alanh

Rio Olympics How The Nbc Will Make Viewers Pay

43 posts in this topic

260 hours of free to air terrestrial broadcast from NBC and Spanish Telemundo.

83 hours of UHD but delayed by a day. In addition to what I posted before which was the opening and closing ceremonies, they will also cover 5 other sports.

Their ATSC terrestrial TV system is currently incapable of UHD so distribution will be via cable and satellite particularly to Japan.

NBC is owned by Comcast a large cable TV company both of which are fighting the internet streamers.

They will stream 4500 hours to connected TVs and other internet-TV devices but also to cable TV subscribers. They will get the first 30 min free then they have to log in to pay for any further viewing. There will be a free app but it will only contain results, and brief highlights...

There will be 2 exclusive digital cable program streams.

In addition there will be 85 hours of delayed virtual reality program only available via cable to Samsung TV viewers.

As well there is 9 Olympic cable channels which will have a mix of the main Olympic feed and specialist programs.

Compare this with Australia

We will get 1000 hours of coverage from only the Seven network's 3 channels, plus a premium app subscription you have to pay for covering around 3000 hours of content. Pay TV is locked out.

Events start at 09:00 in Brazil which is 10 pm in Australian Eastern Time and 8 pm in WST.

Events finish at 22:00 in Brazil which is 11 am in AEST or 9 am WST on the next day.

The opening ceremony 19:15 - 23:00 in Brazil which is 8:15 AM - midday and 6:15 - 10 am respectively on Sat 6th August

The closing ceremony is the same times but on Monday 22nd August

Hardly prime time viewing!

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info. Seven paid $160 million for the rights to this Olympics. No doubt it will be awash with ads but even then its expected only to recoup $100 million through them. I wonder if this time will see athletes and events holding blank cups, wearing logo free shirts in front of empty billboards. TV shows already do this and sell the space to advetisers after the show has been shot. Imagine if the same advertising space could be sold to 100 different networks, each placing different ad content as they then sell?

FWIW NBC paid 10 times as Seven much for the US broadcast rights.

Not sure Australia loses out much though. The time zone is unfortunate but presumably most people will just time shift the event and sit down after work each evening.

1000 hours will cover all the major happenings and much of other stuff. PayTV is locked out but you can 'pay' seven and get access to the other 3000 hours of un-broadcast events.

Interesting the UHD is delayed by a day. Don't think anyone is going to be interested waiting that long for a slightly better PQ (other than out of curiosity). Wonder why it takes that long to get it to the cable partners?

NBC will have more options at any given point in time, but more isn't always better IMO.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I have searched for USA cable/satellite companies for Olympic coverage and haven't found any advertised at UHD. Comcast is talking of releasing a UHD Set Top Box. So there is really no market for the UHD programs as yet. The only available programs have been pre-recorded. The main function of making it available is for broadcasters' research.

There is currently only one UHD ATSC3.0 transmitter on air in the USA which is on a test licence. As for cable transmission DVB-C has been used from the beginning, and 2012 was when the first chips became available for DVB-C2 which increases the data capacity by 30 %. The latest update was October last year. How much of the USA/Canada cable systems can provide enough bandwidth to take an additional UHD signal is not known here.

NHK the Japanese government owned broadcaster has been experimenting with UHD for a long time and are providing facilities and expertise in Rio.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused by this.

83 hours of UHD but delayed by a day. Their ATSC terrestrial TV system is currently incapable of UHD so distribution will be via cable and satellite particularly to Japan.

On a completely unrelated note, I sometime stop and reach out my finger and point to a spot in the space in front of me. And I think of the millions and millions of 'bits of information' passing right through that spot as terrestrial broadcasts of many different kinds blast through the spectrum. Then I consider the same information is also just to the left and again just to the left of that. Quit mind blowing really :)

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comcast is talking of releasing a UHD Set Top Box. So there is really no market for the UHD programs as yet.

The Comcast Xi5 4k UHD STB only got FCC approval a couple of weeks ago. At this stage its still planned for release before the Olympics, but they're cutting it fine. Expect them to be rolled out to partners for instore TV displays & similar first.

As 4K UHD is a trial & not part of the official broadcast rights, its subject to the usual 24hr embargoe. Blame the IOC for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that because it is a trial that it will be free to the participants particularly for NHK who is providing a lot for the trial.

Before an STB rollout the boxes themselves have to be manufactured in large numbers, this isn't going to happen before August this year.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/cablecards So now Set top boxes can receive cable signals, internet streaming and possibly free to air terrestrial TV, particularly if it is included in the TV. What they need now is the requirement to include ATSC3.0 as well. This would allow the reception of terrestrial free to air UHD TV. All UHD TV systems require HEVC decompressors and HE AAC sound, so for these UHD boxes they need to add a tuner which is similar to the DVB-T2 type.

Can you see Foxtel removing the cable or satellite box from the rental agreement so you can get an STB which does free to air, catchup, pay and internet streaming?!!!

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that because it is a trial that it will be free to the participants particularly for NHK who is providing a lot for the trial.

Almost right. NHK & NBC arent just participants but are running the show. Rough split is NHK providing UHD filming, production, & distribution functions with NBC providing additional sports-related expertise. It's outside of the prenegotiated rights deals though (done years in advance I think the current deal runs until after 2020) so it falls under the usual "no live, limited same-day clips" & 24hr embargoe.

Before an STB rollout the boxes themselves have to be manufactured in large numbers, this isn't going to happen before August this year.

I've been told the initial run is already manufactured & waiting.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/cablecards So now Set top boxes can receive cable signals, internet streaming and possibly free to air terrestrial TV, particularly if it is included in the TV. What they need now is the requirement to include ATSC3.0 as well. This would allow the reception of terrestrial free to air UHD TV. All UHD TV systems require HEVC decompressors and HE AAC sound, so for these UHD boxes they need to add a tuner which is similar to the DVB-T2 type.

Sorry I wasnt clear - theres no 4k UHD on Comcast cable, the Xi-series STBs stream 4k UHD over the net from Comcast's X1 platform service. That requires a NBC/Comcast or partner subscription.

ATSC 3.0 is irrelevent to this discussion.

Can you see Foxtel removing the cable or satellite box from the rental agreement so you can get an STB which does free to air, catchup, pay and internet streaming?!!!

No, which is why the cable networks here had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that stage and forced to open their cable platform to 3rd party STBs. And why they've been endrunning around those resrtictions ever since with things like HD, network enhanced PVRs with exclusive content and channels, and subscription IPTV services.

Edited by Pesto Lovin' Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that of the around 150 million homes, how many of these set top boxes will be produced in the first run? Over the air ATSC3.0 which is UHD capable is only on one test licence. As for using cable or the internet at 25 Mbit/s, http://broadbandnow.com/Cable http://broadbandnow.com/Fibre shows how little high speed internet there is.

So in short there is no market without the means of distribution, hence the trial of UHD.

What is this almost right? https://www.obs.tv/news?id=656 The Olympic Broadcast Service is the host broadcaster, it gets all the broadcast rights and contracts out the work. You will note that on their jobs page they have production jobs. As with all large sporting events, the host broadcaster provides the pictures to all importing broadcasters, who can for a price also add their own unique program, and of course most have their own commentary teams.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that of the around 150 million homes, how many of these set top boxes will be produced in the first run?

You said they wouldn't be manufactured in large numbers in time for the Olympics. I'm telling you what I've heard is the first batch has already been manufactured and are waiting to be shipped as soon as Comcast launch. I also said I wouldn't be surprised if that launch slipped and they only appeared in time for instore UHD displays - since its already fallen through at least 3 times with different STBs in the last couple of years (the Xi4 was supposed to launch in late 2014, the Xi5 in mid-late 2015, and the Xi6 was supposed to be the one for the Olympics this year).

Over the air ATSC3.0 which is UHD capable is only on one test licence.

Once again, ATSC 3.0 is irrelevent to this discussion since there will be no general public 4k UHD OTA Olympics broadcasts in the USA and NHKs trials in Japan are ISDB. You've started another thread on ATSC 3.0 which I've commented in, so let's keep discussion there where its relevent hey?

As for using cable or the internet at 25 Mbit/s, http://broadbandnow.com/Cable http://broadbandnow.com/Fibre shows how little high speed internet there is.

33% coverage for Comcasts cable broadband and 99% acheivment of rated speed looks pretty good to me. If you meant something else then use words.

So in short there is no market without the means of distribution, hence the trial of UHD.

Dont really get how you arrive at that "there is no market" - Comcast & partners are the only ones offering 4k UHD Olympics streaming, Comcast cover 33% of the population, and Comcast achieve their rated speed 99% of the time. Hardly "no market without the means of distribution". Youre clutching at straws to try and say ... what? That a trial is a trial? Not under dispute.

What is this almost right? https://www.obs.tv/news?id=656 The Olympic Broadcast Service is the host broadcaster, it gets all the broadcast rights and contracts out the work. You will note that on their jobs page they have production jobs. As with all large sporting events, the host broadcaster provides the pictures to all importing broadcasters, who can for a price also add their own unique program, and of course most have their own commentary teams.

In this case as you keep pointing out this is a trial. A trial where NHK are providing the 8k services and expertise and NBC are providing sport-specific service & expertise to OBS. The result of that, 8k downconverted to 4k, is outside the previously negotiated broadcast rights agreements and is only available to those involved - OBS for likely UHD bluray or streaming sales afterwards, and NHK, NBC and partners (including Comcast, owners of NBC, and Telemundo, an NBC subsidiary) for 24hr delayed broadcast and streaming.

https://stillmed.oly...7494.1468641912 claims that NHK is providing the UHD images.

Which is what I said in this and other posts above and in another thread you started on the subject, that NHK are doing the 8k UHD2 production which will be downconverted to 4k UHD for the trials and NBC are providing HFR cameras and sporting coverage expertise. I don't know if its possible to be much clearer than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Comcast website makes no mention of the Olympics, but the NBC has their own Olympic website. Only the VR is mentioned http://www.nbcolympics.com/news/experience-rio-olympics-virtual-reality

The owners of the rights are not going to distribute UHD Olympics regardless of the number of STBs sold. Even if the batch is a million units it is still 0.7 % of the audience.

As for cable speeds the FCC measured actual speeds http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/2013/Measuring-Broadband-America-feb-2013.pdf Note, they quote how close the actual speed is to the advertised speed. They don't quote the average actual speeds. If you go to the companies, they ask for an address to find out what speed options are available.

DirectTV has a UHD satellite service but they are not advertising Olympic coverage.

In Japan, They will be displaying the UHD Olympic programs at 60 public sites.http://www.astra2.org/tag/nhk/

As I said they are tests for the industry.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan its hard to tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just being disagreeable.

Whatever the case you seem terribly confused about a few things:

- These things are trials -

* The Olympics UHD filming & production is a trial for the Olympics organisation.

* NHK & NBC are the production partners for that trial

* NHKs 4k Olympics broadcasts are part of an ongoing trial of 4k broadcasting in Japan that has been going on for years

* Because it's a trial and not included in the pre-agreed Olympics broadcast rights it's being treated like every other bit of coverage by a non-rightsholder - no live, very limited same-day, 24hr delay for everything else.

- These things are not trials -

* NBC is supplying 4k Olympics coverage to its cable & telco partners. In the main that means Comcast - who own both NBC & Telemundo broadcasters - and other Comcast subsidiaries.

* Comcast's 4k rollout is exactly that - a rollout, not a trial. Although its a rollout that has already slipped several times in the last 2 years. Its also using their IPTV platform, not "cable" cable.

- These things are irrelevant -

* DirecTV's UHD satellite service. They have no transmission rights for the Olympics in the USA apart from those granted to any channels they may carry, which will be in HD at best.

* Whether or not NBCs website mentions Olympics UHD. NBC are a broadcast network, and as you keep pointing out are no OTA Olympic UHD broadcasts.

* "The Comcast website makes no mention of the Olympics" is not only irrelevant, it's wrong. Right now the Comcast corporate website has "FEATURE VIDEO - OLYMPICS 2016: NEVER MISS A MOMENT WITH X1" at the top of the front page. Comcasts Xfinity Cable TV website currently advertises their Olympics coverage all over it. I agree though it isnt mentioned on the Xfinity general home page, which is the top result you got when you googled "Comcast".

* General internet speeds, especially 3 year old ones. Since Comcast is the only one with Olympic rights, only Comcasts speeds matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, last weeks news.

And they weren't downloading, it was live streaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has certainly spooked Facebook ... they have shut down streaming to quite a few members they suspect of breaching copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanh said:

For those who think that downloading of TV programs for free is ok, copyright still exists.

Copyright has no particular claim on morality. Its a law. Originally passed for altruistic reasons but increasingly acting counter.

The fundamental questions of why the entire industry needs protection these days has never been answered. 

Its similar to pharmaceutical companies that insist cheap life saving copies must be eradicated to ensure their continued viability. 

0.02

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanh said:

For those who think that downloading of TV programs for free is ok, copyright still exists.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/green-v-mundine-live-streamers-warned-to-brace-for-legal-action/8241276

The TV report showed a camera pointed at a TV showing Foxtel who charged $60 per viewer.

Alanh

i would almost challenge that it were a copy, a hand held phone over a YouTube quality stream isnt exactly a copy of the original HD broadcast is it ? i know what the law is, i know they demand that it not be rebroadcast, but thats not a copy of the original, so its not a copyright, its a breach of terms and conditions at the very best

they would try and claim a pay per head if they could get away with it...like charging for your neighbour to come and watch it, dont scoff, they may make it a term and condition that you are subjected to a cam to cam scrutiny for the purposes of a head count, charged to your account depending on the amount of people on your couch ... its what they do at a cinema. I can imagine most houses would have a lot of piles of blankets in corners though, with all these pairs of glassy reflections peering through the dark

a copyright is meant to protect a property from being copied and replicated and sold as the original, thus the protection of the original work, a breach of terms and conditions doesnt require copies be made, and would be the more appropriate description of what has happened in this week old story

if i dressed up as Reg Reagan, wore a Bring Back The Biff tshirt and promoted a fight with a mate dressed up as Milo Kerrigan and called it the Rumble In The Jungle, that would be a copyright (c) TM

I think you will be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who thinks a breach of anything is "OK" ... however is it "OK" to rip people off...$60? seriously, who are the real thieves here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mello Yello,

If you go to the event you have to pay for the cost of putting on the show and the promoters profit as well as the millions in prize money paid to the fighters. The promoters will charge offer the TV companies the rights based on their costs including venue hire, prize money, ticketting costs... along with their profit. Foxtel will then have the TV production and distribution cost along with their profit. Without paying all these costs there is no show to copy. The fewer the number of paying viewers increases the price per viewer.

You cannot say it is a rip off unless you know the real costs, remembering that they are paying Australian labour rates and a smaller audience.

Unless you are a QC, I will wait for the courts to make a decision. I don't care what a law is meant to do, it is what it says that matters. Whether the copy is in HD or in telephone quality it is still a copy (you can still see what happens), therefore subject to copyright.

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pgdownload,

Copyright and patents are to enable those who create new things and art to be able to make a living from doing this. If you don't do this you don't get new drugs, and many other products, plays, art, movies, music...

Alanh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, alanh said:

Mello Yello,

If you go to the event you have to pay for the cost of putting on the show and the promoters profit as well as the millions in prize money paid to the fighters. The promoters will charge offer the TV companies the rights based on their costs including venue hire, prize money, ticketting costs... along with their profit. Foxtel will then have the TV production and distribution cost along with their profit. Without paying all these costs there is no show to copy. The fewer the number of paying viewers increases the price per viewer.

You cannot say it is a rip off unless you know the real costs, remembering that they are paying Australian labour rates and a smaller audience.

Unless you are a QC, I will wait for the courts to make a decision. I don't care what a law is meant to do, it is what it says that matters. Whether the copy is in HD or in telephone quality it is still a copy (you can still see what happens), therefore subject to copyright.

Alanh

you make it sound like some things are just economically unviable and that they are "forced" to recoup costs by charging the equivalent of two and a half months subscription for just 2 hours worth of operating costs

if that were the case they would have to charge for every game of NRL shown live, an extra fee for the Grand Final and so on. Foxtel arent liable for the hire of the football stadiums, thats the NRL, and they then charge for the rights based on all their costs overall. No sorry it doesnt work like that in this case, this was a one off distribution right, nothing to do with Foxtel's costs

and no, alan, they are charging based on the demand principle, and that is, milk it for all its worth, however in this case they crossed the line of nett worth proven by the fact that there over 150,000 people who viewed it for free, but were either not prepared to, or thought $60 was way too much, and were prepared to not watch it all, until this social Robin Hood came long and showed it to them for free

we used to watch ALL the Muhammad Ali fights for FREE, a lot of them outdoor broadcasts from logistical nightmares such as Manila and Zaire, millions of demand

somebody is ripping somebody off at the source end of the chain, or, Foxtel are milking it, but $60 is ludicrous and just plain greedy, and if thats what it costs to run a fight, then good luck to that industry, somebody didnt do their accounting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, alanh said:

Whether the copy is in HD or in telephone quality it is still a copy (you can still see what happens), therefore subject to copyright.

Yes. A poor quality reproduction is still a reproduction.

13 minutes ago, alanh said:

Copyright and patents are to enable those who create new things and art to be able to make a living from doing this. If you don't do this you don't get new drugs, and many other products, plays, art, movies, music...

Yes.
 

16 hours ago, pgdownload said:

Copyright has no particular claim on morality.

I think if you try to palm off another's work as your own, that is unethical and immoral, as well as potentially illegal.

 

16 hours ago, pgdownload said:

The fundamental questions of why the entire industry needs protection these days has never been answered.

I'm not sure what exact protection you're referring to pgdownload. Am I missing your point?

If you are speaking about broadcasters generally, they incur expenses in acquiring rights to show a program (or in producing one). They recoup those expenses through interspersing advertising and/or charging a subscription fee. If there is large-scale circumvention of the intended method of consumption such that advertisers do not get value for their advertising dollar, and/or the broadcaster misses out on subscription fees, the commercial viability to the broadcaster may cease to exist and the broadcaster may decide not to provide such broadcasts in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alanh said:

pgdownload,

Copyright and patents are to enable those who create new things and art to be able to make a living from doing this. If you don't do this you don't get new drugs, and many other products, plays, art, movies, music...

Alanh

Yeah that's the traditional justification. But for one thing it was based in an era when duplication involved zero actual cost or loss to the originator. Its also in an era where these 'rights' are used to justify 100's of millions being accrued to corporations for doing almost nothing (at least distributors used to distribute something) . NOt to mention salarys of 50 million for lead actors becoming the norm.

I'm all for some level of copy protection to encourage creation (patents used to be only a decade or two to allow the inventor to have a protected head start in exchange for sharing his inventions with society. Now drug companies move a single molecule in a drug and patent it as a brand new drug all over again.

Let individuals make a few million. Let companies make say 10 million. But after that I fail to see the rationale in protecting them anymore.

REgards

Peter Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxtel are stupid for thinking their content would not be live streamed elsewhere and it wasn't just on FB.

By bringing this issue into the media and targeting one person, they have made themselves look petty and now have informed the general public basically how to do this. See how many streams there will be next time if they don't create proper PPV access to an online stream for a reasonable price.

JSmith :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now