I blame not my Mac PowerPC, nor even my slap-it-like-a-soap-star TV; I blame NBC.
NBC, in a fit of selfish muscle flexing, drew a big fat line around the United States and declared itself sole owner of online video rights for the Olympic games, thus blocking YouTube, whose user-friendly, democratic coverage has virtually defined all things internet video-related for years now, from showing any Olympic footage in this country. Ironically, YouTube is going to have an Olympic Channel, but only for viewers in certain countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East:
"For countries like the U.S., where exclusive rights to content have been bought, YouTube will use geo-blocking, based on a user's IP address, to prevent access to the channel. However, NBC will also be broadcasting the Olympics on the Web, with more than 2,000 hours of live content available on its Olympics site. NBC paired with Microsoft in its effort to broadcast videos into homes across the U.S., although some of the most popular sporting events will not be streamed live." [emphasis mine]
Huh. Microsoft, eh? So these two teamed up and now I've got to be a Moroccan citizen to see what's supposed to be an international sporting event, a symbol of global athletic collegiality and friendly, level-field competition. Interesting.
In a country where we've long been clucking our tongues at China's state-sponsored media restrictions, it certainly is ironic that NBC's footage is so hard to come by, and so very exclusively guarded, not to mentioned partnered with a company who's constantly fielding monopoly lawsuits and trying to buy out its competition.
But maybe I should just get cable? Probably this online video hand-wringing isn't an issue for most Americans, who've long ago taken the plunge and invested in hefty satellite cable offerings and can scroll through hundreds of channels with relative ease. But I'm foolishly holding out for an a la carte cable system, one where I don't have to subsidize hundreds of channels I never watch just to access the few that I do. I don't believe in channel packaging. I think it's a tyranny of excess, yet another way Americans are encouraged to over-consume on the assumption that we aren't smart enough to choose our own services.
I've heard the argument that a la carte cable would mean less funding for smaller market channels, like PBS or BET, but in a market where The World Fishing Network, "the only 24/7 fishing channel," exists, I find it hard to believe niche market channels would struggle. After all, isn't the free market economy one of the tenets of this democracy we've been force feeding the rest of the world?
It's one of the bitterest ironies, but in way we're just as limited and silenced by our media system, which seeks to bombard us with tidal waves of unfiltered information as the poor, poor Chinese, whose government instead of its corporations calls the shots in media content.
My plan is to resort to bribing my friends with beer so I can wear out my welcome on their couches, and thus I hope to find some TV channel other than stupid NBC showing the games.
2 comments:
What you're saying is that despite the fact that NBC paid a lot of money for exclusive rights to broadcast the Games, it's "selfish" for NBC to protect its content rights.
One could criticize NBC for the way it's showing content online and some people have noticed Silverlight issues.
As for a la carte, there's several problems with your argument. PBS is a broadcaster and is non-commercial, so it doesn't apply.
You say that you find it "hard to believe niche market channels would struggle." Boy, are you wrong on this. I went through this at some length, but suffice to say that programmers' ad revenues would go down and their marketing costs would dramatically increase. Cable channels are all niche channels, with much smaller audiences than broadcast networks. Many are small niche networks. A la carte would have a big impact on their viability.
I'm flattered for the interest you've taken in my stance, even if you disagree, and I'll admit some big holes in my a la carte argument-- the PBS gaffe for sure.
I read your link on a la carte cable and have to agree with your first commenter, InKable, but I'' venture to say that I would even be willing to pay *more* for the right to make my own choices and tailor my coverage.
Perhaps I'm rusty on concepts of value when it comes to cable because I haven't had it-- or any TV channels--for close to seven years. To me, the ultimate value lies in how I spend my time and the freedom and flexibility I have in determining what to watch and when.
If cable companies can't flex even a little to meet my definition of value (optional a la carte at a premium price?) then I'll continue to do what I'm doing now-- withhold my dollar power until something better comes up.
As for niche market channels and how they are funded, you do an excellent job of illuminating the ad revenue dilemma they face. One of the reasons I killed my cable in the first place was that proportionally I spent way too much time watching commercials. Perhaps it's time the paradigm was rethought?
As for the first comment about my perception of NBC's selfishness, what's so bad about sharing rights to the Olympics? NBC has forked out well over 3 billion dollars to secure broadcasting rights for summer and winter games from Sydney 2000 clear through London 2012, but the payoff of this investment, as I understand it, is still questionable if it just means a viewer spike every two years and no appreciable increase in numbers in between.
Wouldn't NBC be making a wiser economic decision to invest a smaller amount in the games and let its competitors buy in as well and just focus on quality of coverage, or getting exclusive broadcast rights only for certain events?
Finally, Silverlight blows. I finally got it to work only on my laptop and for the memory it takes up, it's video resolution is abysmal and the ability to track back and replay content-- which is huge in sporting events-- is imprecise and awkward.
Post a Comment