12 ms·
NBCOlympics’ Opening Ceremony Tape Delay: Stupid, Stupid, Stupid
- hardtke 14y agoI just watched the pirated BBC broadcast. I felt like something was missing, and then I figured it out. The stupid thing is that Americans are forced to watch the Olympics with 20 minutes of commercials per hour, while the rest of the world gets to watch it nearly commercial free. Why does the US citizen pay for the entire Olympics through the annoyance of commercials?
- balac 14y agoThe BBC is not free, in the UK everyone with a TV has to pay a yearly fee for it, you get ads because you don't pay the fee.
- hardtke 14y agoPresumably the BBC outbid other British channels in a competitive bidding process. I suspect that broadcasters in the rest of the world know that 20 minutes of commercials per hour is unacceptable, so they don't bid as much as our networks. EDIT: The only source I could find indicates that the BBC paid about $100 million for broadcast rights to these games. That's 1/10th of what NBC paid, or about 1/2 of the American fees on a per capita basis.
- DrJokepu 14y agoIn many countries (including the United Kingdom) the amount of commercials that can be broadcasted per hour on terrestrial broadcast is limited by law or other regulations. The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. Edit: as others have pointed out, ITV is not publicly owned, but Channel 4 (and obviously BBC) are.
- polshaw 14y ago>The UK is special in that the biggest broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are all publicly owned. No, no, no. Only the BBC is 'publicly owned' (e: ok and channel 4 is although commercial- the point was definitely not ITV). They do have some regulatory requirements, though.
- handelaar 14y agoDo tell us who you think owns Channel 4.
- andyjohnson0 14y agoITV is not publicly owned. Channel 4 is though [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Four_Television_Corpora...
- josephlord 14y agoI would also add Sky as one of the biggest broadcasters, certainly by revenue. They are commercial pay TV with some advertising broadcasting on their own satellite platform but with some of their channels also available on cable and terrestrial. Not everyone has the Sky channels. Yes BBC is fully public corporation of it's own unique type (Corporation by Royal Charter - I think). Largely license fee funded with the rest coming from its commercial arm selling content (mostly overseas) and also books, magazines and back catalogue content in the UK. Channel 4 is a normal company but government owned. Funded by ad revenue. ITV is mostly ad funded and fully commercial. It used to be a group of regional companies (a bit like US affiliates) but they have all merged to one big company.
- DrJokepu 14y agoDue to my job, I work a lot with these broadcasters, especially Channel 4. From what I can tell, even though they are commercially funded, the folks over there in Horseferry Road try to take their "publicly owned" status seriously and try to act with the "public interest" (whatever that means) in mind. For example, I know that at least unofficially, they try really hard to help and support small, independent producers.
- jamescun 14y agoI believe the BBC gets it by default being the state broadcaster.
- josephlord 14y agoI believe that it is the last year of a pan-European deal between the IOC and the EBU/Eurovision which is the club of largely public service broadcasters from across Europe (quite widely defined not just the EU). The BBC has just done its own deal for the next few Olympics with the IOC.
- gibybo 14y agoHow much is the fee? I suspect if given the choice between fee or commercials, many would choose the fee. Sadly that choice doesn't exist here (in the US) :/
- msbarnett 14y agoPer [1] the fee appears to be £145.50 a year, or roughly $229.10 USD according to Wolfram Alpha. [1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whoweare/licen...
- aprendo 14y agoIn Germany it’s €215.76 per year, so about $266. Similar, but I can’t help and feel that value for money is worse here. There is some real cool stuff the BBC does that just does not exist in Germany. But it seems that the Olympics will get pretty great coverage, also on the web. (There were, e.g., streams with and without commentary available tonight.)
- andyjohnson0 14y ago£145.50 (US$228) per year. About £0.40 (US$0.65) per day. Excellent value in my opinion.
- salem 14y agoThat's a whole lot less than paying for cable to get ESPN
- teamonkey 14y agoMost of the sports channels aren't covered by the licence fee, you still have to pay for cable (or Satellite) for them. The Olympics are one of the few exceptions.
- excuse-me 14y agoPlus that includes a dozen or so radio stations, with permanent access to almost all of their program archives online. And an online PVR to watch all shows from the last week and a selection of older shows.
- ralfn 14y agoI was under the impression US networks are anything but free? I mean, guys like Viacom pay our cable companies for potential access to our eyeballs here in Holland. I heard they actually get paid by cable companies in the US. For jersey shore .. with adds. Way too many adds. Now, i dont know how much money ads bring to the table, but they could double my cable bill, (from 10 to 20 euros), if it would all be ad free.
- covercash 14y agoI don't even mind the commercials, it's the awful commentators that ruin this for me. They should have done a simulcast on MSNBC without the idiotic comments.
- w1ntermute 14y ago> The stupid thing is that Americans are forced to watch the Olympics with 20 minutes of commercials per hour, while the rest of the world gets to watch it nearly commercial free. We complain about commercials here on HN, but you would be surprised to learn there are many people that actually enjoy watching commercials. For example, when I was at my parents' house a few months back, I watched something on TV with my mom. I instinctively muted the TV when commercials came on, but she told me to actually turn them back on. I asked why, and she said enjoyed watching the ads.
- vacri 14y agoI can't stand people that routinely mute ads because that in itself is an interruption. Even worse is a friend of mine that shouts violently for the ads to fuck off every time he mutes them. The problem for me is that with muted ads, you have to visually monitor the TV to find out when to unmute. I find it much easier to just use my mental ad-filter, though I'll happily grant an exception if the station is doing the stupid loud-volume ad trick.
- w1ntermute 14y agoThat's an issue if you don't have a DVR. If you do, you can just rewind if you've missed something.
- robomartin 14y agoCommercials are not a problem at all with a DVR. You'd be surprised how good you get at skipping them. If you have kids you hand them the remote control and it happens "automatically".
- mtkd 14y agoAnother article referencing 'Sir Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the Internet' - expect better from Techcrunch. Internet != World Wide Web
- nekojima 14y agoCTV coverage in Canada titled him on-screen as the "Founder of the World Wide Web" then the commentator called him the Father of the Internet... so half marks, if possible.
- da_n 14y agoI am a citizen of Team GB and feel your pain. NBC are idiots.
- reaganing 14y agoTennis fans regularly suffer this same nonsense from NBC every year with the French Open and Wimbledon[^1]. I can't see them changing anytime soon. Relatedly, their whole cable TV package requirements for online streaming is also very annoying. It requires having a package with both CNBC and MSNBC to get access. I still actually have a cable TV package, but my provider does not offer MSNBC on any of their packages so I'm out of luck. Thankfully, there's the Yankees/Red Sox this weekend so I'll watch that instead. [^1]: Thankfully ESPN bought the rights to Wimbledon starting this year. Maybe they (or parent, Disney) could do the same with the Olympics once the rights are up for grabs again.
- robomartin 14y agoWell, companies such as Google need to start buying broadcast rights and put it all on the 'net. I am sure they can make far more money online than NBC ever pulls out of their advertisers. For one thing, these days lots of people DVR shows not just for convenience but to skip the commercials. I sure do. I'd rather watch something 30 to 45 minutes after the fact than have to endure the obtrusive commercials.
- eurleif 14y agoIf Google put the Olympics online with its own commercials (I assume that's how they would monetize it?), why would you stop watching your commercial-free DVR recording in favor of Google's broadcast?
- robomartin 14y agoFar more convenient. Better quality. I get to watch what I want vs. egocentric American coverage. I get to watch it on my schedule. I get to watch it on different devices. I can even watch it on the road or while camping. I'd probably even get to watch it in different languages (granted, not so applicable to the London event) The ads might even be relevant. And, in general, I prefer to support 'net-based entertainment vs. broadcast because, well, they suck. There are probably more reasons beyond these.
- w1ntermute 14y ago> I get to watch what I want vs. egocentric American coverage. Believe it or not, the mainstream American audience wants to see egocentric American coverage - they enjoy it.
- excuse-me 14y agoOr presumably they could just make a movie version where the opening ceremony is in New York and they win all the medals?
- robomartin 14y ago
- cypherpunks01 14y agoDoes anyone know what ended up happening to BitTorrent Live (live.bittorrent.com)? Creating a swarm of video streamers would've been a good technology fit for filling this role, from what I read about the protocol awhile back.
- agravier 14y agoI use SopCast for that, it works well. There is an android client that works very well for me.
- mattvot 14y agoSee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR6OZ_x7QqM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR6OZ_x7QqM for the first hour and 20 from the BBC broadcast.
- mattvot 14y agonever mind, Olympic Committee, UMG and EMI have taking it down a few seconds after I posted this.
- josephlord 14y agoHaving watched the first half live on the BBC in the UK it wasn't as embarrassing as I feared. The 3D version was pretty good, it worked better than many things. Is NBC offering the 3D version in the US?
- tzs 14y agoNBC is providing live streaming on the web and via iOS and Android apps of every event, for free to people who have a cable, satellite, or telco TV package that includes CNBC and MSNBC. They are also providing on-demand access so you don't have to watch live. For many people, they won't even have to log in to access this, as they have worked with some providers to automatically recognize IP addresses as belong to people whose accounts qualify. So they didn't include the opening ceremony. It seems pretty nit-picky to focus on that and ignore the massive effort they've done to provide the live coverage of everything else.
- photon137 14y agoIt's not being nit-picky - the opening ceremony is quite a massive bit of any Olympics. As one of the Athens 2004 organizers said, a 400m race in Sydney, Beijing, Greece or Atlanta would look exactly the same - it's the opening ceremony that sets the the theme. And the BBC has done all of the above plus the opening ceremony. NBC's "massive" effort isn't for charity - people are paying money for it - they'd better deliver the goods.
- btilly 14y agoNBC is providing live streaming on the web and via iOS and Android apps of every event, for free to people who have a cable, satellite, or telco TV package that includes CNBC and MSNBC. s/for free/only/ I tried to find an option for people who do not choose to have TV. I failed.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mynameishere 14y agoIn 2008 anyone with an internet connection could watch any event and replay any event. And that was without the obnoxious commentary that accompanies most TV broadcasts. I really enjoyed some of the longer events like the bike road races for their silent, almost Zen qualities. Won't happen this time. Now, I have to use a UK proxy to see it, and it's got the usual idiots yammering over the action.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoOh yes, that was godly. It seriously should be the standard for any big sporting event. It's sad to see that NBC has regressed so badly from the standard set in 08.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- killpg 14y agoWatched it on justin.tv but had to switch streams three times from British English to Russian to Spanish to Chilean Spanish due to DMCA notices. Thanks ycombinator!
- Zaheer 14y agoWho's ready for Google Fiber? :)
- ComputerGuru 14y agoMy problem isn't just the delay, it's the fact that they were pretending the rest of the world does not exist. The NBC "newscasters" were lying on air, saying things like "the big question now is who will be lighting the olympic torch," "the opening ceremony will begin in 2 hours" (when it was already over!), "in three hours time, the debate will be on as to whether the London or Beijing ceremony was nicer, we have the world has no idea what surprises are in store," and so on and so forth. They're deliberately misleading their viewers, and it's disgusting.
- nicksergeant 14y agoWeren't the "newscasters" actually in London while the ceremonies were taking place, taping there? Those statements make sense in that case.
- Alex3917 14y agoI agree with this. Everyone knows it isn't live, but they want to watch a recording of the livestream as it happened because that's what's the most exciting. It's the same reason why so many people watch Steve Jobs' live keynotes after the fact even though they could just watch the video advertisements or look at the Apple store for the products at that point.
- ComputerGuru 14y agoNo, I'm talking about the local newscasters. I'm in Chicago, these were newscasters people here in the city.
- eswangren 14y agoI think it's fair to assume that a Chicago news caster is speaking primarily to an American audience. Specifically, a Chicago audience. So even in that context they weren't being misleading. Relax a bit.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
- btilly 14y agoIt is stupider than that. Anyone who wants can get access to their streaming web. Just give them who your cable provider is, and your user name and password to that account so that they can verify that it is you. OK. What about people like me? I wouldn't mind seeing some of the Olympics. I would like to show it to my son. But I never watch TV, and I do not have a subscription to any TV cable service. Can't I, I don't know, PAY THEM to get access to this 2 week event? Or maybe they can MAKE ME SIT THROUGH ADS to get it? Apparently not. There is no such option. I'll just have to track down a friend who trusts me and has a cable account to login on my computer so that I can watch. Or else find an illegal stream. Or else just not watch.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ernestipark 14y agoIt's really unfortunate. I would pay $100 to have full coverage of the olympics streamed. Not to mention I have yet to find a good representation of the schedule. Everything is extremely difficult to track down.
- Someone 14y agohttp://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/full-schedule.html http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/full-schedule...
- ryannielsen 14y agoWell, if you're willing to pay, couldn't you sign up for cable for one month? I agree, it's not our ideal and it's more overhead for you since you'll need to deal with installation, but it's not like it's impossible to pay to see the Olympics.
- btilly 14y agoIf I sign up for cable for one month, it will take several days before I actually get it, and then who knows how much longer before I wind up able to login through their process. What portion of the Olympics will I have missed? Borrowing someone else's account seems more likely to happen.
- tkahn6 14y agoWell here's my attempt at doing something marginally useful. The only thing I could really think of. I generally am ambivalent about these media blunders because I don't watch TV... but I was really looking forward to the Opening Ceremonies. http://www.change.org/petitions/international-olympic-committee-no-longer-permit-nbc-to-bid-on-the-broadcasting-rights-to-the-olympic-games http://www.change.org/petitions/international-olympic-commit...
- b0 14y agoI live in the UK and conciously chose to watch "Coming To America" (great film) instead of the £9.3 billion that they stole from us taxpayers for a 2 week long militarised running and jumping and clapping shitfest without our permission for which the cash could have gone to education, healthcare etc instead.
- RobMcCullough 14y agoThe sense of entitlement in the last few Olympics related posts is really getting obnoxious. Granted the article here makes a good point about it being silly to live tweet an event that is not being broadcast. But, everyone commenting seems to think watching the Olympics for free is a god given right. I am excited that, unlike the NFL, MLB, and other professional sporting events, the live-streaming capability provided to NBC subscribers is actually quite thorough and high quality.
- stevvooe 14y agoI've effectively boycotted as I have no legal means of watching the events. Way to make another institution irrelevant to my generation, big media. Enjoy your profits while they last.
- stevvooe 14y agoI've effectively boycotted as I have no legal means of watching the events. Way to make another institution irrelevant to my generation, big media. Enjoy your profits while they last.
- Vivtek 14y agoHungarian TV showed it straight through, no ads (and free) (and live) but still had the damn commentators talking through all the music. Why do they think that adds anything? It drove me bananas.