Except that NBC did the exact same thing for the Beijing and Vancouver games as well when Comcast didn't even have control of the network yet. That NBC required a paytv sub in order to stream or watch the events live from overseas is nothing new. And I would fully expect them to do it again in 2014 for the Winter Games in Sochi.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NBC Sucks Again... For NOT covering the Olympic Ceremonies LIVE.
- Thread starter TroyG
- Start date
Except that NBC did the exact same thing for the Beijing and Vancouver games as well when Comcast didn't even have control of the network yet. That NBC required a paytv sub in order to stream or watch the events live from overseas is nothing new. And I would fully expect them to do it again in 2014 for the Winter Games in Sochi.
Now that its over and we've all seen the closing..the online feed was, for the most part, commercial free, with :15 hit and run ads every 15 minutes or so....Upside: The British announcers kept fairly quiet...but the singers mics were hit and miss. And they didn't have Ryan Seacrest spoiling things ( The example: The British feed never mentioned Eric Idle until he climbed out of the pit singing "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life"..) Because we didnt know what was coming until we saw and heard him, the impact of surprise was full on. The Online feed did not clip the "naughty word" in the tune. NBC laid a three second tone over it.
By 2014, online technology will be further advanced. Just hook up your net to the tube and have at it. We all know eventually cable and internet will be merged into one, so let's just get used to it, shall we?
I'm more into sports than entertainment, but hats off to the British. Rio can't possibly duplicate this closer. Kudos to who or whomever brought Freddie Mercury back and its too bad Jeff Lynne didn't bring back ELO for one last performance...leading into Monty Python. I think George Harrison would have loved that.
By 2014, online technology will be further advanced. Just hook up your net to the tube and have at it. We all know eventually cable and internet will be merged into one, so let's just get used to it, shall we?
I'm more into sports than entertainment, but hats off to the British. Rio can't possibly duplicate this closer. Kudos to who or whomever brought Freddie Mercury back and its too bad Jeff Lynne didn't bring back ELO for one last performance...leading into Monty Python. I think George Harrison would have loved that.
TheBigA said:PirateJohnny said:Why does NBC (and other providers) limit online viewing to cable/satellite subscribers only?
Who owns NBC? What business are they in?
Who owns TNT, another channel that requires a cable/satellite subscription to view online content? And what's with ESPN3 and their internet compatibility thing? My ISP won't work with ESPN3 so I'm out of luck there, too. In my case, a cable/satellite subscription just doesn't make economic sense - cost/time available to view. I don't have time to watch everything available with an antenna!
PirateJohnny said:TheBigA said:PirateJohnny said:Why does NBC (and other providers) limit online viewing to cable/satellite subscribers only?
Who owns NBC? What business are they in?
Who owns TNT, another channel that requires a cable/satellite subscription to view online content? And what's with ESPN3 and their internet compatibility thing? My ISP won't work with ESPN3 so I'm out of luck there, too. In my case, a cable/satellite subscription just doesn't make economic sense - cost/time available to view. I don't have time to watch everything available with an antenna!
The only exception is that NBC is a terrestrial network that you can simply watch over the air. TNT and ESPN are channels that you need cable or satellite to watch. I understand needing a cable or satellite description to watch shows from those channels online, but NBC? In that case, it's unfair to those without a cable television or satellite subscription.
PirateJohnny said:TheBigA said:PirateJohnny said:Why does NBC (and other providers) limit online viewing to cable/satellite subscribers only?
Who owns NBC? What business are they in?
Who owns TNT, another channel that requires a cable/satellite subscription to view online content? And what's with ESPN3 and their internet compatibility thing? My ISP won't work with ESPN3 so I'm out of luck there, too. In my case, a cable/satellite subscription just doesn't make economic sense - cost/time available to view. I don't have time to watch everything available with an antenna!
Time Warner Inc. Technically independent of Time Warner Cable Inc., but we all know how the corporate world works.
azumanga said:I understand needing a cable or satellite description to watch shows from those channels online, but NBC? In that case, it's unfair to those without a cable television or satellite subscription.
NBC untimately aired everything on the network. Some of it may have been delayed or edited. Some may have been at 2AM. But you could see every sports match on NBC. But what you want is to see a specific match live. That's a personalized service, and for that, it's not unfair to ask to be paid.
TheBigA said:azumanga said:I understand needing a cable or satellite description to watch shows from those channels online, but NBC? In that case, it's unfair to those without a cable television or satellite subscription.
NBC untimately aired everything on the network. Some of it may have been delayed or edited. Some may have been at 2AM. But you could see every sports match on NBC. But what you want is to see a specific match live. That's a personalized service, and for that, it's not unfair to ask to be paid.
That's not a personalized service. If anything that is the exact opposite. Live is unaltered, unpersonalized, and simply how it should be. The US is one of the only countries that allows a company to capitalize the Olympics without restriction. The result was non-live OTA revolving around primetime slots, garbage commentary, and nonfree unreliable live streaming.
The only network that should have ever been allowed to touch the Olympics is PBS. With multiple sub-channels the ability to offer live OTA would be unparalleled. Partnering with a real streaming company could have made the best online experience ever, completely free. As is American Olympic coverage sucked compared to every other country.
Casey said:The only network that should have ever been allowed to touch the Olympics is PBS. With multiple sub-channels the ability to offer live OTA would be unparalleled. Partnering with a real streaming company could have made the best online experience ever, completely free. As is American Olympic coverage sucked compared to every other country.
Considering the state PBS and its member stations are in, could they even afford to acquire the Olympics? The only way this would be possible is if, like other programs, is funded by corporate sponsors, philanthropic organisations, and support from "Viewers Like You".
Casey said:That's not a personalized service. If anything that is the exact opposite.
You want NBC to do what you want. That's a personal service. Most people in this country work during the day, and they can't take a break to watch sports. So delaying it until the evening, and editing out all the dead air is what most people want from TV. You want something else, and it was available, but at a price. You're upset because you can't get what you want for free.
Studio20 said:By 2014, online technology will be further advanced. Just hook up your net to the tube and have at it. We all know eventually cable and internet will be merged into one, so let's just get used to it, shall we?
I doubt 2014 because of the continuing issue of bandwidth usage and caps. Perhaps sometime in 2020s, the bandwidth issue won't matter anymore. When that happens, then cable and internet will be finally merged into one.
TheBigA said:Casey said:That's not a personalized service. If anything that is the exact opposite.
You want NBC to do what you want. That's a personal service. Most people in this country work during the day, and they can't take a break to watch sports. So delaying it until the evening, and editing out all the dead air is what most people want from TV. You want something else, and it was available, but at a price. You're upset because you can't get what you want for free.
No, it is what NBC wanted because they knew they could make more money showing it at a different time. They clearly said this. The viewers don't care when the content is shown if it isn't shown live, they will just DVR it. If it is shown live, many will watch it live and some will still DVR it. But NBC doesn't care if people want to see it live, they want more money by selling it at a time when they could make more ad revenue.
You seem to think requiring people to have a subscription to view online made NBC lots of money. There is no evidence they made a dime off of that. It has nothing to do with being free or paid. If it were all about making money off charging for "personalized" service, they would have offered you an option to buy online streaming rights. But they didn't, because they didn't make extra money off the "personalized" service. It is all about adding "value" to subscription TV services. Same reason why Hulu, another NBC venture is going to start requiring a cable subscription in the future. Protecting the cable subscriptions is the ultimate goal in life.
I'm not upset that I couldn't view live for free, I'm upset that I couldn't view it live at all without going to BBC. NBC didn't partner with all companies, contrary to what people seem to think.
Troy Goodwin said:Well, NBC doesn't have to worry about anything because most of the games will be carried live, and the difference is Rio is only one hour ahead of New York, So it won't be a major problem to of its all viewers four years from now.
Except that some key events, especially during the day, will still be delayed for prime-time. And if you live on the West Coast or the Rockies, EVERYTHING will be delayed.
TheBigA said:Casey said:That's not a personalized service. If anything that is the exact opposite.
You want NBC to do what you want. That's a personal service. Most people in this country work during the day, and they can't take a break to watch sports. So delaying it until the evening, and editing out all the dead air is what most people want from TV.
That's a very poor description of what a "personalised service" is. My "personalised service" would include watching both ceremonies live on TV, not being forced to watched a hacked-up version of it, with a sub-par sitcom delaying the ending. And I would like to watch it while huddled on the couch, not huddled at the desk on my computer. "Personalised" should be something the viewer wants, not what NBC thinks the viewer wants.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.