[reifer]

"Given that baseball is due to be pulled because the MLB players don't participate (the IOC wants a Major League dream), I'd say that the US was the first to recognize that the Olympics is about money and you are the last."

Sorry, you misunderstood. Obviously everything is about money but, the US is one of the only ones I know where the television broadcast is done exclusively on the basis of money. The problem is it gets into a bidding war and the winner pays an awful amount for the broadcast rights. So we get screwed and that's what we allow them to do.
Again, in Mexico it is a sporting event, more like NEWS and 3 networks were able to broadcast events live, which is the way most want it. In the US they save it for primetime, to maximize their revenue potential, and we get to watch after we all know what happened. Who cares? The US networks have a strangle hold on this stuff and we all suffer. Everything they do is designed to wring the maximum dollars out of it instead of providing an opportunity for us to enjoy the event as we wish. In the US if you can't get network television, you just don't get to watch. I don't think it should be that way with events like the Olympics. Everyone is out to make money but networks in many countries do a better job then NBC; Canada among them. I'm hankering for my old StarChoice sat service.
By the way, I loved the effort the Mexican networks made to get an interview with Phelps as he left the pool after a big win. At first he told them he had an agreement with NBC and "couldn't do it". Then they put a babe on the microphone and he just couldn't stop himself from pausing to talk to her--classic!

[spenney]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation streams content from the Beijing Olympics in a format that even my 5 year-old G4 PPC can understand...

www.cbc.ca/sports/

And the CBC's sistership (in French) often streams different items...

pekin.radio-canada.ca/pekin/

Enjoy!

Sean

[Paddy]

Why bother with NBC online - there are plenty of alternatives - see this Wired list for various links:

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/WatchtheOlympics_Online

As a Canadian, I'll add to the chorus praising the CBC coverage - both on TV and on their web site. The live streaming video works fine for me in Firefox using Flip4Mac, but for some reason or other I get errors with Safari. The non-live video is Flash and works fine in both browsers. :)

[trinigianetti]

I wouldn't know if Silverlight works for me. Because me and many other millions of Mac users are outside of USA, NBC says we can't look at Olympics through their website. Americans only!!!
I would have to have the tech savvy to spoof a US based ISP for it to work.
:(

[doglesby]

You're right, I don't understand. You mean to tell me there are three channels broadcasting the same thing? There's no way the networks are going to agree to that. Like all sporting events, one broadcaster has exclusive rights. You don't see two stations broadcasting The Masters or Wimbledon. Every station can cover the Olympics, but only one can broadcast them. I think it would be interesting to grant exclusive broadcast rights to individual sports (ABC can cover beach and indoor volleyball, NBC can have men's and women's gymnastics, CBS can have swimming/diving, FOX can have Al Trautwig, etc.), but no one's going to air the same thing you can get on another channel.

NBC is airing plenty of live events. Yes, it tapes the events it expects to be most popular for prime time. That is a convenience for people who still have to work.

The Phelps thing makes no sense. The idea that he has a contract with NBC is fishy but not surprising. The idea that he can't talk to reporters from other countries is ridiculous (I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I suspect he was confused or tossing an excuse to get out of there).

All you people who complain about US-centered coverage of limited events aren't watching. The day time coverage includes fencing, archery, soccer, field hockey, water polo, rowing, white/flat water kayaking/canoeing, badminton, table tennis, qualifiers and semifinals of various events, etc. And yes, they are airing games/races that don't involve the US, even events in which the US did not enter any athletes. You can't complain about the lack of variety or the US focus if you are watching only prime time broadcasts. It's impossible to condense an entire day of I don't know how many simultaneous events into 3-4 hours without selecting the most interesting rounds of the most popular sports for the target audience.

[veggiedude]

No one has mentioned eyeTV. I use it to watch NBC on my Mac, and I can stop, pause and rewind in real time like on a tivo. Atfer I save the clips, I can stream them to my iPod touch via the wifi share connection.

But NBC TV is very limited. For taekwondo, I had to go to the NBC.com site to watch, though some of it has shown up on YouTube.

[reifer]

"You're right, I don't understand. You mean to tell me there are three channels broadcasting the same thing? "

That's not quite what I meant. Yes, all three broadcast the opening ceremony but, there were different styles, etc.

But, otherwise they are all showing different events at the Olympics. It's a bit more expansive then NBC would make you think. I believe the last I saw there were 19 different sports categories and "track & field" was just one. You could show it 24 hours a day and not show it all. You might be surprised to learn that there are a few more countries involved then the US and Russia and China. So, three (or maybe more for all I know) networks have the right to show events from the Olympics in Mexico. They all do it with varying degrees of quality, etc. So, you watch the event you want and you most often get to watch it "LIVE". They all have their goofy talking heads too but, when you get tired of listening, you can change the channel and watch something else at the Olympics.
Yes, by accident NBC does some live coverage but today the 200 meter men was not shown live? I had to check my Sportstap app on my iphone to figure out who won. During the day they have MSNBC and USA broadcasting events and some of the less significant (make that profitable) sports are shown live but, we were watching Greece and Argentina play basketball when the 200 meter mens final was run today. Give me a break.

[doglesby]

But that's either cooperation (ha! right!) or it's what I suggested--exclusive access by sport.

How can you act like there's nothing but track and field and US, Russia (what? Maybe in the 90s), and China and then mention a live Greece v Argentina game? I'm not saying the coverage is perfect (you may have noticed my distaste for Al Trautwig above all other commentators who can't keep their mouths shut), but there are comments on this thread that indicate people who don't watch the broadcasts are criticizing them.

[reifer]

"But that's either cooperation (ha! right!) or it's what I suggested--exclusive access by sport."

What it is, is freedom.
What it is, is a competitive marketplace without purchased monopoly. They're not "cooperating", they're competing.
What it is, is an opportunity for the viewing public to vote for the best coverage by switching channels
What it is, is NOT exclusive access

I have a friend in Mexico who says that he "has never heard a group of people talk more about freedom and have less of it then Americans"

To end this, I hate the networks. They stifle my desire to see what I want, when I want it, in the form I'd like to see it.
They feed us their pablum and we're supposed to just live with it, in fact, we're supposed to support it by buying from their sponsors.
If the market forces were truly turned loose and anyone could provide content to compete with the networks, on tv, over the internet, or whatever, the US networks would be a historical footnote. They can't compete except through exclusive agreement. I look forward to that day!

And I watch everything I can but, I can't choose. NBC chooses for me.

[doglesby]

There's either more overlap than you let on or the advertising execs don't know their jobs. For all the complaints about selective coverage here, Americans aren't going to watch archery when gymnastics is on. In a competitive landscape, who's going to pursue the hundreds of viewers looking for fencing at the expense of millions watching beach volleyball? The benefit of exclusive deals is that NBC loses nothing by airing less popular sports, albeit during off hours. It should (and may be) a condition of that exclusivity.

When we talk about the people who have died for our freedoms, we are not talking about the freedom to watch water polo instead of swimming on someone else's network. One of the big problems with political debate is the way everything turns into a right or freedom. We need less talk of freedom and more talk of responsibility.

"To end this, I hate the networks. They stifle my desire to see what I want, when I want it, in the form I'd like to see it."
Since most of what I want to see is produced by the networks, that makes no sense. Your complaints (the network decides when you watch what) is a limitation of the technology rather than the evil nature of networks. Yes, the 200m could be aired live and again in prime time, but you still have to watch (or record) one of those two times. The internet is changing that, and I agree that it threatens the networks to our benefit. At the same time, those networks still produce a lot of content; and to the extent the internet succeeds in this space, it does so on the backs of those evil stifling networks.

[reifer]

"Since most of what I want to see is produced by the networks, that makes no sense"

Hmm, we obviously have very different interests in television. I can't think of anything the networks produce that I give a fat damn about. I don't spend a lot of time watching "so you think you can dance" or "the bachelor". For the most part the Network productions are lame.
Guess you could say they "produce" sports coverage but, in my view most would be better if they left them alone and shut the talking heads up--a little less "production" would be nice.
My complaint is with major events and the Olympics is classic. But others too, turn on the US open (golf or tennis) and they show a very limited view of the event. Tiger and his group, mostly. The Masters is only 9 holes. In my perfect world I could follow the player I want to watch or sit at one hole and watch everyone play through or skip around to my heart's content.
Competitive television might offer those kind of options. The internet certainly would if the networks didn't have a strangle hold on every event. Football is the same, the networks decide the game of the week, and we watch in a fog. Sat tv is getting there with subscriptions but, I'd pay big to have those options for the Olympics too. We gotta get the Networks out of the way. Why not put the people first? If you want to watch in prime time, fine TIVO it. But what do those of who want to see it live do when it is the Network that decides?
The big issue is that with only one, the bidding gets way out of control. Paying $800mil for the "rights". That's the major cost. The cost of being there and "producing" the show is chump change in comparison. My guess is that no other country paid anything like that much for those rights. And most places in the world get far better coverage as a result. Mexico had at least 3 networks on location because they didn't have to pay so much for the rights of a monopoly.

[doglesby]

You remember the writer strike? Turns out a lot of television content is scripted. For example, had NBC not purchased The Sci-Fi Channel, there probably would never have been the Peabody (and others) award winning Battlestar Galactica.

As for golf coverage, you might want to see all the other groups, but most people can barely get worked up for Tiger. I don't even want to watch him play. This is the fundamental problem, the network is targeting a much larger audience. What you want can only be supplied over the internet. Guess what? It is. By NBC no less... If only I could watch any of it (I maintain the PowerPCs are not that old dammit).

[WarrenS]

No thanks i have a tv