skbl17 188 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 As for TV Everywhere... *sigh*. Yes. I hate TV Everywhere to death. I think it's ridiculous that I have to subscribe to cable in order to see a mobile live stream of a television station that I can receive, for free, over the air (WATCH ABC). But the broadcasters are relying increasingly on those retrans fees, so yeah. This issue will have to be coming to a head soon, however. (Plus, technically, the BBC isn't "free" like Canada is, either. To watch TV in the UK, you have to pay a license fee.) I'm still trying to figure out why we even have TV Everywhere to begin with! Everyone's already using the internet to stream everything or watch full events on YouTube (in London, the Olympic channel streamed the events live; they're still there as I type this). I understand the POWER the cable/telco companies have, but it's ridiculous here compared to Canada, where the telcos/cable companies are just as crazy as ours, yet they don't have TV Everywhere. I think it's because a certain cable company owns a certain Olympic broadcaster and gets the rights to all of the events. Honestly, I'd gladly pay a license fee or a subscription for the BBC's services, they have been amazing. Their coverage of this and the last Olympic games have been worth every pence of the £145.50/year license fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToriElectra 291 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Fox isn't quite wishful thinking, but it would be a bit of a stretch before they could pull off broadcasting the Olympics. Infrastructure-wise, they're getting there: they have Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, FX, FXX, Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the regional FSN stations, and "Fox Sports Go". Now, of course, a lot can change come 2020, but if Fox decided to bid, they would be quite the contender. I wouldn't be too concerned about finances and infrastructure. You forgot about Fox Soccer Plus, but, does anyone know what to do with that channel? Convert it to Fox Sports 3? Another niche channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asomrjsurf 6 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 FXX,Fox Business Channel,Deportes,Life to. ABC also has Fusion TV and it should Just be on ESPN Neteorks and Univesal because Major Network has to preempt programming in the evenings for 2 weeks. Also NBC has USA.Bravo to. CBS has more networks it can use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlynch 54 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Plus, you may want to ask yourself - do you REALLY want Joe Buck as primetime Olympics host? Joe Buck sitting in a studio well away from the action > Joe Buck actually calling an event Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 I'm still trying to figure out why we even have TV Everywhere to begin with! Everyone's already using the internet to stream everything or watch full events on YouTube (in London, the Olympic channel streamed the events live; they're still there as I type this). I understand the POWER the cable/telco companies have, but it's ridiculous here compared to Canada, where the telcos/cable companies are just as crazy as ours, yet they don't have TV Everywhere. I think it's because a certain cable company owns a certain Olympic broadcaster and gets the rights to all of the events. Honestly, I'd gladly pay a license fee or a subscription for the BBC's services, they have been amazing. Their coverage of this and the last Olympic games have been worth every pence of the £145.50/year license fee. Simple: The cable companies and media companies are inextricably tied. The retransmission fees are what all networks live or die on these days. And many of them have cable contracts that are pretty iron-clad. For instance, HBO, as much as it probably wants to, can't make HBO GO available to non-cable subscribers because of bundle deals. And Bristol is basically subsidized by its absurd subscriber fee. (Which ABC ties its O&O carriage to.) The cord cutting isn't just happening because of increasingly strained budgets; it's happening because people are tired of paying so much for so little. This may shock you, but not many people want to watch Honey Boo Boo or Keeping Up With the Kardashians. Or programming strategies that basically ensure that you could probably spend a full 24-hour period watching nothing but Law and Order or its various spin-offs. And yes, there are people who can't stand sports. Cord cutting, as well as piracy, is a service problem. People just want to watch the shows they want to watch. It's long-past time to implement ala carte cable, where consumers can pick what they want. It's not going to happen anytime soon, but look at the strides Netflix has made. This is why I consider the WWE Network the most important television-related development right now. Say what you will about wrestling, but WWE is a top-tier content producer. Their programs, while not at the Monday Night Wars peak, routinely top the ratings of cable shows. They produce huge extravaganzas that people will pay huge money to watch. And yet they just said "fuck you" to cable and decided to go directly to the consumer. No authentication, no artificial restrictions, save for a 6-month commitment to the channel. And the price - $60 spread over 6 months and 6 payments of $10 - is a freaking steal. If this lives up to the initial buzz, it could be a game changer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I shudder at the prospect of a Bristol-produced Olympics. You know how NBC hyped Michael Phelps to death? That would be nothing compared to what Bristol would have done. It would make their fetish-like focus on Tim Tebow seem tame. I do not trust Bristol executive producers, managers, and talent. The result would be a far, far worse olympics than anything NBC has produced. At least NBC has more event-focused coverage over on cable. I think if we see a single-bidder, aside from Bristol, Fox would work. You'd have four channels to work with - Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, and FX. And they have Rupert Murdoch. Fox would be a bit more sports-focused, but they also do their dumb entertainment stuff as well. Plus, you may want to ask yourself - do you REALLY want Joe Buck as primetime Olympics host? CBS would almost certainly have to do a joint bid with Turner, but if they did I can see it being pulled off. Both of them do a great job with March Madness, and I can see things working out that way. As for TV Everywhere... *sigh*. Yes. I hate TV Everywhere to death. I think it's ridiculous that I have to subscribe to cable in order to see a mobile live stream of a television station that I can receive, for free, over the air (WATCH ABC). But the broadcasters are relying increasingly on those retrans fees, so yeah. This issue will have to be coming to a head soon, however. (Plus, technically, the BBC isn't "free" like Canada is, either. To watch TV in the UK, you have to pay a license fee.) ESPN/ABC tried real hard to bid for the games in 2014-2020 but NBC went all in on the bidding war and ESPN/ABC or Fox couldn't keep up. The other thing to remember is Fox has the rights to the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022 so it will be their first test at broadcasting an international sports event that isn't baseball or football. It will be real interesting to see how they approach it. Hopefully they approach it better than they do with the UEFA games where it seems like they try to dumb the sport down during the pregame shows and have Gus Johnson call the games which still seems awkward to me. If they're successful at broadcasting those events, they might have a better shot at snatching the Olympics rights from NBC past 2020. My only gripe with NBC is the amount of content they show live, especially the opening ceremony. I checked NBCSN on Friday, they had some fishing thing on and they easily could've broadcasted the ceremony live on that channel if they really wanted to. I just wish they had more than one channel (NBCSN) that is showing the Olympics during the daytime. I much prefer it to the prepackaged nighttime stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidwestTV 1174 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 ESPN/ABC tried real hard to bid for the games in 2014-2020 but NBC went all in on the bidding war and ESPN/ABC or Fox couldn't keep up. The other thing to remember is Fox has the rights to the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022 so it will be their first test at broadcasting an international sports event that isn't baseball or football. It will be real interesting to see how they approach it. Hopefully they approach it better than they do with the UEFA games where it seems like they try to dumb the sport down during the pregame shows and have Gus Johnson call the games which still seems awkward to me. If they're successful at broadcasting those events, they might have a better shot at snatching the Olympics rights from NBC past 2020. My only gripe with NBC is the amount of content they show live, especially the opening ceremony. I checked NBCSN on Friday, they had some fishing thing on and they easily could've broadcasted the ceremony live on that channel if they really wanted to. I just wish they had more than one channel (NBCSN) that is showing the Olympics during the daytime. I much prefer it to the prepackaged nighttime stuff. Wasn't there some controversy/concern thing about ESPN/ABC having the games because of the amount of people that would or wouldn't have access to it? I don't remember for sure, it just seems like at the time people were coming up with a list of reasons why ESPN/ABC having the Games was a baaaaaad idea. Normal NBC shows don't they? I saw my local NBC affiliate airing the Olympics at some point in the day before their 5pm newscast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Normal NBC shows don't they? I saw my local NBC affiliate airing the Olympics at some point in the day before their 5pm newscast. Looking at my guide, it looks like that network NBC does have Olympic coverage during the day. For example it's on tomorrow from 1-4PM CST. They were able to show more live programming on network NBC during the day in 2010 because there wasn't as much of a time difference. It seems like that's playing a large factor in the amount of live coverage this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrh1985 56 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I posted something in another Olympic thread, I’ll post it here as well as it looks like this thread gets more looks: Just saw NBC's Regular Coverage Open tonight(my favorite thing about NBC!) and its looks like Hearst bought NBC! Or, the other way around! How does that work?, as NBC News still has all their graphics. Is NBC just using Hearst for Sochi? Or, will we see more? As for another Network handling the Olympics? I really sat down and watched my first Games that were in Sydney in 2000. Seeing NBC use the Olympics Music and their graphics every night to open their coverage, along with their opens to TODAY was wonderful! I was really hooked after Salt Lake, which I was interested in already because of it being in the US. You only get to see that every 2 years, and I can’t imange any Network better than NBC to open coverage like that. Coverage wise, I don’t like NBC jumping around events in primetime but, maybe any network would do that. There always NBCSN to watch raw coverage but that looks like the usual coverage they give to the events all year round. It looks grander in Primetime for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I posted something in another Olympic thread, I’ll post it here as well as it looks like this thread gets more looks: Just saw NBC's Regular Coverage Open tonight(my favorite thing about NBC!) and its looks like Hearst bought NBC! Or, the other way around! How does that work?, as NBC News still has all their graphics. Is NBC just using Hearst for Sochi? Or, will we see more? CBC's graphics have a lot of "Hearst-like" triangles too. They also use the exact same font that Hearst uses for their Olympic graphic package (although the L3's are in the OBS style). I think it's a coincidence though because NBC makes their Olympic graphics in-house. Hearst's graphics were made with a third-party. http://www.getnmd.com/102854/2393071/nmd-gallery/hearst-tv-news-package Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess 1110 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 If you think NBC looks like Hearst, here's what CBC's stuff looks like: The CBC stuff is a weird mix. They certainly have their own templates for their graphics, but the bulk of them are the OBS designs (or based off of them - Rogers SportsNet's version is decidedly off-model). And then they have stuff that looks close to the Hearst graphics. At least when you squint. What you're describing - it feeling grander in primetime - is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Olympics in this country have always been treated like television drama rather than sporting events. Probably it's the best way to get people in this country, where "Football" means big guys running into each other and giving each other concussions, interested in things like speed skating. But honestly, last Olympics, while NBC was... sort of tolerable, the BBC's coverage was almost uniformly excellent. Very different feel, much more informal, relaxed, and thorough. They had, I think, 30 streams available, with the vast majority of them featuring BBC commentators. And you could access them anywhere at any time. No, I'm not bitter that Comcast is letting X1 users watch the streaming content online while I have to bodge together a solution using Chromecast I'm posting some graphics OBServations in a bit, so watch for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d247 43 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The overall branding for the Sochi games is triangular so everyone is most likely basing their graphics on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asomrjsurf 6 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Lots if people don't get NBC other channels to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5287 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, a quick glance at the schedules tells me that Olympic programming is airing on the NBC nets in various, typically non-competing time slots (all times Central). NBC (in Chicago, anyway) seems to be doing afternoon's from like 2-4PM, 7-10:30PM, and from 11PM-3:30AM (no late night talkers this week, Fallon resumes on the 17th). NBCSN looks to have the most programming, will most of their daytime schedule filled, though regular shows remain in primetime. CNBC is going from 4-7PM daily. USA is doing the early shift from 4-7AM. I haven't seen anything for MSNBC, but I'm suspecting their coverage will be in overnights or weekends. I wouldn't be surprised if some events air on the CSN networks, but it would likely be much later...probably after the games have concluded. So, it appears that, save for a few gaps, coverage is basically 24/7, though it's still not much considering how many events there actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 MSNBC has been carrying it from 10 AM - 12 PM ET this week. As for the graphics they do look awfully like the diagrid from Hearst but if you look at the medals, they are cut out in the middle with a rhombus pattern, http://www.sochi2014.com/en/about-medals , making it look mountainous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5287 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Bob Costas is off the air tonight, as his pink eye has spread, affecting both of his eyes. Matt Lauer will host coverage in his place. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/matt-lauer-will-be-filling-in-for-bob-costas-as-eye-infection-spreads_b213093 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronQ 260 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Bob Costas is off the air tonight, as his pink eye has spread, affecting both of his eyes. Matt Lauer will host coverage in his place. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/matt-lauer-will-be-filling-in-for-bob-costas-as-eye-infection-spreads_b213093 NOOOO!!!!! NBC should've put Rebecca Lowe to do primetime, she's way better than Matt Lauer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5287 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 No offense, but as someone who's not really familiar to an American audience, she's literally not ready for primetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronQ 260 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 No offense, but as someone who's not really familiar to an American audience, she's literally not ready for primetime. Good point. Or at least put Al Michaels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC 7 Denver 1565 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 The attached PDF has come down directly from network HQ. It's not really a leak, per se. This is a schedule of events during this year's Olympics. 2014 SOCHI OLYMPIC SCHEDULE.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I shudder at the prospect of a Bristol-produced Olympics. You know how NBC hyped Michael Phelps to death? That would be nothing compared to what Bristol would have done. It would make their fetish-like focus on Tim Tebow seem tame. I do not trust Bristol executive producers, managers, and talent. The result would be a far, far worse olympics than anything NBC has produced. At least NBC has more event-focused coverage over on cable. I think if we see a single-bidder, aside from Bristol, Fox would work. You'd have four channels to work with - Fox, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, and FX. And they have Rupert Murdoch. Fox would be a bit more sports-focused, but they also do their dumb entertainment stuff as well. Plus, you may want to ask yourself - do you REALLY want Joe Buck as primetime Olympics host? CBS would almost certainly have to do a joint bid with Turner, but if they did I can see it being pulled off. Both of them do a great job with March Madness, and I can see things working out that way. As for TV Everywhere... *sigh*. Yes. I hate TV Everywhere to death. I think it's ridiculous that I have to subscribe to cable in order to see a mobile live stream of a television station that I can receive, for free, over the air (WATCH ABC). But the broadcasters are relying increasingly on those retrans fees, so yeah. This issue will have to be coming to a head soon, however. (Plus, technically, the BBC isn't "free" like Canada is, either. To watch TV in the UK, you have to pay a license fee.) This is kind of a gray area for me I see both sides of the argument. But, they are under no obligation to provide you a live online stream for free. And, you could easily make the argument that those higher retransmission fees come extra benefits, like live streaming. I'm still trying to figure out why we even have TV Everywhere to begin with! Everyone's already using the internet to stream everything or watch full events on YouTube (in London, the Olympic channel streamed the events live; they're still there as I type this). I understand the POWER the cable/telco companies have, but it's ridiculous here compared to Canada, where the telcos/cable companies are just as crazy as ours, yet they don't have TV Everywhere. I think it's because a certain cable company owns a certain Olympic broadcaster and gets the rights to all of the events. Honestly, I'd gladly pay a license fee or a subscription for the BBC's services, they have been amazing. Their coverage of this and the last Olympic games have been worth every pence of the £[/size]145.50/year license fee. Huh? They have TV Everywhere in Canada. The big four up there have Shaw Go, Bell Tv Everywhere, Telus Optik on the go, Rogers Anyplace. They are far worse. For example, if you want to watch out of home and you have Rogers or Bell for TV it's going to cost you an extra $5/mo. And, your stuck with Wi-Fi only. If you want to do it over cellular you need to do it over their networks and you only get 10 hours. The major nets (Global Go & CTV Go) also require authentication. And funny CTV Go as well as TSN Go are only available via Bell. WRT the topic at hand. I try to avoid these NBC/Olympic threads. Although NBC deserves to be ripped for some things they do with their Olympic coverage it's just gotten over the top for me. The time zone difference is going to lead to some tape delayed events. And, If they show them live online someone will complain why they aren't on TV as they have tons of networks. If they show the Opening Ceremony live on say NBCSN someone would complain because it's not widely available. To me ripping NBC for anything related to their Olympic coverage just become the en vogue thing to do. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5287 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 WRT the topic at hand. I try to avoid these NBC/Olympic threads. Although NBC deserves to be ripped for some things they do with their Olympic coverage it's just gotten over the top for me. The time zone difference is going to lead to some tape delayed events. And, If they show them live online someone will complain why they aren't on TV as they have tons of networks. If they show the Opening Ceremony live on say NBCSN someone would complain because it's not widely available. To me ripping NBC for anything related to their Olympic coverage just become the en vogue thing to do. Just my opinion. This. Times a thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skbl17 188 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Huh? They have TV Everywhere in Canada. The big four up there have Shaw Go, Bell Tv Everywhere, Telus Optik on the go, Rogers Anyplace. They are far worse. For example, if you want to watch out of home and you have Rogers or Bell for TV it's going to cost you an extra $5/mo. And, your stuck with Wi-Fi only. If you want to do it over cellular you need to do it over their networks and you only get 10 hours. The major nets (Global Go & CTV Go) also require authentication. And funny CTV Go as well as TSN Go are only available via Bell. I guess I should have clarified in that post. In the chart attached in the bump, the U.S. is shown to be the only country that requires you to have a valid cable/satellite subscription to watch the events online. Canada may have TV Everywhere, but if I'm reading the chart correctly, CBC/Radio-Canada, TSN, and Sportsnet do not require a valid cable/satellite subscription to watch the Olympics events online. If that's incorrect, then I stand accused of parroting misinformation on this site, and I apologize in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I guess I should have clarified in that post. In the chart attached in the bump, the U.S. is shown to be the only country that requires you to have a valid cable/satellite subscription to watch the events online. Canada may have TV Everywhere, but if I'm reading the chart correctly, CBC/Radio-Canada, TSN, and Sportsnet do not require a valid cable/satellite subscription to watch the Olympics events online. If that's incorrect, then I stand accused of parroting misinformation on this site, and I apologize in advance. Oops. I thought you were speaking about TV Everywhere in general as the discussion meandered that way a bit. My apologies. Anyway, to the topic of strictly Olympic streaming in Canada. Yes, you are correct it is free to everyone across the board. This is more due to the fact that CBC is the exclusive rights holder and they sublicense content to Rogers/Bell. They held back digital rights for themselves. If the Canadian "Consortium" that held rights to the last couple still existed I highly doubt the streams would be available free. The fact that a Public Broadcaster is the rights holder helps greatly in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5287 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Making history tonight, Meredith Vieira will fill in for Bob Costas tonight, becoming the first woman to ever host primetime Olympic coverage in the U.S. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/meredith-vieira-set-to-make-nbc-olympics-history_b213659 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.