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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[bluefoxlucid]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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.

Good

[Jamu]

This is for everyone

Jeez

[Flipao]

couldn't keep quiet about it could you

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...

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[h4rr4r]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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. |:

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 ;-).

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...

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.

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: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...

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.

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

[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: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.

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: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.