Slashdot Mirror
The Olympic Live Stream: Observations, Recommendations, Predictions
lpress writes "The Tour de France and the Olympics were live streamed on the Web. The BBC streamed 2,500 hours of live coverage of the Olympics and NBC streamed the entire Tour de France and 302 events from all 32 Olympic sports. I watched both events as a fan and as an observer of the online content and the network performance. I blogged detailed descriptions of my experience and summarized it in 12 observations and recommendations. The summary concludes with predictions about the way live events will be covered in the future — coverage of these events was an early step in a major shakeup of the way live events are produced, distributed and viewed."
I wanted to stream part of the Olympics, but NBC wouldn't take my money! They demanded that I pay Comcast $65 or more to have "free" access to the streaming. I am a comcast subscriber, but not at that level.
They wouldn't let me pay to stream ... so I found .... "other alternatives."
Damn you NBC! Offer a way to pay $10-$20 to stream the content for non-cable subscribers - please.
BTW, Calling Comcast on Monday to completely drop CATV service. OTA/ATSC provides more channels here than the $30/month plan.
...
I was going to go in for: the Olympics, and by extension their television coverage, are going to become ever-more-commercialized bullshit that will eventually become completely unwatchable. But perhaps this alternate vision will come true instead.
Don't you find predicting the present to be boring?
Live coverage of 100 mile cycling events is tough logistics.
The cameraman rides on the back of a motorcycle. The signal beams from his camera to a hovering helicopter, and then to a satellite.
It's very impressive that they can get and maintain quality streams under these circumstances. Well trained people and excellent equipment all around.
The 60+ mph downhill runs must also be a crazy experience for the motorcycle driver, with a passenger on the back.
Being a license fee payer, this years olympic coverage from the BBC was actually good enough for me to consider the license fee to be 100% justified. The lack of ads alone was awesome.
The debate about the license fee tends to rage back and forth on a regular basis over here. We genuinely do get a metric ton of generally good quality tv, ad-free and with free streaming. And a lot of tat too. Although it's interesting to note that the UK really came late to the Pay-per-view party. Convincing people that paid a license fee/monthly fee for their cable or sat package that they have to pay again? The main selling points they used over here were the "when you want" nature of the beast, for movies and such, and for sporting events, likening it to buying a ticket. They worked very hard not to remind people that you'd already paid them for the priviledge.
Guess I'll always sneakily love the BBC as being one of the last holdouts against the paywalling of culture, or the slow posioning of it by 1000 ads for things I never knew I could be irritated by.
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
The Olympics should either have their own coverage and stream that and let me pay them to stream it for the 2 weeks,
Or whoever pays them for distribution rights should do this.
I'm not going to waste my time trying to get streaming working at a reasonable rate through a proxy,
and neither am I going to pay a company that doesn't provide service in my area just to watch 2 weeks of Olympics.
There was of course local coverage, but they only really covered the events that we had contestants in.
It also wasn't live streaming, so I could just as easily get it from the piratebay with better coverage.
I live in Hawaii and am an avid cyclist and love to follow Le Tour. A typical TdF stage beings in the middle of my night and ends just as I get up. To watch an entire stage every day (21 stages) would consume too much of my time, at any time. I record the long (3 hrs) NBC show daily on my TiVo and watch that when I get home after work. Sometimes I just watch the shorter highlights show, which has more sidebars.
In general, while more live coverage is a good thing, content providers should continue to develop time shifting options (see also Hulu - TV) and offer insightful commentary and back story items.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
I set up two high spec PCs to record the entire Olympics from 24 HD satellite channels (and some terrestrial SD/HD channels too). No need for a Net connection and I have 15TB of recordings to sift through (edits, deletes etc) at my leisure. It should be noted that the HD TV broadcasts were around 10-11 Mbits/sec, which is approximately twice the rate of the HD Net streams the BBC have up on their site.
The 24 satellite/cable HD channels (free apart from the TV licence fee of course - and no ads!) were by far the best thing w.r.t. the BBC broadcasts, IMHO. I could list quite a few annoyances with the terrestrial coverage ranging from ludicrous studio yabbering whilst actual live sports were visibly/audibly going on behind the presenters (cycling, swimming and athletics were the worst offenders), failure to air Jason Kenny's cycling gold medal win and medal ceremony on terrestrial HD and a surprisingly weak Olympics Tonight highlights show that often failed to air sub-5-minute events in full (colorised, edited out, blaring background music and hardly any of the original comms).
I think what worries me about Rio 2016 is that the UK won't see the equivalent of the 24 HD channels from the BBC again (hopefully via both satellite and cable like London 2012). It might mean that London 2012 will remain the largest TV event in the UK for quite some time to come.
The Comcast cable service my wife has us subscribe to for other content gave me access, so can't fuss about that. The NBC site prompted me for my cable provider the first time I tried to view a stream, and apparently got all the info they needed from my IP address. After the first access everything was transparent. The listing of when the live streaming of the (fencing) events I was interested in was accurate. Streams started promptly and played smoothly. Even for modest sized content (480p rather than high-def), decoding was compute-intensive, requiring the cycles from about 1.5 of the two processor cores on my Mac. That seemed excessive.
I'm a sport fencer. Epee if it matters. I wanted to watch the later rounds of the various epee events -- men's individual, women's individual, women's team. No men's team epee event at the Olympics this year, as the IOC has limited the number of fencing gold medals that can be won. None of the epee events were on US television, only available by streaming. Every minute of all the events were available, at least on replay. Except for one, the live events were either too early, or conflicted with the rest of my life. What was available in replay was the nearly raw video feed from the venue. The action, then a quick slow-motion replay of each touch. The director(s) obviously knew something about the sport, since the slow motion was generally the correct one of the two or three options for camera angle. Audio was the microphone for the referee of the bout being shown, plus ambient noise from the venue (including the PA). No announcer. No color analyst. No commercials. When the Koreans appealed the referee's decision and there was an hour of dead time from the venue, every minute of the dead time was included in the stream. As an aside for those who saw pictures of the Korean woman sitting on the strip, it wasn't a "protest" -- international fencing rules require the fencer to stay at the strip until the appeal is settled.
For an epeeist, that's really terrific coverage. I know what I'm looking for, and the announcer/color commentary are just a distraction. For a non-fencer, it must have been terrible.
OP's comment was obviously trolling, but your analysis doesn't make a lot of sense, considering getting atheletes through to the Olympics is an achievement in and of itself. If you're going to try to base who "won" off of anything other than pure medal count, the best way to go is obviously medals per capita, in which case, I believe Grenada soundly defeated the rest of the world (1 gold medal, 100,000 population).