- - - - - - - - - -

T A B L E__T A L K

Which techno-buzzwords do you love to hate? Let it out in Table Talk's Digital Culture area

- - - - - - - - - -

R E C E N T L Y

21st Challange
By Charlie Varon and Jim Rosenau
Ticklers for every situation
Plus: Haiku error message winners
(02/10/98)

Windows on their world
By Karen Lillington
On site at Microsoft's museum and shop: Where the Windows never cease
(02/09/98)

AOL's insecurity complex
By David Cassel
The online service can't even keep its own staff bulletin boards private
(02/06/98)

Let's Get This Straight
By Scott Rosenberg
Technospeak, part 2: A turnkey solution in every pot
(02/05/98)

The Net's new turf wars
By Rebecca Vesely
Domain name mavericks take their case to Washington
(02/04/98)

BROWSE THE 21ST FEATURES ARCHIVES

JUST PAY FOR IT | PAGE 2 OF 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Zales says the rights holders "are all over the map" when it comes to the Web. For example, he noted, there is no consensus in the industry as to whether Web-based sports sites have the same right as television to report, with video, sports as "news" rather than as entertainment -- a right that influences what can be broadcast free of charge.

The NFL, noted Zales, is making some highlights footage available on specific sites like NFL.com, while the National Hockey League and National Basketball Association are licensing some rights directly to the sports sites. In every case, though, the owners of footage rights are mostly unconcerned about potential rights dilution, since, says Zales, "the Internet reaches such a [comparatively] small audience."

While there has been some, mostly audio, live broadcasting of sports events on the Net, the general consensus in the industry is that Web sports broadcasting won't challenge the status quo until higher sound and picture quality is available. And it isn't, yet.

But no one doubts that it will be, someday soon. Whether that happens because of greatly increased bandwidth or because of significant "video streaming" technology advances or both isn't important. One day, in the not too distant future, the Net will be a broadcast medium.

"As convergence happens, the landscape will change," says Zales.

The sports Web sites are ready. Levinsohn emphasized that CBS Sportsline plans to significantly upgrade its audio and video capabilities -- and downplays any concern that Web competition might cut into CBS profits.

"The approach that we are taking is, we want to be partners with the leagues -- we don't dilute their value, we're looking to enhance it," Levinsohn says. "If you are watching a football game on CBS, the Internet would allow you to integrate stats, live camera feeds and different angles."

"In terms of [the Web] being a direct competitor -- whether or not that will be an issue -- there are two things to consider," says Donovan. "One is how quickly the Web becomes a mass medium, to the extent it will become a major player in mass market advertising, and two, whether you can create real subscription services. I don't think you're there, yet. But believe me, my guys are sitting back and wondering when it's going to happen."

The possibility that significant advertising revenue may follow in the wake of technological advances encourages some observers to predict that valuable sports content will someday be available for free, just as it is today on broadcast TV. But if that scenario -- advertising supported Web broadcasting -- came to pass, major international sports events would be viewable around the globe. That would undercut the lucrative current scheme for divvying up broadcast rights according to geographic boundaries.

Such rights chaos is unlikely, however -- the current rights holders won't repeat the mistakes of the 1980s. State-of-the-art contract language, says Donovan, includes detailed "syndicated exclusivity" and "network non-duplication" clauses that arose in response to the rise of cable and direct satellite broadcasting. They are specifically designed to ensure that new technologies don't infringe on specific rights grants.

"One would assume that the same rules would be applicable regardless of the service," says Donovan.

The same rules will be applicable. Web access to sports events will be controlled so as not to upset the existing order. But, more generally speaking, Donovan's invocation of "the same rules" speaks to a much larger truth about how new technology shapes our entertainment consumption habits.

As we sit and chafe at yet another profile of a teenage American figure skater destined for Nagano gold glory, wishing for the day when we can use our WebTV remote control to zip straight to the German giant slalom skier of our heart's desire, we should pause and be thankful that we're getting anything at all, over the air, and in the clear. Because the rules that govern the intersection of sports broadcasting and new technology clearly declare that we must be prepared to pay for any new service. And even worse, the rise of new broadcast technologies constantly puts more pressure on the old way of doing things.

As well-heeled newcomers continue to bid up the rights to all sports events, we may well be required to pay for what once was free. The only revolution around here is a revolution in the efficiency with which sports fans' pockets are being picked.
SALON | Feb. 11, 1998