Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #88 > unrolled thread

The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-07 14:55 -0800
    Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-08 20:08 +0000
      Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online 2phar <none@example.com> - 2014-02-08 16:28 -0500
        Re: The $4.38 billion reason it¹s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-09 15:18 +0000
    Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-08 23:24 +0200
    Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-08 14:50 -0800
      Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-09 02:13 +0200
        Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-08 18:38 -0800
      Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online 2phar <none@example.com> - 2014-02-09 09:34 -0500
    Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com> - 2014-02-10 11:42 -0700
      Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-10 21:37 +0200
        Re: The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com> - 2014-02-10 13:25 -0700
          olympics - coat hanger hack deepmagicbeginshere@gmail.com - 2014-02-10 17:25 -0800
            Re: olympics - coat hanger hack Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com> - 2014-02-11 09:59 -0700
              Re: olympics - coat hanger hack RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-11 17:50 +0000
                Re: olympics - coat hanger hack 2phar <none@example.com> - 2014-02-11 12:57 -0500
              Re: olympics - coat hanger hack Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-12 22:51 -0800
              Re: olympics - coat hanger hack Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-02-26 00:28 -0500

#88 — The $4.38 billion reason it’s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

From 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/06/the-4-38-billion-reason-its-so-hard-for-u-s-cord-cutters-to-watch-olympics-online/ 


> The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics start tonight. But if you're among the 9 
> percent of U.S. households who have broadband but don't subscribe to 
> paid television, it will be nearly impossible to (legally) watch the 
> games online this year.
> That's because while NBC is streaming all of the events live online, 
> full access to the livestream will only be available to paying cable 
> subscribers. And thanks to a $4.38 billion exclusive deal NBC struck 
> with the International Olympics Committee (IOC) in 2011 for the 
> privilege of broadcasting the Olympic games in the U.S. through 2020, 
> cord-cutters don't have a lot of options.
> 
> Since the games started being broadcast, television contracts have 
> become an important source of revenue for the IOC — with broadcast 
> deals now bringing in nearly half of Olympic revenues.  And the actual 
> broadcasts have changed substantially: The first "televised" version of 
> the games was in the 1936 Berlin games, and that only included them 
> being beamed by closed circuit to specified halls. Similarly, there was 
> a televised broadcast of the 1948 games at Wembley but it was limited 
> to certain receivers within range of the stadium. But the first 
> significant financial payouts for exclusive U.S. coverage came in 1960, 
> when CBS paid $394,000 for the privilege of showing the games.
> 
> ...

This is an interesting article for a few reasons.  My first thought is 
that the mainstream media doesn't even consider piracy of TV shows - it 
is possible (see 
https://kickass.to/search/olympics%20category%3Ausearch%20category%3Atv/?field=time_add&sorder=desc 
) to watch Olympic events, without directing any revenue to NBC, and 
these events can be viewed within sometimes minutes of their 
conclusion.  Another thing to consider is that, the events that the 99% 
really care about will be on broadcast TV.  If somebody is really a big 
fan of one of the sports that NBC is only barely covering, they will 
figure out a way to watch it online somehow despite NBC.

Personally I find the NBC coverage to be just awful, and I only watch 
the Olympics for laughs.  The last time I think I was excited about it 
was LA 84.

This story was inspired by Slashdot, may it rest in peace.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#125

On 2014-02-07, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From 

> This is an interesting article for a few reasons.  My first thought is
> that the mainstream media doesn't even consider piracy of TV shows -
> it is possible (see
> https://kickass.to/search/olympics%20category%3Ausearch%20category%3Atv/?field=time_add&sorder=desc
> ) to watch Olympic events, without directing any revenue to NBC, and
> these events can be viewed within sometimes minutes of their
> conclusion.  Another thing to consider is that, the events that the
> 99% really care about will be on broadcast TV.  If somebody is really
> a big fan of one of the sports that NBC is only barely covering, they
> will figure out a way to watch it online somehow despite NBC.
>
> Personally I find the NBC coverage to be just awful, and I only watch
> the Olympics for laughs.  The last time I think I was excited about it
> was LA 84.
>
> This story was inspired by Slashdot, may it rest in peace.
>

This is indeed interesting.  I'm a cord cutter, and pissed off they're
trying to restrict this to TV viewers only.  Seems like one dude with a
webcam set up in front of his plasma TV could circumvent it though, so
as usual, big media is not thinking deeply enough about this.  If they
were smart (*cough*) they'd publish their own torrents and charge
advertisers for a 5 second spot at the beginning of the torrent, or
stream it under a similar process.

They are advertising their continued brain-dead approach to new media,
and I look forward to it biting them in the ass.

RIP Slashdot / Fuck Beta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#128

On 2/8/2014 3:08 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-02-07, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is indeed interesting.  I'm a cord cutter, and pissed off they're
> trying to restrict this to TV viewers only.  Seems like one dude with a
> webcam set up in front of his plasma TV could circumvent it though, so
> as usual, big media is not thinking deeply enough about this.  If they
> were smart (*cough*) they'd publish their own torrents and charge
> advertisers for a 5 second spot at the beginning of the torrent, or
> stream it under a similar process.
>
> They are advertising their continued brain-dead approach to new media,
> and I look forward to it biting them in the ass.
>
> RIP Slashdot / Fuck Beta.
>

I think big media is thinking the internet needs to be fully their new 
broadcast medium so the rest of the broadcast TV spectrum can be lobbied 
away for more cellular bandwidth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153 — Re: The $4.38 billion reason it¹s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

In article <ld67h6$g8l$1@dont-email.me>, 2phar <none@example.com> 
wrote:

> On 2/8/2014 3:08 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> > On 2014-02-07, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is indeed interesting.  I'm a cord cutter, and pissed off they're
> > trying to restrict this to TV viewers only.  Seems like one dude with a
> > webcam set up in front of his plasma TV could circumvent it though, so
> > as usual, big media is not thinking deeply enough about this.  If they
> > were smart (*cough*) they'd publish their own torrents and charge
> > advertisers for a 5 second spot at the beginning of the torrent, or
> > stream it under a similar process.
> >
> > They are advertising their continued brain-dead approach to new media,
> > and I look forward to it biting them in the ass.
> >
> > RIP Slashdot / Fuck Beta.
> >
> 
> I think big media is thinking the internet needs to be fully their new 
> broadcast medium so the rest of the broadcast TV spectrum can be lobbied 
> away for more cellular bandwidth.

They're well on their way!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#127

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> Personally I find the NBC coverage to be just awful, and I only watch
> the Olympics for laughs.

While I lived in the US, I experienced the lame Olympics coverage.
Things are looking pretty good back in Finland:

 * Olympics are covered by YLE, the Finnish equivalent of the BBC.

 * No commercials. Some interviews but mostly events.

 * All available in OTA HD, cable and the Web.

As commercial news and other media outlets are dropping like flies, I
think YLE is well worth the annual €140 YLE tax.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130 — Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

I've been thinking about why the lamestream media seems to be so afraid 
to put unencumbered streams or recordings of their program content up 
on the web.  It seems like it should be a no-brainer - they will reach 
a larger audience, the cost can be very low (nearly nothing in the case 
of torrents) and it would ultimately provide a larger base of people 
who are both watching the advertisements, and receiving the proper 
social and political conditioning.  I think that the media companies 
are afraid of a mass exodus - they have carefully cultivated a 
near-monopoly of moving picture news and entertainment through 
broadcast and cable delivery systems and these expensive 
infrastructures can not just be allowed to go dead or they might affect 
people's perceptions of the outlets.  After all, everybody knows the 
'real' news is produced in big expensive studios and is read out loud 
to you by slick looking men and respectable looking, but also 
attractive women.  If all the video just came over the internet, how 
could you factor the respectability of your media sources?  Yeah, I'm 
pretty sarcastic and jaded.

To Marko, I would comment that, while we do have public broadcasting in 
the USA, it is at least as slanted in its news presentation as Fox News 
or MSNBC.  Our public media stations serve mainly to convert donations 
by large corporations and useful idiots into money that pays for BBC 
dramas and very cleverly slanted leftist news focused on Obama worship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136 — Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:

> To Marko, I would comment that, while we do have public broadcasting
> in the USA, it is at least as slanted in its news presentation as Fox
> News or MSNBC. Our public media stations serve mainly to convert
> donations by large corporations and useful idiots into money that pays
> for BBC dramas and very cleverly slanted leftist news focused on Obama
> worship.

The topic being the Olympics, the question is only, do we get to see the
events? In Finland, the answer is a definitive yes.

Annually, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets less than $1.50
per US citizen in taxes. The Finnish YLE gets more than $100.00 per
Finnish citizen in taxes. That's why the American public TV stations
couldn't dream of broadcasting the Olympics, the Finnish government TV
station can and does.

It would appear the televising licensing costs for the Sochi Olympics
are about $3 per citizen in the US as well as in Finland. NBC is
scrambling to eke out a return for their investment. YLE's funding is in
the bag and they can concentrate on providing an enjoyable experience to
the viewers.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#137 — Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

On 2014-02-09 00:13:02 +0000, Marko Rauhamaa said:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com>:
> 
>> To Marko, I would comment that, while we do have public broadcasting
>> in the USA, it is at least as slanted in its news presentation as Fox
>> News or MSNBC. Our public media stations serve mainly to convert
>> donations by large corporations and useful idiots into money that pays
>> for BBC dramas and very cleverly slanted leftist news focused on Obama
>> worship.
> 
> The topic being the Olympics, the question is only, do we get to see the
> events? In Finland, the answer is a definitive yes.
> 
> Annually, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets less than $1.50
> per US citizen in taxes. The Finnish YLE gets more than $100.00 per
> Finnish citizen in taxes. That's why the American public TV stations
> couldn't dream of broadcasting the Olympics, the Finnish government TV
> station can and does.
> 
> It would appear the televising licensing costs for the Sochi Olympics
> are about $3 per citizen in the US as well as in Finland. NBC is
> scrambling to eke out a return for their investment. YLE's funding is in
> the bag and they can concentrate on providing an enjoyable experience to
> the viewers.
> 
> 
> Marko

Taxation in the USA is a difficult subject, one best left for another 
thread.  As far as the Olympics goes, while it is unfortunate that NBC, 
which has the worst commentators I have ever seen, has the contracts 
for broadcast it is not ultimatly crippling for those who wish to watch 
the events as they will find some way to do it.

Their investment in the broadcast rights was obtained so they could 
gather the greatest profit, and the geniuses at NBC think that this can 
be accomplished by their current plan.  The losers here are the sports 
fans of course.

Are you watching the games at all?  Do the presenters seem well informed?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150 — Re: The $4.38 billion reason it?s so hard for U.S. cord-cutters to watch the Olympics online

On 2/8/2014 5:50 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> I've been thinking about why the lamestream media seems to be so afraid
> to put unencumbered streams or recordings of their program content up on
> the web.  It seems like it should be a no-brainer - they will reach a
> larger audience, the cost can be very low (nearly nothing in the case of
> torrents) and it would ultimately provide a larger base of people who
> are both watching the advertisements

The thing is, this isn't about increasing the audience for advertisements.

This is to do with the merger 3 years ago of content delivery (Comcast) 
and Content provider (NBC/Universal) approved by Obama's FCC chief a 
while back before taking the revolving-door to cushy payback job at ComCast:
"http://www.npr.org/2011/05/20/136492206/new-republic-the-fccs-revolving-door-is-shameless"

The NBC Olympics coverage is the bait to force people to pay ComCast for 
a cable subscription (directly, or via another cable provider who it 
turn have to pay up wholesale to ComCast anyway for the NBC/universal 
content).

The more ComCast monopolizes the content delivery and the content 
generation, the more it is able to continue to increase charges to what 
the market with bear (as they have consistently done to date).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211

On 2/7/2014 3:55 PM, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

>> And thanks to a $4.38 billion exclusive deal NBC struck
>> with the International Olympics Committee (IOC) in 2011 for the
>> privilege of broadcasting the Olympic games in the U.S. through 2020,
>> cord-cutters don't have a lot of options.

It inspires the question: what does the IOC do with all of this cash?
There's at least $4.4 Billion from USA, ₤1 Billion from the UK (taxpayer
/ licensee), almost another half billion from corporate sponsorship /
licensing for *this event*.

Outside of paying for medals themselves, sending a lit torch on a
wold-wide tour every now and then, prize bonuses for athletes (up to
$15,000 for gold medal winners), and allegedly distributing some cash to
athletes from poorer countries (so they can eat and train), they do not
pay for the needed infrastructure in host countries, nor security or
much of anything else.

It sounds like the best scheme ever invented. Just sayin'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#217

Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com>:

> It inspires the question: what does the IOC do with all of this cash?

Who cares? It's their entertainment franchise. They get to do with the
proceeds as they please. Also, the sportspeople are inspired and the
viewers are thrilled, so everybody wins.

> It sounds like the best scheme ever invented. Just sayin'

If you are on the lookout for wrongdoing, I would direct my attention to
American college sports, where the schools shamelessly exploit young
athletes.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222

On 2/10/2014 12:37 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> 
> Who cares? It's their entertainment franchise. They get to do with the
> proceeds as they please. Also, the sportspeople are inspired and the
> viewers are thrilled, so everybody wins.

Entertainment franchise? It may be that, among other things. But I see
it as so much more, and suspect that most athletes and spectators do as
well. It's an ethos as much as anything else, perhaps a sort of culture.
Non-discrimination in sports. Fair competition. Protecting health of
athletes. Promoting international good will. Etc. Etc.

> If you are on the lookout for wrongdoing, I would direct my attention to
> American college sports, where the schools shamelessly exploit young
> athletes.

Whom usually get free education and lodging, and the only practical way
to get an opening into professional sports in return. Yeah, it's not at
all a give and take scenario. Poor college athletes! What a repressed
minority! *sobs* Won't someone think of the athletes?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#228 — olympics - coat hanger hack

Suppose NBC streamed it live. Suppose also that for people who don't have an internet connection, they also put up free wireless access points all over the country, so anybody could watch it, without even needing internet access.  Would that do the trick?  That's exactly what they've done.  Someone talked about "pirating" the broadcast.  The hack  is simple  - attach the ends  of a coat hanger to the connection.on your TV marked "antenna". Wham, free live stream of the Olympics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#259 — Re: olympics - coat hanger hack

On 2/10/2014 6:25 PM, deepmagicbeginshere@gmail.com wrote:
That works great if you're within range of the broadcast. A lot of
people are. With the push to digital TV, with its shorter range, a lot
of people still are not. I live in a metropolitan area, and I know the
location of the transmitters. One is only about six miles away, and my
TV reception from that tower is incredibly poor, to the point of being
unwatchable sometimes. I think they play with the power.

In the old days one might have to put up with static, but digital can't
hack it with a poor signal. More stuttering than a room full of
Tourettes syndrome sufferers.

The other consideration is that NBC's mainline non-cable coverage of the
events is terrible, limited in scope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263 — Re: olympics - coat hanger hack

On 2014-02-11, Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com> wrote:
> The other consideration is that NBC's mainline non-cable coverage of the
> events is terrible, limited in scope.

I think it's intentional.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265 — Re: olympics - coat hanger hack

On 2/11/2014 12:50 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-02-11, Atom Cogswell <m8r-uu8mmb@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> The other consideration is that NBC's mainline non-cable coverage of the
>> events is terrible, limited in scope.
>
> I think it's intentional.
>

The other consideration is that ComCast's mainline non-cable coverage of 
the events is terrible

FTFY :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#356 — Re: olympics - coat hanger hack

On 2014-02-11 16:59:27 +0000, Atom Cogswell said:

> On 2/10/2014 6:25 PM, deepmagicbeginshere@gmail.com wrote:
> That works great if you're within range of the broadcast. A lot of
> people are. With the push to digital TV, with its shorter range, a lot
> of people still are not. I live in a metropolitan area, and I know the
> location of the transmitters. One is only about six miles away, and my
> TV reception from that tower is incredibly poor, to the point of being
> unwatchable sometimes. I think they play with the power.
> 
> In the old days one might have to put up with static, but digital can't
> hack it with a poor signal. More stuttering than a room full of
> Tourettes syndrome sufferers.
> 
> The other consideration is that NBC's mainline non-cable coverage of the
> events is terrible, limited in scope.

I hate digital TV, but not just for the reason you state.  We have a 
remote property in Minnesota where before the digital days, it was 
possible to pull in (with considerable static) three stations.  Now we 
get one.

However, one of the biggest reasons I hate digital TV is that a minor 
signal loss event causes the video and audio to halt completely or at 
least break up into stuttering nonsense, and re-synch takes a few 
seconds or so.  During weather events or just marginal signal days 
thanks to low UHF / VHF propagation the TV is essentially unwatchable.  
Another issue is that, especially with sports, panning shots tend to 
destroy fine detail.  Nothing like watching a couple soccer players run 
down the field which turns into an ugly pixellated smear.

I suppose it's for the best, because TV rots your brain as we both know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#948 — Re: olympics - coat hanger hack

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Atom Cogswell wrote:

> On 2/10/2014 6:25 PM, deepmagicbeginshere@gmail.com wrote:
> That works great if you're within range of the broadcast. A lot of
> people are. With the push to digital TV, with its shorter range, a lot
> of people still are not. I live in a metropolitan area, and I know the
> location of the transmitters. One is only about six miles away, and my
> TV reception from that tower is incredibly poor, to the point of being
> unwatchable sometimes. I think they play with the power.
>
> In the old days one might have to put up with static, but digital can't
> hack it with a poor signal. More stuttering than a room full of
> Tourettes syndrome sufferers.
>
It depends on what you expect.

Yes, with analog you could see and hear something that was way down in the 
graininess scale.

But those same stations are actually full on now with digital.  The 
contrast is massive.  I'm willing to live with some problems when most of 
the time I get pictures just like from the local stations.

When the US went to DTV, nobody here in Canada was talking about it.  One 
article covered it briefly, and really dismissed US tv from now on. 
Likely the writer had no experience with over the air tv, which is common; 
people making pronouncements they "know" from elsewhere but not 
experience.

So I didn't bother, hoping prices of DTV sets would become cheaper in 
Canada.  Then in 2011 when Canada went digital at the end of August, I 
bought an LCD DTV set in May, deciding to spend the extra money and 
actually buy a recent tv set, rather than a Commodore CRT monitor fed by a 
VCR.

And from the moment I got that tv set home, I had better reception of US 
stations than I'd ever had in 50 years.  So any dismissal of DTV is likely 
from someone who doesn't have the experience.

    Michael

> The other consideration is that NBC's mainline non-cable coverage of the
> events is terrible, limited in scope.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web