Archive for online streaming

Drones racing each other at breakneck speeds through an abandoned industrial complex, controlled through VR goggles that broadcast a first-person view simultaneously to the operators and fans alike.

This may seem futuristic, but it was actually one of the most imminent ideas recently discussed in a special panel dedicated to “Drones In Sports”. At last week’s On Deck Sports and Technology Conference, three drone sport experts came together to talk about the potential–and the potential pitfalls–that drones may provide for the future of sports technology.

As one panelist put it, drones in sports are currently “kind of a Wild West opportunity”, and Matt Higgins, CEO of RSE Ventures and vice-chairman of the Miami Dolphins, kicked the panel off with the example of the Drone Racing League. Earlier this year, the DRL started informally as groups of hobbyists flying drones through parking garages and abandoned buildings, but plans are in the works to turn it into a full-fledged sport, pitting sponsored teams of self-taught drone specialists against ex-military UAV pilots.

The DRL held their first two test flights earlier this year in the New York metro area, and plans to release their first official video “in the next few weeks.” When Higgins (an investor in the DRL) was asked how to make this a spectator sport, though, he responded candidly, “I have no clue.” He expects that streaming services like Twitch and Meerkat will be critical in building fan engagement with drone racing — and there certainly aren’t a lack of ideas to spice the sport up, as Bradley Woodrum outlined earlier this year.

Companies are also thinking about how drones can be used to improve the experience for players and fans in more traditional sports. In the eyes of the panelists, the “low-hanging fruit” was using drones to provide new angles for gameplay and practice, but the Amazon “drone-delivery” model was also a clear influence. The possibilities bantered about by the panel seemed limitless. Dispatching drones on golf courses for tee-side food delivery, handing out tickets with drones during games, the drone t-shirt cannon…

…wait a second, “the drone t-shirt cannon”?

It’s an undeniably cool idea, but taking a few seconds to visualize an unmanned aerial vehicle launching anything at fans may remind you that drones still face a number of psychological (and legal) obstacles. Eben Novy-Williams (a reporter for Bloomberg and the panel’s moderator) noted, as one example, that he was at a recent triathlon where a drone filming at the finish line elicited divided reactions–half the audience loved it, but the other half was clearly uncomfortable.

Chris Proudlove (an aerospace insurance expert with Global Aerospace) agreed that “we’re not quite there” when it comes to drones flying over crowds and that we need to “build a public sense that drones will be operated safely”, but that at the same time we don’t want to overstate the risk. The top concern of Proudlove’s clients when discussing drones was “invasion of privacy,” but he predicted this would be “moot” in less than 10 years. We’ve already become accustomed to ubiquitous smartphones that record video; from a certain perspective, drones aren’t terribly novel, just an extension of technology. The rest of the panel was even more bullish about the long-term prospects of us welcoming our new drone overlords.

But there’s still a lot to be done to make drones seem — and be — safer. Chris described geofencing technology to keep drones in and out of certain locations, such as ‘within the stadium, but at least 20 meters from the stands’, and better use of parachutes and other physical features. (Many of us probably remember the recent drone crash during the 2015 tennis U.S. Open, but the panelists were also well-aware of the 1979 mishap where a lawnmower-shaped model plane killed a fan during halftime at a Jets-Patriots game.) Chris also suggested that regulations distinguishing ‘micro-drones’ (of less than 2 pounds) and ‘the big ones’ could make drone safety easier.

In fact, the panel generally agreed that regulatory issues were the primary roadblock currently facing drones in sports. Right now, commercial use of drones (in the US) is illegal except when exemptions are provided by the FAA, and this is expected to remain the status quo until the FAA issues a full ruling on drones sometime in 2017. Until then, companies will need to build their usage of drones on a case-by-case basis. (Late last week, for example, the news broke that the FAA had allowed the NFL an exemption for drone usage — but only in empty stadiums.)

In short, it looks like we haven’t yet reached a drone-filled future of sport, but that day is likely drawing nigh. When Eben asked the panel for a bold “five-year prediction,” panelist Jon Ollwerther suggested that by 2020, we’d see drones being used in “every major American sport”– even down to the high school level.

I personally believe the old saying “all roads lead to Rome” tends to embody “different means to the same end” and in the case of online streaming versus traditional cable subscriptions, money as always, is the bottom line. In regards to the streaming cash flow, once again Rome — okay, all of Italy — is front and center in accomplishing the end of collecting revenue, this time by means of streaming. Today the top league of Italian soccer, Serie A, announced a service that beginning on Saturday, will stream three fixtures per weekend.

The price for viewing access is €3.99 for the weekend or €2.00 per individual match. In addition to the games themselves, each will have both pre- and post-game shows for analysis and news for the matches and around the league. It’s a huge move away from the old school television broadcasts, and for here in the United States, where beIN Sports holds the broadcasting rights. Serie A is the first major European league to offer a service of this kind and this could bring about a huge boost to their fandom abroad.

Via Statista, as of 2013, Serie A held the second highest broadcast revenue, trailing only the English Premier League.

An argument could be made that Italy’s top league isn’t the powerhouse it once was, however the league has posted solid results in UEFA Champions League play, the top continental league in Europe. Even after Serie A lost one of their bids to Germany’s Bundesliga following the 2011-12 season, they’ve posted respectable results. Since being limited to three teams receiving bids to the Champions League, Italian powerhouse Juventus has managed a runner-up finish in the CL last year and both Roma and Milan have made appearances in the Group Stage of the tournament as well. Even with four teams (Juventus, AC Milan, Inter and Napoli) in the top-20 most valuable soccer clubs as of 2015, Serie A has some catching up to do if they’d like to match the brand value of the titans of European soccer.

If this streaming agreement opens up the first of many more casual soccer fans here in the US, all the better. The individual game price is well worth testing the waters of Serie A, but the model of online viewing is the most important part. If other leagues — namely the Premier League, Bundesliga or Ligue One — are able to find a way to offer streamed soccer, it will be another huge win, much like Fox Soccer 2 Go, for cord-cutting soccer fans.

Major League Baseball gets a lot things right. Their Advanced Media department, the group in control of MLB.com and MLB.TV, have now updated their At-Bat app. In addition to watching games — which are still subject to local blackouts — the app now allows for constant viewing of the MLB Network’s round the clock channel. Unfortunately unlike Pinocchio, there remain strings attached to this deal.

A qualifying cable subscription is required to view the MLB Network live stream. The stream is available on iOS and Android phones or tablets as well as Mac and PCs. As noted by the crew over at Awful Announcing, the initial group of cable providers who have agreed to support the stream does not include Comcast. In addition to missing what Wikipedia calls the number one (by subscriber count) provider in the United States, those who use Charter Communications — number six by subscriber count — such as myself, are also left out.

After logging into my app, I was sad to see I was one of the million of baseball fans left out of the ability to stream the show.

The upshot is this means people on the go (or at work) have the option to view MLB Network shows, interviews and even out-of-market games while away from their televisions. Perhaps even more importantly is the inclusion of playoff and preseason games. Being able to catch a spring training game after a long winter or watching a potential series-defining game when not at home and without paying for any extra add-ons is a great move for baseball.

Last season MLB Network claimed two playoff games, Game 2 of the NLDS between the Dodgers and the Cardinals and Game 3 of the NLDS with the Nationals and Giants. In 2013 there were also two DS games shown, one from the NL and another from the AL. The same format of MLB Network getting two DS games stretches back to 2012. Given that MLB, ESPN, Fox and TBS came to an eight-year, $12.4 billion broadcast agreement that runs through 201, count on continuing to be able to see at least two playoff games per year via MLB Network’s online stream.

Even with the blackouts and the restrictions due to cable companies, this 24/7 streaming of a major sport offering represents a first in the world of sports. Yes, the NBA, NHL and NFL all have their own channels however none are simulcast in the same way MLB Network is. This move seems like a way to meet the old crowd and the new generation in the middle. More traditional TV subscribers may not find a ton of use for it and dedicated cord cutters will likely wish MLB Network didn’t require a cable package. Of course, with such a lukewarm offering, it’s hard to imagine this move generating a lasting effect. Perhaps as the NFL embraces the online streaming realm and as more and more people cut the cord, eventually a non-subscription version may arrive at some point.

Periscope, the live-streaming app developed by Twitter, has officially launched on Android devices. It comes several weeks behind Meerkat for Android, another mobile-based live-stream app and thus a comparison seems inevitable. Both are free and aimed specifically at being in the moment so neither offer a way to embed videos, though neither should be overlooked despite that particular detail. As simple as an app-to-app review could be, perhaps the greater issue at hand is what the apps offer: a way to potentially circumvent paid content and products.

As mentioned around these parts by Seth Keichline, the much ballyhooed Pacquiao/Mayweather fight promoters were actively and aggressively cracking down on illegal streams. As such, the question may not be what will people stream and watch, but rather will they? The demand for free streams isn’t surpassed by the desire for high definition, but if the content is shown in at least decent quality, the viewers may come. Shown below is a side by side of the two apps with Periscope on the left and Meerkat on the right.

Apologies for the shot of the Periscope app, as the screenshot function was noticeably lagged in comparison to Meerkat. The pictures are from the Wednesday afternoon game between the Tigers and A’s. My camera — or more accurately my phone — is the OnePlus One with a 13 megapixel Sony Exmor IMX214 capturing video and pictures from a 1080p Samsung television. Suffice to say, hardware shouldn’t be the issue in terms of questionable stream quality.

As much as I love baseball and other sports, I can’t see myself consistently watching a stream of this quality on my phone. Perhaps the rare event with something not shown on any available channels, a la a soccer tournament such as the Asian Cup or Cup of Nations, but not a baseball game. The issue at hand is that this exception brings us back to the original question regarding the boxing match: will people use these apps to pirate sports, concerts and other live events? I’ve skulked around enough dark corners of the Internet to realize people will look for any way possible to get around paying for something. From Napster to WinMX and Kazaa to torrent sites and mirrored links or VPNs to get around blackouts, the consumers will eventually get what they want, whether they pay for it or not. The ease of use for both apps have made providing and pirating content quite easy, however neither are perfect for said task.

Meerkat has the option to search for a specific user or stream, something that would appear to be a basic core element of a social networking app. It’s a shame Periscope decided against implementing it as very useful and seemingly easy to roll out. As more and more social apps gain the ability to monetize — Facebook and Tinder immediately come to mind — the possibility for someone willing to take the risk of selling digital tickets to a streamed sports event doesn’t sound too far fetched. Something named “Marlins vs Nationals” or “USA vs CAN” could easily gain viewers and traction, though perhaps it would be better to not so blatantly advertise something that violates terms of use for the apps and the broadcasted event.

Where both apps fall short is that neither has an option to duck the sound of a previous app. Listening to music either with Spotify, Pandora or Google Music was automatically muted or even ducked when watching a stream. It isn’t a deal breaker, but given that Meerkat does duck phone calls — whereas Periscope pauses the stream — it seems like an annoying issue that is bound to be fixed soon. Of course without a way to record the stream, after a pause it is resumed live, not from where it was paused.

Though there is no search option, Periscope has nailed down the location service side of things. Rather than simply naming the city or location where a stream is in the manner Meerkat approaches things, Periscope can be tied directly to Google Maps. The location in Periscope is separated from the stream itself, shown below the stream. Meerkat sees fit to display everything at once. Below are two pictures showing the location of two streams, the first a stream from a restaurant in Stockholm, the second is fire fighting training in California.

If the above picture looks cluttered to you, you aren’t alone in that opinion. It should be noted the following picture is not of the stream itself, merely the location.

Both apps sport a chat function, though again the pros and cons come through. Within Meerkat, the chat cannot be hidden, so you’re at the mercy of other stream watchers. There is the ability to hide the chat within Periscope, or if only a handful of people are spamming the chat, you’re allowed to block specific people. Unfortunately some Periscope streams can be overloaded with chat and a pop up message occurs.

In order to try and parse down the chat spam, Periscope does allow private broadcasts where only followers or selected accounts will be invited to the stream. Meerkat is a strictly public stream and the chat tends to suffer due to that.

Both certainly have their strengths and weaknesses, so despite sounding like a cop-out, it’s nearly a toss up between the two. The option for private broadcasts more than makes up for any issues I have with Periscope, including the inability to search for users. If I find a stream is interesting enough then I’ll follow it, and thus can find the stream through my following list. It isn’t ideal, but at least it is a workaround. Meerkat isn’t perfect either as chat on those streams can rapidly turn into a live version of Lord of the Flies. The lack of a pause and resume feature on Meerket as well as the streams looking awfully crowded due to the chat and constant location make the feeds appear disorderly.

Given my usage patterns and preferences, I give a slight edge to Periscope. The pause and resume feature is incredibly convenient as I tend to receive a high volume of emails throughout the day and the option to get back into the stream and miss a minimum amount of time is fantastic. Periscope offers cleaner looking broadcasts as they can go unhindered by chat and have their location and descriptions hidden away. Neither are perfect, but I can see myself using Periscope more regularly. Of course, without an ability to watch previous broadcasts, only so-so streamer to viewer chat interactions and stream quality dependent on sending and receiving hardware as well as internet connection, both could be fads that fade with time. I envision both Meerkat and Periscope having similar issues to traditional television broadcasts: the inability to be flexibly with watch times — as opposed to YouTube, Twitch and Vine’s abilities to watch any time — may limit their long term success.

One week from today the final piece of the 2015-16 English Premier League will be decided. A single match between Middlesbrough and Norwich City will kick off at 10 am eastern time on May 25. The winner will advance to arguably the best soccer league in the world, the loser remains in England’s second tier league, the Football League Championship. Unfortunately, despite the high stakes, only a limited number of soccer fans — in particular those with cable subscriptions — outside of the United Kingdom will have access to the game.

Foreign broadcast rights for the Championship here in the United States and Canada fall to beIN Sports. Directly from the beIN website, they offer a free online system called beIN SPORTS CONNECT, allowing users to stream live events to their computers, iOS and Android systems. The downside is there is no standalone option for the service. You have to be in an area with beIN available to you, with a compatible cable provider and then purchase a qualifying cable package.

The good news is Sling TV offers a package for $10.00 per month that includes, among other sports options, beIN Sports. Perhaps this is one of the first times in broadcasting history where cord cutters without a traditional cable package sit in an advantageous position to those with a cable subscription. Despite some channel lineups coming with beIN, the vast majority of cable packages don’t offer beIN until their highest package, or as an add-on at additional cost. In my area in particular, beIN isn’t available for my current provider. A competing cable and internet provider does offer beIN, though it isn’t an included feature — it is available as an add-on for $10.00 with the second and third most expensive packages —  until the highest cost package, coming in at a hefty $91.00 per month. That bill is before taxes and without accounting for internet or installation and activation.

At this point it’s hard to say which is more accurate: that the cord cutting generation is winning or that the old school cable TV model is losing.

(Header image via beIN)

Last year’s Super Bowl being streamed online was a huge move for the big four — NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL — though the other sports have yet to cater to the streaming population. More fringe or niche leagues may be more willing to embrace the available technology as they attempt to grow their brands, or so it would seem within the ranks of the Professional Bull Riders. Last week PBR announced a partnership with the streaming company Flipps to showcase via pay-per-view their Ring of Honor: Unfinished Business event.

Earlier today via press release, Flipps posted additional details about the Ring of Honor stream. Set to take place on May 30, will consist of a three hour live broadcast of the various competitions with riders aiming to take home up to $160,000 in the winner-take-all formats. In order to view the event, a $29.95 price tag is attached, the same price to watch on Dish Network. Flipps CEO, Kosta Jordanov, said of the partnership with PBR:

PBR is the premiere bull riding organization in the world and we are honored to be able to elevate that content to new audiences through the Flipps platform.

Flipps, a free app available on iOS, Android, most SmartTVs and more, offers both free and PPV options for sports highlights, games and matches ranging from the ACC Digital Network to UFC Sports, the Golf Channel and dozens of others. The entertainment isn’t limited to sports coverage, though. Flipps is dedicated to bringing live coverage to their user base, and includes select programming from Showtime, music videos, plus dedicated genres for children and news. The channel selection also includes industry updates and videos from automotive, health and tech sources. With much of their content readily available for free, Flipps’ revenue comes from in-app ads and video ads, though given their impressive lineup, it is understandable. If you happen to be a bull riding fan who has cut the cord, this is mana from streaming heaven. For those who have dropped their cable packages but are not terrible enthusiastic about the PBR, Flipps has enough other options to be well worth a download.

(Header image via Doug Wertman)

As we lead in to tomorrow night’s fight of the century and the most expensive pay-per-view ever, HBO and Showtime – the premium cable companies that joined forces to produce the event – are kissing their biceps following their jab-hook combination that knocked online streaming sites to the mat.

Yesterday a federal judge granted HBO and Showtime a temporary restraining order against boxinghd.net and sportship.org, two sites which advertised unauthorized free online streaming of the bout, but have since removed all related content.

Deciding Judge George Wu wrote:

“Plaintiffs have established that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of immediate relief. Among other things, Defendants’ threatened infringement would strip Plaintiffs of the critical right of first transmission and publication of an extremely valuable live sporting event, would interfere with Plaintiffs’ relationships with third parties, is likely to damage Plaintiffs’ goodwill among consumers, and will deprive Plaintiffs of revenue that will be difficult or impossible to calculate, but is likely far in excess of any amount that Defendants could repay to Plaintiffs in damages even if the amount could be calculated.”

At time of publication, both sites are unavailable. Deadline.com reported on Wednesday that “where big splashy photo of the two boxers and a ‘click here’ to watch the weekend fight, now there is pretty much nothing.”

The mega fight will cost viewers $100 to watch in HD ($90 in standard definition). According to Forbes, the fight is expected to earn $300 million in PPV revenue or more.

Online streaming sites aren’t the only ones being watched. The Guardian ran a piece Tuesday which brought light to the existence of pay-per-view cops.

On the night of the big fight, the PPV cops – who are not real police, though one company says many former law-enforcement officers are in their ranks – will attempt to find bars showing the fight without having paid licensing fees. If they help promoters nail establishments that have not paid, the companies say they can make hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

The cost for a bar or restaurant to purchase a license depends on the occupancy of the building. But for many establishments, it’s costing about $5000. The bigger the occupancy, the higher the cost. And many bars have decided it’s simply too expensive to carry the fight.

Meanwhile, other bars certainly will try to fly under the radar. These PPV cops are searching for those that duck the expensive license and purchase the residential PPV charge of $100 to show the fight illegally.

One firm’s ad offers $250 for every illegal location found for these enforcers. Another firm advertised on Craigslist. And it’s not all just show.

From The Guardian:

A bar in Lake Elsinore, California, shut down after paying a $23,000 fine for illegally showing a Mayweather fight. J&J Sports Promotions, which licenses fights and has partnered with G&G, has also filed more than 1,600 lawsuits against businesses illegally showing PPV events since 2010. In 2009 it won a $112,800 default judgment against a bar in Arkansas. It settled for $50,000 with a bar that showed the Mayweather-Victor Ortiz fight in 2011. “I’m not in business to sue people,” the J&J president Joseph Gagliardi told the Los Angeles Times. “But I’ve got to do it for one reason: to protect the clientele who are doing it right.”

Fight night piracy is down for the count. Bloodied and brawled, this one looks like a loss.

(Image courtesy of Justin Matthew)