In an age where distribution is digital, is it not possible to just "pop-up" temporary channels for the duration of the Games? I realise that the broadcaster would need to organise carriage agreements with just about every major cable and satellite platform, but there really shouldn't be capacity issues in this day and age. And for something like the Olympics, would you want to be the carrier that doesn't offer viewers everything?
For the London 2012 games the BBC got 12 additional channels on the major digital carriage providers (actually 24, as they had SD and HD versions of each channel). That meant that viewers could watch any event live throughout the duration of the games. At Rio they didn't quite go as overboard, with around 3-4 pop-up channels (everything was streamed though). But the BBC is not alone, both Sky and BT use an interactive "layer" that allows viewers to choose from multiple simultaneous events. BT uses it for Champions League games which can have up to six simultaneous games, which Sky uses it for some of the football rights it offers. I guess the UK is a bit easier because there are relatively few platforms you have to develop for - one dominant cable provider and one dominant satellite provider. But it does seem an antiquated concept that a broadcaster needs a pre-existing family of channels to offload digital spillover video. All moot I guess with NBC having the rights to 2032, by which time I imagine significant quantities of output will be delivered via IP, and the TV landscape will certainly be completely different. Adam On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 9:40 AM, 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV < [email protected]> wrote: > I was going to say that Fox could make use of the Nat Geo family of > channels (which has been done for some global launches like the > Tyson-hosted COSMOS). But Disney seems poised to pick up those assets if > the sale of 21st Century Fox goes through. > > CBS does have a sports channel, and the CW. They could, conceivably, do > something in connection with CBS All Access. Perhaps make the service free > for the duration of the games, with an 'eye' toward using the Games to > expand the subscriber base. > > Of course, since NBC has US broadcast rights on lock through 2032, the > landscape could be different in ways we don't even consider right now. > Emphasis on could. > > David > > On Thursday, February 22, 2018, 10:20:21 AM EST, PGage <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As I mentioned earlier, I always find NBC boosterism of team USA > obnoxious, and my interest in watching the Olympics (Winter or Summer) is > unaffected by how well the Americans are doing. I really have become > interested in Biathalon, I literally have seen every event, and find it > compelling even without US medalists. I have become a huge fan of the great > French Biathalete Martin Fourcade, even though I had never hear of him > before. > > But my main point is that I think NBC has developed an excellent way to > make the Games available to those who are interested. For the Winter Games > it is pretty much using one broadcast and 1+ cable channels (NBCSports and > some curling and hockey on CNBC), plus every event available pretty easily > online (and on Xfinity at least, these can be accessed through my On Demand > menu). The Summer Games require I think 5 cable channels (NBCSports, CNBC, > USA, MSNBC and maybe USA too?). > > What I am wondering is, now that the standard has been set, who else could > really offer a similar experience? I guess the Disney family could - ABC > plus however many ESPN channels there are (it seems like they are capable > of putting up extra channels as needed?). I don’t know if the various Fox > stations are able to cooperate like this, if so I guess they could put > together 4 channels. But what would CBS do? > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:22 PM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Chris Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Despite the fact that the US doesn’t dominate the Winter games quite the > way they do the summer games, I commented a few days ago to my wife how odd > it was to not see the US higher up in the medal standings. My theory is > that it’s a regression to the mean. > > I present, without opinion of any kind, a story that appeared in today’s > Globe and Mail about the US performance in PyeongCheng to date. The author > links the Elizabeth Swaney debacle and DJT to the American performance and > crowd presence. > > https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/ > sports/olympics/the-americans-and-their-terrible-horrible- > no-good-very-bad-games/article38026417/ > > (The author is something of a provocateur, a fact you’ll likely pick up on > in the first para. I still haven’t forgiven him for his hit piece on my > hometown of Edmonton two years ago, when he was here to cover the Women’s > World Cup. Such a Toronto-centric A-hole.) > > > The answer to why American athletes aren't doing well has to be found in > the time before the Olympics, during World Championships and other > international events. Are the Americans dominant there? I don't follow any > of these sports and I will defer to anybody here who does. I thought the > Winter Olympics added snowboarding and other X-Games style events to give > the US more medals and it may be that they have been passed by other > countries. as we don't pay attention to these sports outside the Olympics > we see NBC try to rev up interest in the games by talking about and to > local athletes without giving a sense of if they are objectively expected > to win medals at their sports. With our sense of national entitlement > deflated, US viewers may choose to stop watching as American athletes > continually fall short. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
