Downing street because they happen to be a bunch of unions, lefties, and people who detest the UK as well. CND should never have appeared in the British Olympics Ceremony. They are a bl

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[PRMan]

Interesting rant. You sound similar to many conservatives in the US.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[airdweller]

Looks like George from Blackadder and Thatcher had an illegitimate child who was raised by McCarthy... :)

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[amorsen]

But its coverage of this Olympics has been stellar, and I can watch any - and all events.

This is not quite true. Lots of events aren't shown on any of the channels. Particularly in sailing. The British bias is also quite apparent in the footage made available for stations around the world. You get lots of pictures and information about the British boat in 15th place, while missing out on the actual action elsewhere.

I can't complain too much because this is pretty much the first time anyone has made a serious attempt at TV coverage of sailing at all.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[iserlohn]

You should start the British Tea Party (aka. BTP not to be confused with the BNP in any way, shape, or form of course). Kick out all the immigrants, isolate England from the EU (Scotland is having none of that), never mind the economy tanking when we lose our biggest export partner (the EU) - we'll do fine cuz all the black people are gone!!

Seriously now.. Sometimes I wonder how some people are so indoctrinated to the point that they seem to have lost all critical thinking abilities. What's causing your woes aren't black people, it's the rich white folks that are closing down the mines and factories, sending the jobs overseas, importing cheap tat from countries with poor labour protection and dodgy political systems (and getting filthy rich from this), prompting the government to spend more and more while cutting their own tax bill, the list of travesties goes on and on and on. And all you complain about is Brussels and black people... seriously...

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[jroysdon]

You can only watch it with a sub to cable/dish and an account that carries these channels. No sub, no access.

Re:NBCs coverage has been appallingly bad

[Slashdot Parent]

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

That is what Tivo is for. That, and Ryan Seacrest's blathering about social media.

Superb coverage

[Rik Sweeney]

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:Superb coverage

[BenJury]

I think its more than a massive range, its actually everything. Not only that you can watch everything that's already happened. Its just awesome! Only downside -- for me anyway -- is they use Flash player.

Re:Superb coverage

[dkleinsc]

Even better, you can watch the official sport of the summer, dressage!

Re:Superb coverage

[Archibald Buttle]

The BBC didn't ever use Silverlight.

That was ITV.

Re:Superb coverage

[Archibald Buttle]

It's not quite everything, exactly...

The BBC is running 26 different HD channels covering the games right now, 24 purely dedicated to the olympics (and another 24 simulcast in SD).

That's enough channels to let them cover every session of every event, and that's what they're doing. Of course many sessions have multiple athletes competing at the same time in different parts of the same arena, like badminton or gymnastics. With (usually) only one channel covering the session it's thus not quite everything.

Very nearly tho!

Re:Superb coverage

[TomJetland]

No I can't, his website is blocked for international viewers (and I'm in Australia).

I too will need a VPN...

It does suck

[nine-times]

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?

fuck NBC

[Anonymous Coward]

...fuck em right in the arse

UK coverage can't be worse that the US one.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I watched the Olympics a bit last night when I visited my father, I was pretty heavily annoyed with the coverage.
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. |:

Re:UK coverage can't be worse that the US one.

[antdude]

They need to make it a live feed and let us pick any camera. Commentary is an option too. I watch NBA games on tnt.tv and enjoy watching their raw footages live, spit screens, and picking which cameras (only five though) to focus on.

Re:UK coverage can't be worse that the US one.

[N1AK]

That's basically what we get in the UK. A lot of our digital tv channels will have 2-4 different streams to choose from. Many will not have commentary and are effectively just a couple of cameras pointed at the match/game/event but it means you can see just about everything that happens.

Take this...

[mseeger]

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 ;-).

Re:Why don't they use Facebook/Microsoft?

[JTsyo]

MSN.com? Don't see anything about the olympics.

NBC deserves it.

[gblues]

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.

[flitty]

I cannot even watch the tape delay coverage, mostly because it goes like this "And then the Chinese had this particular event, which turned out better than they ever could have expected with a near perfect execution.." and then they preceed to show the event which they just ruined the outcome of, to the point where they were pointing out "this upcoming trick had near perfect execution". I understand having a tape delay for prime time, but most olympic events are fun to watch because the outcome is unknown and so dramatic. If you're telling me the outcome before the event, it's ruined.

Re:NBC deserves it.

[mrdogi]

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...

Re:NBC deserves it.

[homsar]

I hope someday the BBC allows foreigners to pay for access to its content without having to do VPN hacks.

If they had planned on doing such a thing, removing the geowall for the duration of the Olympics to show the world what they can get would have been a great way to generate interest in it (before replacing the geowall with a paywall after the Olympics)

Re:NBC deserves it.

[MyGirlFriendsBroken]

the absolutely insulting audacity to cut to commercial during the 7/7 London Bombing memorial.

That quite frankly is an appalling and shocking way for a national broadcaster to behave. Also I heard that the commentators didn't know who Sir Tim was and suggested that views Google him, did that really actually happen?

Re:NBC deserves it.

[jamstar7]

One of the very few things I miss about living in Toledo was the cable tv service out of Detroit. About half the 'local' channels back in the late 90's were Canadian. Loved it. I've been a Canadian TV junkie since.

Re:NBC deserves it.

[petermgreen]

If the BBC wants to continue to get access to major sporting events they need to follow the terms of their contracts with the operators of those events. Those contracts almost certainly require the BBC to take reasonable steps to limit their coverage to the UK

Re:Why don't they use Facebook/Microsoft?

[pulski]

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.

balkanization turning web into TV 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:it's a scandal

[bobbied]

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).

NBC has made me not care

[TheSpoom]

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:NBC has made me not care

[drinkypoo]

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:NBC has made me not care

[Vaphell]

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.

Re:NBC has made me not care

[Hatta]

And that's pretty sad, because the ideal of the Olympics is something worth protecting.

Not really. The modern olympics began as a bunch of rich twits promoting the idea of 'amateurism', which was a neat trick to restrict the games to rich twits who didn't need to get paid. The original classism was soon accompanied by nationalism. There's really nothing respectible about the Olympics at all.

Re:Why don't they use Facebook/Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's not odd in the least bit. I'm certain there's a perfectly logical explanation for it.

And that explanation is clearly that it's one or two guys making new accounts to shill for Microsoft in a desperate attempt to get around anyone marking them as enemies to view them downmodded to hell. See? That wasn't so odd, now, was it?

IPVanish FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ipvanish.com/ $10/month for servers around the world, many of them anonymous. Right now, all of the UK servers they operate are at less 5% capacity. I am in no way affiliated with IPVanish, but I do take advantage of their great service.

Total crap...

[MaWeiTao]

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.

Re:Total crap...

[argStyopa]

Not to mention 50% of the time is given to commercials, and half of what's left is inane crap about how Michael Phelps really liked to swim as a kid.

Re:Total crap...

[fustakrakich]

We can bitch all we want about NBC, but the simple fact is that they are very happy with their ratings so far. Expect more of the same.

Re:Stealing From The British Public

[BenJury]

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...

Glad I'm in China

[DNS-and-BIND]

While I'm first in line to shit all over CCTV (China Central Television) for being the one-sided pillar of propaganda that it is (sort of like if the Obama administration purchased the New York Times) their Olympic coverage is quite nice. They don't do ANY lifestyle/puff pieces on the athletes' lives. It's all sports, all the time. Of course, the time zones are a problem, but whatchagonnado? The events are biased towards those likely to be won by China, but hey gotta give it to them, eh. What kind of unpatriotic freaks don't support their own people in the Olympics? Thus, we get extensive coverage of the two most important events: badminton and ping pong. Yeah, I'm not kidding - those events are Serious Business[tm] in China. Nobody realizes that they are joke events, sort of like how the private school trust fund horsey set never realize that dressage isn't mainstream. Still, better to watch ANY real Olympic sport than commercials and a 20-minute report on an American athlete's relationship with her Yorkshire Terrier. Bonus: if I don't listen carefully, I can't hear the inane announcers ruining the event with their idiotic observations. All that being said, it's not all wine and roses: last night, they had men's synchronized diving on CCTV-5 and women's weightlifting on CCTV-1. Ugh. Switching channels had no effect. Female weightlifters are among the least telegenic athletes of the games, and if I wanted to watch pork and beans I'd open up a can of Hormel.

Re:Glad I'm in China

[DNS-and-BIND]

BTW, sorry for using three colons in the same post.. Kinda got carried away in the stream of consciousness there.

Re:Why don't they use Facebook/Microsoft?

[brandon2]

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.

If you've used the NBC olympics streaming, you'll notice that all of the video players are provided by youtube. Google's there, they just seems to have gone the corporate partnership route.

Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee!

[blunttrauma]

Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee! Figure out a way to let me! Hell, even without the Olympics, I bet there are a lot of US folks who would be willing to fork over the license fee for Top Gear and Formula One coverage alone. There are also British Ex-Pats all over the world who would probably be willing to pay. Not that difficult, set up a separate web site, restofthedamworld.bbc.co.uk as a subscription site, that either proxies to the existing streaming infrastructure or mirrors it. Hell, contract with Netflix to administer it for you, they seemed to have figured it out. If not, piracy will continue to be the only option.

Re:Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee!

[houghi]

My cable provider pulled BB1 and BB2 and that was the sole reason I dropped them. If they would have given me only BBC and cut all the rest, I would still be paying them.

Fun fact: I do not pay, but I am still able to watch. Idiots.

Re:Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee!

[Archibald Buttle]

Unfortunately the BBC are now only covering half of the Formula 1 season live. Last weekend's race in Hungary, for instance, wasn't live on the BBC. Indeed, they couldn't even be bothered to put it on an HD channel, in spite of the fact that right now they're running 26 HD channels (24 specifically dedicated for Olympics coverage together with their 2 pre-existing HD channels - at the time of their race broadcasts there were probably 10 channels going free). The rest of the season is edited highlights on the Beeb - live only on Sky, a subscription satellite channel, part owned by Murdoch.

The BBC's live coverage of F1 is still good, but the evidence seems to indicate that they don't really care about the sport any more.

Re:Hey BBC, I WANT to pay your damn license fee!

[illtud]

Don't you people get it? The BBC would be more than happy to have paid-for access to their excellent Olympic coverage, but the rights have been carved up all over the world, and the BBC only have rights to play to the UK. Don't moan to them, bitch to the IOC.

Re:it's a scandal

[jedidiah]

It being legal doesn't make it right.

It being illegal doesn't make it wrong.

I still don't get it...

[Nemyst]

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 it TV or otherwise) that wishes to cover it, with no restrictions on "official broadcasters".

Re:I still don't get it...

[jeremyp]

I thought one of the shittiest things they did this time around in terms of sponsorship is (in the UK at least) only accept ticket payments made with Visa cards. Mastercard, Amex etc were not accepted. This was because Visa is an official sponsor. Somebody should have called them on that.

Re:I still don't get it...

[dywolf]

Because the olympics isn't about anything other than money as far as the IOC is concerned.

Now you've your UK proxy

[CockMonster]

Get over to tvcatchup.com to watch practically all UK channels, live.

Re:Now you've your UK proxy

[Mouldy]

doesn't include paid for channels by the likes of sky or virgin. But to be fair, 99% of those channels are dire anyway

Re:Now you've your UK proxy

[Archibald Buttle]

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.

Re:Now you've your UK proxy

[CockMonster]

Sheeit. Sorry for getting all y'all hopes up.

Ballistics are the answer - they must be stopped

[Penurious Penguin]

I don't see why ISPs can't follow suit of the London Olympics and install missiles on customer rooftops. Hell, I'm sure the DHS & DoD would happily give a grant for that here, and Verizon would be delighted to manage them, while Haliburton could do the rebuilding for a fair price when some fool gets brave. Who's gonna use a proxy with a missile on their roof? ...or...we could just use drones. But we've got to do something!

Just a front, get real!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on guys, you know this is just a front for porn. No one uses proxies for anything else. - FBI

I'm one of those people signing up for VPN

[Animal Farm Pig]

I'm part of that "ten fold increase" in VPN subscriptions. I had been meaning to sign up for VPN for a while (to protect anonymity online and to get access to BBC iPlayer), and the Olympics were just the push I needed to finally sign up. If getting access to the Olympics on BBC is the spark that makes other people sign up for VPN, I think it's great. Pervasive use of VPN helps defeat the surveillance state.

Re:I'm one of those people signing up for VPN

[ultrasawblade]

Until they subpoena the logs of your VPN provider.

Re:I'm one of those people signing up for VPN

[Animal Farm Pig]

I chose one of the providers listed in this article: Which VPN Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?. No logs.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorely disappointed with the complete lack of Olympic coverage in the U.S.

Here's a milestone event involving competition between all countries of the World! A chance to have some real patriotic pride and yet a large portion of Americans won't get that chance because they (rightly) don't want to pay out the behind for the honor.

These sorts of things should be mandated free content; what's next, to see the Presidents address or Political Debates you have to subscribe to high-priced pay-per-view services??? The emergency alert system's going to change to a premium channel that you can only get for $19.95 a month??? Come on, people what's the world coming to?

I'm British and have been living in the U.S. for over a decade; I used to watch a *lot* of TV in the UK back when there were only a half dozen over-the-air channels.
Since coming to the U.S. I watch virtually zero. I just got completely frustrated with the amount of commercial interruptions and the length of those commercials; in some cases the commercial content took the majority of the broadcast slot!! - so it was more like watching commercials with the occasional piece of TV show thrown in.

Eventually, I could take it no longer, *paying* a cable TV provider for the privilege was just adding insult to injury, so I dumped it and switched to over-the-air HD TV which is still bad, but at least I'm not paying for it (directly.)

Now I use online streaming services to get my TV fix and even those are being ruined by these giant media networks.

I would love to have access to the BBC content here in the U.S. but I'm sure the reason it doesn't and won't happen is the same as here in the states; licensing.
The BBC likely licenses its content for online streaming with the provision that it's only streamed within the UK.

We need a revolution in broadcasting - someone start a crowd-sourced streaming service for live events!! an Indie-Broadcasting Network (IBN) - I'd subscribe!

Overkill

[Anonymous Coward]

In many cases all you have to do is configure your machine to use a public UK DNS server for resolution and you're in. That little trick fools an amazing number of services. CNN was wanting to switch me to the International Edition by default and Google was auto-redirecting me to www.google.co.uk to name two.

some content they don't have rights to

[YesIAmAScript]

Like the Olympics they don't have rights to stream outside their borders.

They could turn off geolocation for their own content they produce, but they sell the rights to air those shows to broadcasters in other countries. These broadcasters demand exclusive rights in their countries, and so the BBC cannot let their shows be streamed outside the UK. This is the same issue all other broadcasters face.

The BBC could simply not sell their rights beyond their borders and then remove their geolocation for their own content. But the BBC is required by law to minimize their financial impact on UK citizens (i.e. minimize the TV licence fee) and taking in money for overseas rights does this.

Re:You need a TV.

[robthebloke]

The enforcement is done from sales of TV equiplement. Next time you buy a TV, or TV tuner card, you'll probably notice that the shop will take down your name and address. This is always passed to the TV license people to double check you've got a license. Shortly after purchase of your TV, you'll normally recieve a reminder to make sure you pay for a license. This happens even if you already have a license. The TV enforcement people usually turn up shortly afterwards if no license is registered at the property. A few years ago, I made the mistake of buying a TV tuner as a present. I then had the TV licensing people turning up at my flat every other week (even though I didn't have a license). After about the 20th visit, they were happy to accept I didn't have a TV.....

they can't sell it to you

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

Until they can make more money vending TV licence fees to you (and me, I'd pay too) in a country, they legally cannot stop selling rights in other countries and switch to selling TV license fees in those countries. Or until the law is changed by Parliament.

Also note that they cannot sell you the rights to watch content they don't produce (Olympics, Formula 1) outside their borders at any price. They'd have to secure the rights to that content in your country and that would never be cost-effective.

Re:BEST place to watch is in the middle east

[X0563511]

You're near the equator and near the same longitude of UK et al.

Great place to pick up geosync sats, since those are for the most part stuck over the equator.

Re:Why don't they use Facebook/Microsoft?

[desdinova 216]

wouldn't it have been easier for them to post AC?

Speaking as a UK citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in London and have paid for a TV license, but am often to be found in other parts of Europe.
To me it is simply insane to have to use a proxy to access the BBC services that I have paid for.
For the BBC to give a login when one buys a TV license would make perfect sense to me - I could live with having to log in to watch stuff when abroad.

No kidding

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

After a brief exposure to this dreck by the pro-Olympics missus, I'm still recovering from RyanSecrestitis (the main symptom is projectile vomiting).

I would gladly pay the BBC licensing fee

[locust]

I would gladly pay the BBC so that I could watch (online, without cuts, delays, etc):

Topgear
BBC soccer coverage (especially the world cup).
Have I got news for you.
The BBC's 24 hour news channel
Etc.

The BBC is _exactly_ why I pay for XM. (That, and I just could not handle the drivel that passes for 'Fresh Air' on the drive home).

whoops, 3rd sentence should say 2008

[YesIAmAScript]

NBC offered every event online at the 2008 Olympics. That's what the 3rd sentence should say.

Re:it's a scandal

[bobbied]

>

It being illegal doesn't make it wrong.

No, but it can get you a civil judgment to pay and jail time. I don't know about you, but I really don't have money to give away for being stupid, nor do I have time to spend in jail. You do what you want, just post the link so I can watch the streams until they shut you down..

Re:Stealing From The British Public

[Hatta]

It's nice that Americans can watch the Olympics without a television licence, but this means you're stealing from the licence fee payers.

Exactly how much is stolen by each VPN user?

Their online app sucks anyway

[wytcld]

I do have Dish service that includes their networks. But after signing in with Dish via the NBC site (after having to enable 3rd-party cookies - a definite security and privacy violation) they thank me and send a welcome email - and then their website still doesn't recognize that I'm fucking signed in. Their FAQ says it must be because I don't really have the Dish service I do - must be my fault. Their email addy for bug reports replies that I don't have the required Flash support, but I do.

Yes, and their censorship of the 7/7 tribute that was what the whole opening ceremony was building towards was like ... well why not just leave off the end of the sporting events too? Just show the first 9/10ths of the races, you know?

Re:You need a TV.

[jrumney]

They also use electoral roll information (or some other source), as they kept sending me personally addressed letters when I moved into a new flat without ever purchasing a TV. Every second letter would include a form to return if you wanted to declare that you don't own a TV, with the promise that the harassment would stop if you returned it. The rest were just accusing me of avoidance and threatening to start court action if I did not start paying. After a while I gave up returning the forms, as they obviously had no effect, then inspectors started turning up on my doorstep, and when I politely declined to invite them inside, the "detector van" parked itself outside for an evening.

Information just wants to be free

[WillAffleckUW]

How do you know they're not actually holders of UK passports who just happen to live in the US, you nosy parkers?

Errr, why?

[RockDoctor]

I mean, here I am in Britain, with all these Olympics on the telly for free, and I am heartily looking forward to when the shit-fest is ended and back in it's coffin for then next 4 years.

Oh, bollocks - there's going to be a Winter Olymshits too, isn't there. Or did we have that and I didn't notice?

Will someone just get their finger out and nuke the bastards and get it over and done with. Who won the 457kev javlin catch? The third greasy stain on the wall from the left. Next question?

Re:am I the only one...

[lpq]

Considering I can get a 2.2MByte/sec download from some
town in Russia (this when my upload was .3MB/s, I don't see why a compressed data stream couldn't come down on a group of clients serving content -- (like a torrent).

It's easy to download 23-24 minutes (30 min show), in about 5 minutes -- what's not real time about that? (And that's in 720p, 1080p is also usually faster than real time by 2-3X.)....

Most of those connections are encrypted.