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

[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

[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

[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

[JustOK]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.