I normally watch some of the Olympics or have it in the background on events that took my interest. This time I've not bothered. Because the media rights were sold the BBC can't do that much coverage.
I have a feeling this is probably going to have one of the lowest viewing figures ever for the games
Is this why I can't find the opening ceremony on YouTube?
I've tried searching for a couple of days and couldn't find anything, just found some 5minute long summaries.
I've stopped caring, I'm always curious to see at least some event but this year they seem to have way too much friction in place for something that I'm really not that interested in.
If I remember well, the opening ceremony of London olympics wasn't available on YouTube at that time either, I kind of remember searching for it at the time...
Due to Discovery paying almost $1bn for the rights, the BBC can only show 2 sports at once.
This is a far cry from London 2012, or Rio 2016, where they had 15 dedicated olympics channels and is a crying shame, as the coverage was usually top notch.
I have Sky TV in the UK and so have Discovery+ free for a year, and the coverage is extensive - but mostly without any commentating.
The gulf in coverage quality between BBC and Eurosport is unbelievable. I actually enjoy Eurosport and their continued coverage of fairly-niche sports (mainly cycling for me), but it's clear that they just don't have the infrastructure or depth to cover an event like an Olympics or World Cup. The BBC are experts.
Lots of the events aired on Eurosport are just feeds; no commentary it analysis.
I think it's a huge error, viewership will decrease and the sports that usually get a boost from TV coverage will struggle.
> and the sports that usually get a boost from TV coverage will struggle
Like the IOC cared about sports in the slightest. The only thing they care about is cash. Like FIFA in football, these big international organisations have been fundamentally corrupted a long time ago.
Reading this, I would actually tune into Eurosport knowing I can watch with minimal commentary - I know commentary brings some people a lot of structure but I find the events impossible to take in with somebody talking over it.
I'm with you in sports I understand like football, but I definitely benefit from a bit of expert guidance in things I don't like taekwando, skateboarding or shooting.
It's quite noticeable also in BBC worldwide coverage. For example newscasters were describing the excitement and shouting of the two coaches of the Tunisian 400m swimmer Ahmed Hafnaoui instead of showing a video of the event. Hilarious
Originaly called BBC Empire Service it is targeted toward a global audience. I like that the news are much less US/EU focused than the usual media I consume.
I sometimes find out that their top stories are events that our news don't report much on, because they happen - say - in Gabon.
They used to broadcast it into Europe during the Cold War on 648 kHz MW using an absolutely ridiculous 500 kW transmitter and an aerial system that developed 2 MW directionally. This got shut down in the early '10s then was taken over recently by none other than the famous offshore radio pirates Radio Caroline who use it on a much more modest 1 kW. They still have their pirate radio ship but I think its transmitters got smashed up by the government in the '80s so they relay to the old BBC World Service site over 4G.
You can still hear the World Service on 198 kHz longwave after 0100 BST in much of Europe, they even shut down Radio 4 with the national anthem just before like it's the '50s or something. It's a delightful anachronism.
I discovered this blockage when I tried to listen to a favorite program on BBC Radio London and found that the entire station, and other local BBC radio stations, are currently unavailable. I am in Japan.
I don’t know what the “rights reasons” are, but a total blackout seems extreme.
My favourite sport is cricket. When I was younger, it was always shown on terrestrial TV (mainly BBC or Channel 4), but after the huge success of the 2005 Ashes, Sky bought the rights and you then had to buy Sky Sports to watch it. As such over the years the interest in cricket in the UK seemed to fade, and hardly anyone was taking an interest in it anymore.
I can almost see this happening with the Olympics to some degree, if it continues to be shown only on channels you pay for, people are going to lose interest in watching it more and more over the years. I like watching the Olympics but to be honest not enough to pay an extra £7-10 a month to see it where the coverage isn't nearly as good as the BBC can do.
As someone from the UK I consume a lot of BBC radio. Mostly BBC4 for news/docs, BBC6 for music and BBC5 for sports when I can't get to a TV. I'm intrigued by the idea that people from other countries might be similarly enthusiastic.
I was surprised to find family friends who lived in Philadelphia watched BBC World Service as their primary news source when I visited them.
Long story short: broadcasting rights have been awarded to premium channels across Europe and the globe, therefore local radio stations of the BBC are restricted there, as the BBC is a free television and radio network in the uk.
You need the licence to watch any live television, there's an increasing segment of the population which doesn't need it of course but it's a "free" channel compared to Sky/BT Sports.
Important to note the word 'any'. Even if you never watch BBC programmes, you need a license or you'll finally end up with criminal conviction if you persist. Poor single mothers tend to form the majority of convictions in magistrates courts when I last checked.
A licence is required to watch any channel while it is being broadcast. It doesn't have to be "live" (or perhaps that is the same as "while it is being broadcast"). You also need a licence to record it while it is being broadcast. You need a licence to use iPlayer.
For these purposes, "broadcast" includes satellite, even if you only watch foreign channels.
The BBC and its funding have been a political football since forever. The right hate the BBC because it's funded by taxes, and seen as socialist; the left hate the BBC because it tends to lick the as* of the government of the day - the style of news coverage changes in the first few weeks after a general election.
The licence fee is a regressive tax; the beeb should be funded out of general taxation.
I'd like to see a BBC that is independent of the government, ad-free, and cut loose from the need to chase viewing numbers. I don't know how to get from here to there. If the beeb were a subscription service, I'd consider subscribing.
I'd like to see a BBC that is independent of the government, ad-free, and cut loose from the need to chase viewing numbers. I don't know how to get from here to there.
The TV licence is one of those anachronisms that should have gone away long ago. There's a wild mismatch between who pays and who benefits even if you accept the principle. And as you said funding through general taxation would be less regressive anyway.
I don't see a big problem with setting that up. It requires an Act of Parliament that establishes an arms-length public body to run the BBC, which it more-or-less already has in practice anyway, and a budget, which can then only be changed through a further Act of Parliament. That's as "independent of the government" as you can ever get under our legal system, but at least any attempt to change it later would require active steps by the government at the time that would immediately attract attention and could be resisted in both Houses of Parliament if they were inappropriate.
I guess free as in, the signals are floating around free for anyone to pick up and listen to - there is no subscription technically needed.
You don't need a TV Licence to view or listen to anything, you are just supposed to.
Nothing stops you from firing up iplayer or BBC sounds over a VPN or something (unless something has changed outside the UK)
The article is talking about radio channels and those are indeed free and available world wide, hence they’ve been “blocked” as they would be broadcasting olympics for free outside of the Uk.
I’ve realised that I wrote “free television and radio network” in my parent, I can’t edit anymore.
It's free. There used to be a radio licence, but it was discontinued once the income from the TV licence was enough. B&W licences are only for B&W TVs and are now rare.
It seems likely that the BBC itself has limited rights to broadcast the material internationally. This phenomenon isn't unique to the Olympics. There is a lot of other BBC content that isn't freely available outside the UK for similar reasons. However the IOC is well known to be very aggressive in the demands it makes of partners and even host nations so it would be unsurprising if that was the reason here. I don't really understand why they have to switch off entire radio stations though if that's what they're doing, unless so much of the content on those stations is currently about the Olympics that it's not worth continuing to run the rest on its own.
Exactly. That's the part that doesn't really make sense to me. It sounds like they're turning off whole stations during the Olympics even though those stations don't necessarily have much if any actual coverage of the Olympics.
I'm not sure what you mean by "retaliation". The BBC does not have the right to broadcast olympic coverage outside of the UK, even short clips, therefore they are not doing so.
You have to buy the rights to cover the Olympic games (which I've always found strange - how do you stop someone from reporting what happened in the world?), and these rights are sold by country. The BBC isn't going to buy the rights for every country just for people to listen to the BBC outside the UK
It's such a shame, because I'm sure the Japanese could host a hell of an event. But the combination of negative aspects for this year is massive: covid, weather, greed...
I have a feeling this is probably going to have one of the lowest viewing figures ever for the games