By the way, your hundred dollars would have been much better spent on a newer television. Mine came with a "converter box" inside of it. 3 HDMI ports, 2 AV ports, 2 S-video ports, 2 additional for "component", and a VGA (I am not even sure what this is, but it's included)
dean1484 wrote: The cool novelty factor of watching on you computer wares off fast.
I know.
It's a good thing it only takes an $8 HDMI cable from the computer (HTPC) to the 65" HDTV in the living room.
We cancelled our cable in May of last year so that means we just "paid off" our HTPC in January (we gave it lots 'o HP) and we are competely into the saving $100/month by not having it.
I feel sorry for those of you who don't have proper internet access at your homes. I pay $60/month for 20mb down connection, that usually pulls 32-35mb down on Speedtest.
As to the other person who said "they will eventually charge by bandwidth," they already do in a sense. Cox Communications for example has a "cap" at 250GB downloaded per month at our speed (lower internet connections get less). Once you cross the cap they "throttle down" your connection speed.
In previous months with 12mb down service, our highest usage month was something around 180GB (with a 200gb cap).
I'm actually afraid of running into that cap since F1 torrents in HD are significantly larger than last year.
Give me some numbers or proof more watched Sebring. They didn't cause they couldn't. Now attending the race is another matter entirely.
I went back to my car and listened to the AM radio broadcast during parts of the race because the only place on track you could hear the announcer was near the start finish line and that wasn't the most interesting place to watch the race.
This was my first Sebring in a long, long time. It was 10 times better than Daytona in many, many aspects but the one way it fell down was the ability to hear about or see what was happening on a different part of the track than where you were viewing. The only option you had was the AM radio station and they didn't tell you in advance that you needed to bring an AM radio.
Maroon92 wrote:racerdave600 wrote: The real issue is going to be sponsors for the teams. Yes, the coverage sucked. And yes, for the most part people still watch with their TV's, not the internet. Ratings are what brings in the sponsors, not potential viewers on the internet. In the long run, this is going to really, really hurt a large portion of the teams if a more suitable TV package is not implemented. The first question every potential motorsport sponsor wants to know is what the series TV ratings are; especially considering the cost of participation that is ALMS. Having crewed on a team that was always on the hunt for a sponsor (aren't they all), I can assure you this is by far, BY FAR, question one. And I also worked for 12 years on the other side, in TV production. Ratings are everything, and currently, the Internet has no real verifiable ratings system. And I can't imagine the replay shows drawing a very big audience.I am going to juxtapose this with the fact that this years Sebring was the most watched ALMS production in the history of the ALMS. It was also the most watched program on ESPN3.com in the history of ESPN3.com. Sounds like a win to me! The teams shouldn't have any problem selling sponsorship!
But not everyone gets ESPN3. I don't and to be truthful, had no idea it even existed until recently. It doesn't matter that TV is in a state of flux, sponsors or potential sponsors know what questions they want answered, and it deals with what are the VERIFIABLE TV ratings. Until there is a standard for internet watching, those in their minds are just an extra to be thrown in. It doesn't carry near the weight of saying you got a 6 share on FOX, for an example. And keep in mind, many of those people you're trying to get money from, do not keep up with racing. They are looking at it from a strictly business perspective. In their world, ratings are numero uno. And whether we like it or not, a good network with decent ratings is what matters most. Most of the issues with Indycar sponsorship has to do with their crappy ratings on a not so visible network.
racerdave600 wrote: sponsors or potential sponsors know what questions they want answered, and it deals with what are the VERIFIABLE TV ratings. Until there is a standard for internet watching, those in their minds are just an extra to be thrown in.
It's easier by at least an order of magnitude to demonstrate how many people are watching your internet broadcast. If that's really the stumbling block they're complete idiots.
^How does anyone NOT have access to a free internet site?
the "good network" issue is exactly why ALMS went to abc/espn in the first place. So they have that covered, and will do everything they can to get ratings from that, but luckily they also have hardcore fans covered with full coverage online (which you CAN watch on tv, I can't believe we're still having this conversation...).
Carguy, you can still watch just about everything on espn3 (including all ALMS races) archived after the event. Once its not live you can even pause, rewind, etc. just like a DVR.
racerdave600 wrote:Maroon92 wrote:Not everyone gets ESPN3 I don't and to be truthful, had no idea it even existed until recently. It doesn't matter that TV is in a state of flux, sponsors or potential sponsors know what questions they want answered, and it deals with what are the VERIFIABLE TV ratings. Until there is a standard for internet watching, those in their minds are just an extra to be thrown in. It doesn't carry near the weight of saying you got a 6 share on FOX, for an example. And keep in mind, many of those people you're trying to get money from, do not keep up with racing. They are looking at it from a strictly business perspective. In their world, ratings are numero uno. And whether we like it or not, a good network with decent ratings is what matters most. Most of the issues with Indycar sponsorship has to do with their crappy ratings on a not so visible network.racerdave600 wrote: The real issue is going to be sponsors for the teams. Yes, the coverage sucked. And yes, for the most part people still watch with their TV's, not the internet. Ratings are what brings in the sponsors, not potential viewers on the internet. In the long run, this is going to really, really hurt a large portion of the teams if a more suitable TV package is not implemented. The first question every potential motorsport sponsor wants to know is what the series TV ratings are; especially considering the cost of participation that is ALMS. Having crewed on a team that was always on the hunt for a sponsor (aren't they all), I can assure you this is by far, BY FAR, question one. And I also worked for 12 years on the other side, in TV production. Ratings are everything, and currently, the Internet has no real verifiable ratings system. And I can't imagine the replay shows drawing a very big audience.I am going to juxtapose this with the fact that this years Sebring was the most watched ALMS production in the history of the ALMS. It was also the most watched program on ESPN3.com in the history of ESPN3.com. Sounds like a win to me! The teams shouldn't have any problem selling sponsorship!
Not everyone gets SPEED.
The problem with your argument is that the ABC recap show got decent ratings on a VERY visible network. If you tell a sponsoring company that their decals will be seen on ABC on a Sunday afternoon, they will go ape!
I can't believe we're still having this conversation either. The internet is NOT where it's at - at the moment.
Not everyone gets ESPN3 and not everyone gets Speed, but many more people get Speed than do ESPN and many more will watch speed over ESPN3 internet.
Internet connectivity is not a given in many parts of the country. I live on the outskirts of a big metroplex and I can only get crappy DSL. Most of my neighbors can't even get that.
Give me a break! 2 hours out of 12 was on ABC and that's supposed to make everything alright?
Has SPEED EVER shown 14 hours of coverage of the event live? Has SPEED ever shown ALMS Qualifying? SPEED doesn't give a E36 M3 about ALMS, and ALMS had to move on. I actually heard rumor that IMSA had to pay SPEED to broadcast the shows by the minute. That gets pricey!
I see it as a step in the right direction. it provides ME with everything I want to see, and those that don't care enough about the sport to watch it live can watch a recap program on network TV the day after.
There were days not that long ago when sports car racing wasn't on TV at all!
Maroon92 wrote: By the way, your hundred dollars would have been much better spent on a newer television. Mine came with a "converter box" inside of it. 3 HDMI ports, 2 AV ports, 2 S-video ports, 2 additional for "component", and a VGA (I am not even sure what this is, but it's included)
Well, Dood, I'm sure your TV is wonderful. Mine is 10 yrs old and I'm technophobic enough to think I shouldn't have to buy a new one just to watch a race.
We get it, 2 hours out of a 12 hour race is not enough. It will make more sense when you get 2 hours out of 2:45 (typical ALMS race) on broadcast. That is similar to SPEED's coverage of grand-am, and their former coverage of ALMS.
Also, ESPN3 is available to 65 million households and rising rapidly. SPEED is available in 77 million. Not as stark of a difference as you might think. Carguy, how fast is your DSL connection? Have you tried espn3 and/or hooking it up to you tv? A friend of mine watches with dsl, not as high quality as cable but still very watchable.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/111275439.html?commentSubmitted=y&refresh=25470#comments
To answer the Sebring question, yes, they have covered it in it's entirety, as well as all 24 hours of LeMans.
If they have, then I rescind my statement. I have not seen SPEED ever cover an endurance race for the entirety of the event. Speedvision may have done, but I don't recall SPEED ever having done that.
In the past ~5 years i have been watching, none of the long endurance races, Sebring, Petite, Le mans, have been covered in their entirety on SPEED. Beyond that, I'm not sure.
Maroon92 wrote: Not everyone gets SPEED. The problem with your argument is that the ABC recap show got decent ratings on a VERY visible network. If you tell a sponsoring company that their decals will be seen on ABC on a Sunday afternoon, they will go ape!
In San Diego, we got Tennis during the time slot that was meant to be Sebring on ABC.
Jamesc2123 wrote: Also, ESPN3 is available to 65 million households and rising rapidly. SPEED is available in 77 million. Not as stark of a difference as you might think. Carguy, how fast is your DSL connection? Have you tried espn3 and/or hooking it up to you tv? A friend of mine watches with dsl, not as high quality as cable but still very watchable. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/111275439.html?commentSubmitted=y&refresh=25470#comments
They offer 3 levels of DSL speed and all they can deliver is the lowest level.
Also available to and people actually using it are 2 different things. It's easy to access Speed and tough to access ESPN3. ESPN3 is available to me, I just can't use it.
monark192 wrote:Maroon92 wrote: Not everyone gets SPEED. The problem with your argument is that the ABC recap show got decent ratings on a VERY visible network. If you tell a sponsoring company that their decals will be seen on ABC on a Sunday afternoon, they will go ape!In San Diego, we got Tennis during the time slot that was meant to be Sebring on ABC.
Yeah, and that sucks. Unfortunately ABC in the Western United States had contracted to show the Tennis match. Tennis matches almost NEVER go into overtime. This one ran over 88 minutes into the 90 minute ALMS broadcast and ABC couldn't do anything about it.
Gave up satellite 3 or 4 years ago. Been so long with out it I can't remember. Who needs Center Ice, Speed, et al, when I'm just an HDMI cord away from watching anything as long as I can find a stream. Sure, it's not always the best stream, but I put up with it. Remember bunny ears and trying to get ANYTHING on a tube tv? We put up with that and things got better. Same for the internet. I have DSL and cannot get ESPN3.com. Comcast is available and I may go that way for the faster speeds. And, I do most of my viewing either on the 17 inch laptop or the 40 inch flat screen. Watched the Rangers tank against the Sabres last night and never bothered to hook up the tv! 
carguy123 wrote: It'll be a long time before I'm watching live sporting events off the internet. I love DVRing the shows I watch and viewing them at my leisure. Fast internet will be a long time coming to my area. I can see that one day internet TV will be the way to go, but not any day soon for most of the people.
Yeah, that seems to be the thing, right? How soon it will happen, and what to do in the meantime. I just figured high speed internet would be avalible any place that already had cable. Here in Atlanta Metro (and I've moved about 40mi from the city center now), when I ordered the high-speed only from Comcast, they didn't even ask me if I wanted cable as well. And in three years, I've only had one spam phone call asking me if I wanted it.
Maroon92 wrote: By the way, your hundred dollars would have been much better spent on a newer television. Mine came with a "converter box" inside of it. 3 HDMI ports, 2 AV ports, 2 S-video ports, 2 additional for "component", and a VGA (I am not even sure what this is, but it's included)
Video Graphics Array. It's a digital video connector invented for PCs, IIRC. Don't know what it would do for vid quality to use it instead of the HDMI. Maybe VGA cords are cheaper or something..
The reason there is Dish and Direct TV is that many places do not have cable.
I left cable at my old house. I loved the high speed internet, but I ran Dish for TV. Much less downtime, better pic and at that time, much more HD.
Since everyone seems to be headed to fiber optics they've stopped stringing copper and are only putting the fiber in high density areas so I'm much further behind than I was before.
carguy123 wrote: The reason there is Dish and Direct TV is that many places do not have cable. I left cable at my old house. I loved the high speed internet, but I ran Dish for TV. Much less downtime, better pic and at that time, much more HD. Since everyone seems to be headed to fiber optics they've stopped stringing copper and are only putting the fiber in high density areas so I'm much further behind than I was before.
DOH! (complete with Homer Simpson-style forhead slap)
I'd forgotten that so many sat subscribers out in the countryside did so because there wasn't a cable hub in their locality. I'm an old guy, and a native of the rural Southern US. I guess I really didn't notice the sat dishes in the small towns I run through on road trips because they don't (when I'm ignoring them) look much different than the old rooftop antennas folks had for broadcast TV during my youth.
Until you mentioned it, that is. Thanks for the "wakeup call"..this is the kind of stuff I need to know if I'm going to keep making comments about the current state of media. 
You don't even need to be in the countryside not to be able to get cable or high speed internet. Many smaller towns & even areas of the bigger cities sometimes don't offer the option. But usually those areas will be able to deliver higher speed DSL.
I say deliver, because they offer and will let you pay for the higher speed option when many times they can't deliver it.
You'll need to log in to post.
