your net:// Public comes poor second in the people's Games

There's something very wrong about these Olympic games. If we believe the event is about bringing all the countries of the world together in athletic competition to share the Olympic spirit of peace and global harmony, it follows we - as viewers and listeners - need to share in that too.

Why then, in age where more people than ever before could be watching and listening to games coverage through a medium that crosses global boundaries,
has the internet been singled out as a no show zone?

In a ruling contrary to the democratic spirit of the games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has banned live audio and video on the net.

Why? Because the television and radio rights have been sold for vast sums to broadcasters around the world who
are concerned that if the internet is allowed to carry audio and video, it will take away their viewers or listeners.

The problem is largely American in the making, dating back to August 1995 - long before the internet had raised its egalitarian head as a mass market medium.

That's when the IOC signed a $US705 million for the TV rights for the Sydney Games with United States broad
caster NBC. In 1997 NBC shelled out an additional $US2.3 billion to sew up the United States rights from 2004 to 2008.

Because of the time difference between Sydney and the United States NBC is delaying all its coverage by half a day in order to show the Olympics at prime time thereby maximising its advertising revenue. Unlike Kiwis who will happily get up in the middle of the
night to watch the All Blacks play live when they're touring in other parts of the world, American viewers, it seems, need their sleep.

Even net radio sites have been shut down. Tune into the BBC via the net, for example and you're met with a refined BCC announcer's voice advising the service is not available during the games due "to restrictions on audio streaming imposed by the IOC."

Similarly Radio Australia advises live programs are not
allowed because its "rights agreement does not include the distribution of ABC coverage by the internet" - though the same programs are available via its
shortwave or satellite radio service.

It's the time gap that gives the net an advantage. If web sites were permitted to provide live streaming video and audio, avid United States sports fans could be watching or listening to the games live via the net - pillaging some of NBC's vast US audience.

With big money at stake - NBC is forecasting $US900 million in advertising revenue from the games and other overseas broadcasters are paying a total $US615 million for rights - the IOC claims it had little choice but to protect its sponsors. It might also be concerned that NBC and others might sue the pants off it for breach of contract.

Either way the IOC is taking its policing task very seriously - hiring a Paris-based data intelligence company Datops and United Kingdom digital-rights manage
ment firm NetResult to help enforce its edict.

It's also begun legal action against thousands of websites around the world forcing them to stop using web address names containing the word "olympics."

Athletes too are banned from sending daily diaries to web sites about their Olympic experiences.

In the same vein, the IOC has banned athletes in Sydney from carrying any electronic device, or attaching one to their equipment, for gathering biometrics or positioning data for sending over the internet.

That means when watching the sailing for example, there'll be no net-based 3D animated coverage of the yachts as they race - as experienced during the America's Cup thanks to the technological brilliance of local company Virtual Spectator.

Neither will there be other graphic enhancements that the net could provide - such as animated "ghost" world record holder athletes running or swimming alongside real competitors. Or animated replays of throws in the discuss and javelin events.

As Virtual Spectator chief executive Craig Meek puts it "what the net could provide right now is the ability to watch the sports you want when you want." Rather than be constrained by the TV package presented in each country, avid beach volley-ball fans for example, could, via the net, watch every game - over and over
- if they chose.

But he's quick to point out that while the net could provide a number of new ways to view sports, it's not yet really ready for live video streaming. For that to be really successful, much more of the world's population needs fast broadband internet access, rather than the dial-up modem access most of us use. Any one who's tried to watch streaming video using a modem
connection will attest to the fact that peering at
jerky "post it note"-sized image is a far from
satisfactory experience. Which makes the IOC decision seem even more bizarre and ill informed.

The point is underlined by the IOC's late decision to grant some internet rights to closed audiences such as Australia's Optus@Home, high-speed cable access service, which will beam daily highlights video to computers in, potentially, 2.2m Australian homes.

Chello, a European broadband internet service provider, also plans to show Olympic video through a deal with a European TV station.

And in the United States internet sports provider Quokka in a deal with NBC which recently agreed to invest up to $US140.8 million in the company, will show 20-minute video highlight packages to broadband users.

The whole issue of internet rights for future Olympics will discussed at an IOC conference on new media sports coverage in Lausanne this December. Virtual Spectator will be there to try and show the IOC just what's possible via the net - such as the up close and personal experience of watching athletes pulse rates
delivered by tiny sensors embedded in their lycra body suits.

But there's a lot to be sorted out - such as whether "webcasts" are included in NBC's TV contract. If NBC can show it has the net rights sewn up, then the dot-coms may not get a look-in. Which may well demonstrate that "the people's games" belongs not to the people, but to large corporations who look to bottom-line profit first, and the people's interest second.