NBC Sports and Vuelta coverage...

[BillytheKid]

NBC/Universal Sports are the villains here. Nice if you want to subscribe to Direct TV. But the reason Universal is not being carried by other providers is because they got incredibly greedy, and their numbers didn't warrant them getting what they wanted. Do you think so many providers would tell them to take a hike if viewers were clamoring at the gates demanding their Universal? This latest decision to turn off the online event subscribing is the way NBC thinks they can turn up the heat on the providers even more. I'm a Verizon subscriber, I don't want Direct TV, and Universal is not going to force me to make that change so I can see Cycling. In fact, I'm waiting to see what they do with their World Cup ski racing online broadcasts. Somehow, I think they're going to screw us on those broadcasts too. As was mentioned by Richwagmn, just go to Steephill.tv or cyclingfans.com. It's how I've watched a lot of the years other cycling events. The only inconvenience is that you have to watch it real time. But if you want to be felt about this subject, know who the REAL villains are, and then make yourself be heard by them ("them" being Universal/NBC sports)

They don't provide the feed, but they have to pay for it. They charge what they do because they are in business to make a profit. There is no big audience demand, so they can't make much in the way of advertising...the cost gets past along.

 

[nowhereman]

They don't provide the feed, but they have to pay for it. They charge what they do because they are in business to make a profit. There is no big audience demand, so they can't make much in the way of advertising...the cost gets past along.

All that "business" talk sounds great. But their business model sux, because if they were really trying to make money, they would make the online feed available to everyone. Then anyone could pay them for the Vuelta. But that's not the way they're conducting business. You need to already have a provider that carries them, and then you can get the feed online. It's not that complicated, it certainly ain't stuff derivatives are made of. So let's not try and make it sound like they're running a logical, good business plan, that if we just understood capitalism, we'd see their point. They're NOT. And so, I would NEVER pay for their service again. Even if my provider picked them up once again. Unless it was part of the basic plan, and came at no extra cost. They are trash to me, and every day I dislike them, and their strategy, more and more. As usual, in this day of cable TV the customers get screwed while the juggernauts fight it out, atop a hill of money.

 

[rickshaw]

No offense intended but

All that "business" talk sounds great. But their business model sux, because if they were really trying to make money, they would make the online feed available to everyone. Then anyone could pay them for the Vuelta. But that's not the way they're conducting business. You need to already have a provider that carries them, and then you can get the feed online. It's not that complicated, it certainly ain't stuff derivatives are made of. So let's not try and make it sound like they're running a logical, good business plan, that if we just understood capitalism, we'd see their point. They're NOT. And so, I would NEVER pay for their service again. Even if my provider picked them up once again. Unless it was part of the basic plan, and came at no extra cost. They are trash to me, and every day I dislike them, and their strategy, more and more. As usual, in this day of cable TV the customers get screwed while the juggernauts fight it out, atop a hill of money.

Have you only recently discovered that corporations / businesses are in IT for the money? Neither you nor I know what kind of cost analysis goes into making a decision to offer an online only feed available, of if they make more $$ having GoGo wear Izod versus Eddie Bower on screen. I do know they all have many many accountants and computer models that are involved in the decision. Like it or not, there it is.

 

[jilbiker]

This is so 19th century

NBC in general are behind the 8th ball. I do not know where hollywood gets its advisers from from they have always been several steps behind technology. I cannot believe in this day and age that people are trying to force folks back to the TV when there is your ipad, cell phone and such like. People prefer PAY-PER-EVENT hollywood than the so called subscription. And you can make money from that!

Thats how they resisted the movie download technology for so long and even till now, I think they are still miles behind and I say a couple of 100s of billions lost in revenue. I would rather watch a new movie on the day it comes out direct on my computer, ipad or internet TV rather than go to a theater. And I felt like this even before the whole recent Colorado movie disaster.

I cannot see any gain or profit from this NBC new rule, its just horrible. They also had the same restriction on the Olympic coverage which I felt was a horrible coverage wrt technology. The events were not live and online access was restricted to those who have it in their "cable package". If they had said pay say $5 to watch the 100m final event live, I may have done that, and am sure several thousands may have joined too. I don't know if the restriction was from IOC, if so then IOC is also way behind.

TDF, Vuelta, Giro now all owned by Comcast, its horrible. They have to rethink this strategy, it is not a money winner at all.

 

[nowhereman]

Have you only recently discovered that corporations / businesses are in IT for the money? Neither you nor I know what kind of cost analysis goes into making a decision to offer an online only feed available, of if they make more $$ having GoGo wear Izod versus Eddie Bower on screen. I do know they all have many many accountants and computer models that are involved in the decision. Like it or not, there it is.

Like it or not, you really added nothing to the discussion. I understand the business end. And no, we don't have ALL of the information. But all the information is not needed to understand that their business model sux for viewers. I stand by my position. And as far as not liking it. I am not really affected by it any more. I get to view the Vuelta without them, and I don't need to watch them, on TV, for The US Pro Challenge either. So frankly Scarlett, I don't give a S*$#!

 

[DirtyWorks]

...I cannot believe in this day and age that people are trying to force folks back to the TV when there is your ipad, cell phone and such like. People prefer PAY-PER-EVENT hollywood than the so called subscription. And you can make money from that!

You can't make Hollywood's version of money at subscriptions though... A home in the Hollywood Hills and a Harvard-Westlake education for their kids is not free you know.. In cycling's case, you've got the owner of the race and in other cases the UCI themselves still maximizing profit by carving up the media feed by geographic areas. It pays!

...If they had said pay say $5 to watch the 100m final event live, I may have done that, and am sure several thousands may have joined too. I don't know if the restriction was from IOC, if so then IOC is also way behind..

They want to keep the business model exactly like it is because it's good and Americans don't mind paying. I too would have been glad to pay to watch (and record for my personal use) some Olympic events much later like Wrestling, but again the abuse by the old media empire is okay.