RK
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
Technical, ehh?
So, like F1 who are delivering the world feed signal coverage via fibre optics - will Rio 2016 be sent back to broadcasters from the IBC via fibre, or will most of it still be sent via satellite?
I remember reading for NBC atleast most of the stuff was sent back via multiples fiber routes with satellites as backup.
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
Technical, ehh?
So, like F1 who are delivering the world feed signal coverage via fibre optics - will Rio 2016 be sent back to broadcasters from the IBC via fibre, or will most of it still be sent via satellite?
I remember reading for NBC atleast most of the stuff was sent back via multiples fiber routes with satellites as backup.
GE
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
The extra channels are going pay, yes. But, for many (the majority of?) people, the BBC1 coverage will be as good as it ever was, and that's what they'll notice. I agree it's a shame, but we can't do anything about it. And I don't think we can blame the BBC either - as the IOC went directly to Discovery over their obsession with the Olympics Channel and bypassed the PSBs entirely.
Exactly - 90% or so of the viewing public won't be bothered at all - they'll see everything they consider to be key, especially with Olympics in Tokyo and (say) LA. The deal the BBC have negotiated will satisfy them and is about the best they could have expected. It's better than other PSB (and/or FTA) broadcasters have got.
I agree with Brekkie on most things, but I have to admit that I tend to agree with the alternate view here. I don't think the majority of viewers will notice the difference in 2020 and 2024.
Actually, on that point - and this is going slightly OT so I apologise, I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks that viewers may become fed up with the proliferation of viewing options available for big events like the Olympics and Wimbledon.
I'm a massive minority sports buff. The Olympics are my 'thing'. And I was hugely excited by the choice of interactive streams in 2004, 2008 and especially 2012. I found myself flicking from one stream to another to watch the sport of my choice. But at the same time, I found myself keeping an eye on the laptop or the phone to see what else was going on, so that I wouldn't miss anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
Of course the devoted beach volleyball fan will always want a devoted stream. And there's a decent chance that the devoted sports fan will have access to pay TV anyway, if that's where the dedicated stream is available.
But my question is, do you think there's a chance that people will become a little fed up of trawling through interactive streams, and will end up preferring to let a linear programme 'do the work for them', so to speak?
I'm not suggesting that we'll end up reverting back to a Grandstand-type format for sports coverage all year round, but part of me thinks that viewers' preferences always change and habits just go round in circles. So, as that kind of format went out of fashion 15-20 years ago, these things evolve and change and the culture of having access to non-stop coverage of every sport might just fizzle out a bit.
Just thinking out loud.
I think I read on here that Mr UKnews worked on the London 2012 coverage. He knows what he's talking about.
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
Quote:
The extra channels are going pay, yes. But, for many (the majority of?) people, the BBC1 coverage will be as good as it ever was, and that's what they'll notice. I agree it's a shame, but we can't do anything about it. And I don't think we can blame the BBC either - as the IOC went directly to Discovery over their obsession with the Olympics Channel and bypassed the PSBs entirely.
Exactly - 90% or so of the viewing public won't be bothered at all - they'll see everything they consider to be key, especially with Olympics in Tokyo and (say) LA. The deal the BBC have negotiated will satisfy them and is about the best they could have expected. It's better than other PSB (and/or FTA) broadcasters have got.
I agree with Brekkie on most things, but I have to admit that I tend to agree with the alternate view here. I don't think the majority of viewers will notice the difference in 2020 and 2024.
Actually, on that point - and this is going slightly OT so I apologise, I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks that viewers may become fed up with the proliferation of viewing options available for big events like the Olympics and Wimbledon.
I'm a massive minority sports buff. The Olympics are my 'thing'. And I was hugely excited by the choice of interactive streams in 2004, 2008 and especially 2012. I found myself flicking from one stream to another to watch the sport of my choice. But at the same time, I found myself keeping an eye on the laptop or the phone to see what else was going on, so that I wouldn't miss anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
Of course the devoted beach volleyball fan will always want a devoted stream. And there's a decent chance that the devoted sports fan will have access to pay TV anyway, if that's where the dedicated stream is available.
But my question is, do you think there's a chance that people will become a little fed up of trawling through interactive streams, and will end up preferring to let a linear programme 'do the work for them', so to speak?
I'm not suggesting that we'll end up reverting back to a Grandstand-type format for sports coverage all year round, but part of me thinks that viewers' preferences always change and habits just go round in circles. So, as that kind of format went out of fashion 15-20 years ago, these things evolve and change and the culture of having access to non-stop coverage of every sport might just fizzle out a bit.
Just thinking out loud.
UK
Technical, ehh?
So, like F1 who are delivering the world feed signal coverage via fibre optics - will Rio 2016 be sent back to broadcasters from the IBC via fibre, or will most of it still be sent via satellite?
I'm on the news side as oppose to sport (although obviously there is an overlap) so can talk more about that, but from what I know:
Out of the IBC it's diverse / redundant fibre with satellite backup of some things. News has some capacity on those fibre links as well as other IP connectivity. (In places away from the IBC or venues there's varying degrees of IP connectivity.)
When 'out and about' away from inject (plug in) points it's mobile bonding / diversity along with some clever private wifi in certain areas (which my colleagues won an RTS journalism award for their work on during the World Cup). There's always the fallback of BGAN but I doubt that will get that much use. Sport will obviously be mostly in venues with circuits provided by OBS back to the IBC.
In London radio sport used a lot of ISDN - infact I think the Olympic stadium was one of the few venues where they did use the OBS circuits, and you could tell the difference! Some parts of radio news is using some ISDN in Rio but dialled locally into the IBC and then back to the UK on IP because of the cost of international ISDN calls.
Technical, ehh?
So, like F1 who are delivering the world feed signal coverage via fibre optics - will Rio 2016 be sent back to broadcasters from the IBC via fibre, or will most of it still be sent via satellite?
I'm on the news side as oppose to sport (although obviously there is an overlap) so can talk more about that, but from what I know:
Out of the IBC it's diverse / redundant fibre with satellite backup of some things. News has some capacity on those fibre links as well as other IP connectivity. (In places away from the IBC or venues there's varying degrees of IP connectivity.)
When 'out and about' away from inject (plug in) points it's mobile bonding / diversity along with some clever private wifi in certain areas (which my colleagues won an RTS journalism award for their work on during the World Cup). There's always the fallback of BGAN but I doubt that will get that much use. Sport will obviously be mostly in venues with circuits provided by OBS back to the IBC.
In London radio sport used a lot of ISDN - infact I think the Olympic stadium was one of the few venues where they did use the OBS circuits, and you could tell the difference! Some parts of radio news is using some ISDN in Rio but dialled locally into the IBC and then back to the UK on IP because of the cost of international ISDN calls.
UK
I think you're spot on there. It's an event like the Olympics where it's so big you realise the value of curated and carefully chosen coverage that tries to get as many of the big moments as possible live. And that's what there still will be.
I can remember sitting in the IBC in London on the first day of the games. I had 44 channels of Olympic action to watch - bliss - and as it was an unusually quiet day for a while I was able to flick between them, geekily watching the raw world feeds and found I could see the Channel 9 (Australia) coverage as well as a few others (not NBCs!). The novelty wore off pretty fast and when I had a moment in the IBC I'd end up watching the BBC 1 or BBC 3 coverage - because if it was of significant interest the chances are it'd be live on one of those two.
The afternoon where we won gold in the shooting and the canoe slalom simultaneously was handled really well - BBC 1 carried the shooting live whilst BBC 3 carried the canoe slalom. When there was a break in the shooting the canoe slalom was played in on BBC 1- you didn't see it completely live, but you were following the climax of another event and saw it at the first possible moment. Obviously with the growth of social media it's possible a result can be spoiled but having had access to everything, unless at a particular time you really want to follow one event at the exclusion of all others then put your phone / laptop aside and watch the linear coverage. A lot of the 'chat' is about putting the events in context and giving people a chance to hear from those involved, tell their stories. That way a general audience (for what, outside the Olympics, are often minority sports) will be engaged. Obviously there's a balance to be struck because if you go to far you end up with over sentimentalised NBC style coverage.
Of course is a shame that viewers without Eurosport won't be able to switch around and explore everything, it is a real loss, but there was nothing the BBC could have done and I'm sure they'll make extra hard to cover as much as possible on the main linear channel on the extra stream / second channel (whichever it actually is).
Speaking of delaying events one of the strange things during the Paralympics was seeing the IPC feeds next to Channel 4's (on the whole very good) coverage. Some events, even finals, (swimming was one) with significant British interest were shown on a few minutes delay even though they weren't showing other action at the time. I'm sure they had their reasons for doing it but it seemed odd when you had the two side by side.
I'm a massive minority sports buff. The Olympics are my 'thing'. And I was hugely excited by the choice of interactive streams in 2004, 2008 and especially 2012. I found myself flicking from one stream to another to watch the sport of my choice. But at the same time, I found myself keeping an eye on the laptop or the phone to see what else was going on, so that I wouldn't miss anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
I think you're spot on there. It's an event like the Olympics where it's so big you realise the value of curated and carefully chosen coverage that tries to get as many of the big moments as possible live. And that's what there still will be.
I can remember sitting in the IBC in London on the first day of the games. I had 44 channels of Olympic action to watch - bliss - and as it was an unusually quiet day for a while I was able to flick between them, geekily watching the raw world feeds and found I could see the Channel 9 (Australia) coverage as well as a few others (not NBCs!). The novelty wore off pretty fast and when I had a moment in the IBC I'd end up watching the BBC 1 or BBC 3 coverage - because if it was of significant interest the chances are it'd be live on one of those two.
The afternoon where we won gold in the shooting and the canoe slalom simultaneously was handled really well - BBC 1 carried the shooting live whilst BBC 3 carried the canoe slalom. When there was a break in the shooting the canoe slalom was played in on BBC 1- you didn't see it completely live, but you were following the climax of another event and saw it at the first possible moment. Obviously with the growth of social media it's possible a result can be spoiled but having had access to everything, unless at a particular time you really want to follow one event at the exclusion of all others then put your phone / laptop aside and watch the linear coverage. A lot of the 'chat' is about putting the events in context and giving people a chance to hear from those involved, tell their stories. That way a general audience (for what, outside the Olympics, are often minority sports) will be engaged. Obviously there's a balance to be struck because if you go to far you end up with over sentimentalised NBC style coverage.
Of course is a shame that viewers without Eurosport won't be able to switch around and explore everything, it is a real loss, but there was nothing the BBC could have done and I'm sure they'll make extra hard to cover as much as possible on the main linear channel on the extra stream / second channel (whichever it actually is).
Speaking of delaying events one of the strange things during the Paralympics was seeing the IPC feeds next to Channel 4's (on the whole very good) coverage. Some events, even finals, (swimming was one) with significant British interest were shown on a few minutes delay even though they weren't showing other action at the time. I'm sure they had their reasons for doing it but it seemed odd when you had the two side by side.
BR
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
The extra channels are going pay, yes. But, for many (the majority of?) people, the BBC1 coverage will be as good as it ever was, and that's what they'll notice. I agree it's a shame, but we can't do anything about it. And I don't think we can blame the BBC either - as the IOC went directly to Discovery over their obsession with the Olympics Channel and bypassed the PSBs entirely.
Exactly - 90% or so of the viewing public won't be bothered at all - they'll see everything they consider to be key, especially with Olympics in Tokyo and (say) LA. The deal the BBC have negotiated will satisfy them and is about the best they could have expected. It's better than other PSB (and/or FTA) broadcasters have got.
I agree with Brekkie on most things, but I have to admit that I tend to agree with the alternate view here. I don't think the majority of viewers will notice the difference in 2020 and 2024.
Actually, on that point - and this is going slightly OT so I apologise, I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks that viewers may become fed up with the proliferation of viewing options available for big events like the Olympics and Wimbledon.
I'm a massive minority sports buff. The Olympics are my 'thing'. And I was hugely excited by the choice of interactive streams in 2004, 2008 and especially 2012. I found myself flicking from one stream to another to watch the sport of my choice. But at the same time, I found myself keeping an eye on the laptop or the phone to see what else was going on, so that I wouldn't miss anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
Of course the devoted beach volleyball fan will always want a devoted stream. And there's a decent chance that the devoted sports fan will have access to pay TV anyway, if that's where the dedicated stream is available.
But my question is, do you think there's a chance that people will become a little fed up of trawling through interactive streams, and will end up preferring to let a linear programme 'do the work for them', so to speak?
That is why things like choice of camera angle didn't work. I think the issue is that although 90% of viewing might be through BBC1 that the 10% of time you want to deviate from the main coverage and find you can't it becomes a problem. It was incredibly frustrating on Freeview when the option you wanted was only on Sky/Cable.
As I've said before the Olympics is number one IMO on the protected sports list and it's an insult that whilst every match of a World Cup or European Championships has to be shown free to air that will likely not be the case very soon for the Olympics. The Euros and Wimbledon have shown how important it is broadcasters can show the full story - so much will be missed by just concentrating on the main event.
I think I read on here that Mr UKnews worked on the London 2012 coverage. He knows what he's talking about.
I did indeed work on London 2012 coverage - and am involved this year - so I guess that gives me some insight, perhaps more on a technical level than anything else, but I'll leave the rest up to you
Quote:
The extra channels are going pay, yes. But, for many (the majority of?) people, the BBC1 coverage will be as good as it ever was, and that's what they'll notice. I agree it's a shame, but we can't do anything about it. And I don't think we can blame the BBC either - as the IOC went directly to Discovery over their obsession with the Olympics Channel and bypassed the PSBs entirely.
Exactly - 90% or so of the viewing public won't be bothered at all - they'll see everything they consider to be key, especially with Olympics in Tokyo and (say) LA. The deal the BBC have negotiated will satisfy them and is about the best they could have expected. It's better than other PSB (and/or FTA) broadcasters have got.
I agree with Brekkie on most things, but I have to admit that I tend to agree with the alternate view here. I don't think the majority of viewers will notice the difference in 2020 and 2024.
Actually, on that point - and this is going slightly OT so I apologise, I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks that viewers may become fed up with the proliferation of viewing options available for big events like the Olympics and Wimbledon.
I'm a massive minority sports buff. The Olympics are my 'thing'. And I was hugely excited by the choice of interactive streams in 2004, 2008 and especially 2012. I found myself flicking from one stream to another to watch the sport of my choice. But at the same time, I found myself keeping an eye on the laptop or the phone to see what else was going on, so that I wouldn't miss anything.
In the end, I found myself enjoying the linear coverage much more. Yes, sometimes there was a bit too much chat, but I felt more involved in the event and - even if I wasn't watching events live or in their entirety - didn't feel like I was missing anything.
Of course the devoted beach volleyball fan will always want a devoted stream. And there's a decent chance that the devoted sports fan will have access to pay TV anyway, if that's where the dedicated stream is available.
But my question is, do you think there's a chance that people will become a little fed up of trawling through interactive streams, and will end up preferring to let a linear programme 'do the work for them', so to speak?
That is why things like choice of camera angle didn't work. I think the issue is that although 90% of viewing might be through BBC1 that the 10% of time you want to deviate from the main coverage and find you can't it becomes a problem. It was incredibly frustrating on Freeview when the option you wanted was only on Sky/Cable.
As I've said before the Olympics is number one IMO on the protected sports list and it's an insult that whilst every match of a World Cup or European Championships has to be shown free to air that will likely not be the case very soon for the Olympics. The Euros and Wimbledon have shown how important it is broadcasters can show the full story - so much will be missed by just concentrating on the main event.
JA
Ahh, the coverage where you hardly saw any action, would stuggle to know anyone but the US was taking part, and couldn't see the men's 100m final live even though nearly every other country showed it. Such a shame the Americans get such a raw deal- people should be happy that we won't be getting coverage that bad.
Obviously there's a balance to be struck because if you go to far you end up with over sentimentalised NBC style coverage.
Ahh, the coverage where you hardly saw any action, would stuggle to know anyone but the US was taking part, and couldn't see the men's 100m final live even though nearly every other country showed it. Such a shame the Americans get such a raw deal- people should be happy that we won't be getting coverage that bad.
UK
Indeed- and for Beijing they delayed it by something like 12 hours for the east coast and 15 hours for the west coast.
At the Vancouver Winter Olympics those who lived just a few hours drive away saw no live primetime coverage on NBC. East coast viewers did, but the west coast got it all tape delayed
At least now anyone with a cable or satellite subscription can stream everything live. Apart from the ceremonies, they're special....
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/olympics/NBC_wont_broadcast_Rio_Olympics_opening_ceremonies_live.html
Ahh, the coverage where you hardly saw any action, would stuggle to know anyone but the US was taking part, and couldn't see the men's 100m final live even though nearly every other country showed it.
Indeed- and for Beijing they delayed it by something like 12 hours for the east coast and 15 hours for the west coast.
At the Vancouver Winter Olympics those who lived just a few hours drive away saw no live primetime coverage on NBC. East coast viewers did, but the west coast got it all tape delayed
At least now anyone with a cable or satellite subscription can stream everything live. Apart from the ceremonies, they're special....
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/olympics/NBC_wont_broadcast_Rio_Olympics_opening_ceremonies_live.html
IS
The point about ad breaks is actually pretty fair, though it didn't stop them missing bits of Londons with their own material. But the point about need an hour to add 'context' to the commentary? Isn't that one of the things the dress rehearsal is for, so the commentators have seen it before?
Also at London even with that opportunity they apparently still didn't know various things like who Tim Berners-Lee was
Also at London even with that opportunity they apparently still didn't know various things like who Tim Berners-Lee was
ST
Well NBC's commentary of the London opening ceremony was derided online - they clearly didn't use the extra hour for research, or even to read the broadcasters' notes. When Tim Berners-Lee appears, no one knew who he was -- and one commentator suggested (on air) they "Google him" to find out!
NG
I thought Matt Lauer's "Google Him" comment was a knowing way of pointing out Meredith Vieira's ignorance of Tim's identity... I may be being charitable...
noggin
Founding member
When Tim Berners-Lee appears, no one knew who he was -- and one commentator suggested (on air) they "Google him" to find out!
I thought Matt Lauer's "Google Him" comment was a knowing way of pointing out Meredith Vieira's ignorance of Tim's identity... I may be being charitable...
NG
I believe the EBU provide satellite (and probably fibre) backhaul facilities for a world feed, but most high-end rights holders (C4, Sky UK, Sky Deutschland etc.) present from site and fibre their own programmes back.
Fibre is a great solution - but not all countries would have access to a fibre feed.
It's also worth noting that just because the EBU provide satellite space / fibre capacity - this is independent of any rights deal the EBU may have. Just like BBC studios being used to make ITV shows, third parties can rent EBU capacity for their own content.
noggin
Founding member
Don't the ebu feed the f1 world feed its reported each week on satelliweb?
I believe the EBU provide satellite (and probably fibre) backhaul facilities for a world feed, but most high-end rights holders (C4, Sky UK, Sky Deutschland etc.) present from site and fibre their own programmes back.
Fibre is a great solution - but not all countries would have access to a fibre feed.
It's also worth noting that just because the EBU provide satellite space / fibre capacity - this is independent of any rights deal the EBU may have. Just like BBC studios being used to make ITV shows, third parties can rent EBU capacity for their own content.