Fan Network Rant

[JohnZ]

a post above stated the video quality was not promised. While they didnt promise a certain bitrate, the quality has gone down. compare that with what they DID promise in an email this spring:

have they provided on these new features? Its a little better on the first, the 'streamlined browsing experience' isnt much when the fan network wont even load half the time, and the 'bigger and better video quality' is an epic fail.

Beat me to it - it is also posted Here on the DCI website.

[pags]

a post above stated the video quality was not promised. While they didnt promise a certain bitrate, the quality has gone down. compare that with what they DID promise in an email this spring:

have they provided on these new features? Its a little better on the first, the 'streamlined browsing experience' isnt much when the fan network wont even load half the time, and the 'bigger and better video quality' is an epic fail.

That may very well be in part due to your computer. I at least know that I have had NO problems with viewing the videos at home. They load quickly and the audio (taking into account where the microphone was placed) is adequate, at least. As with anothr poster who posted earlier, MY rates are fine. Different people have different amounts of memory, different processors, different graphics cards, etc., all of which factor in at least in part to tbe viewing and audio experience. Am I saying this is the TOTAL issue? No, of course not, but people are focusing solely on the DCI side of things and not factoring in other variables.

Personally, as for the "streamlined" issue, I had no problem with the old format. I can see how the current look would be streamlined to some, but I personally preferred the old way. But that is just a personal preference and, again, I can see how it would be streamlined to some. It all comes down to WHAT you're trying to streamline.

I just feel people are going too far when they call this an EPIC FAIL. The truth is FAR away from that description.

[AlexL]

That may very well be in part due to your computer. I at least know that I have had NO problems with viewing the videos at home. They load quickly and the audio (taking into account where the microphone was placed) is adequate, at least. As with anothr poster who posted earlier, MY rates are fine. Different people have different amounts of memory, different processors, different graphics cards, etc., all of which factor in at least in part to tbe viewing and audio experience. Am I saying this is the TOTAL issue? No, of course not, but people are focusing solely on the DCI side of things and not factoring in other variables.

Personally, as for the "streamlined" issue, I had no problem with the old format. I can see how the current look would be streamlined to some, but I personally preferred the old way. But that is just a personal preference and, again, I can see how it would be streamlined to some. It all comes down to WHAT you're trying to streamline.

I just feel people are going too far when they call this an EPIC FAIL. The truth is FAR away from that description.

its not my computer, that you can trust me on. i have 2 here, similar problems, both less than a year old. And plenty of bandwidth.

[Nizerifin]

its not my computer, that you can trust me on. i have 2 here, similar problems, both less than a year old. And plenty of bandwidth.

Are you clicking on the dci logo or the little play button next to it?

[AlexL]

Are you clicking on the dci logo or the little play button next to it?

im not having troubles getting the videos to actually play right now. the site has had a lot of downtime recently, theres no denying that. When its up, i have no problem getting the video, and it streams well (usually) but as the OP said, the stream contains within it audio that is not so good.

back to the original topic... where are the ogden and columbia vids?

[pags]

EXCELLENT post! and I agree in large measure.

It's like those commercials where the ladies go up to the hot dog vendor and he gives them ONLY the hot dog and no bun. He says, "read the sign." It only says, "hot dogs." Or the guy who goes through the car wash but all the suds are still on the car because they didn't say car wash AND rinse.

Did those people receive what they paid for? Yes. However, one could make the case that their are implied services when you order something. Where we may be talking past each other is in the area of what did we expect were those implied services?

Hyperbolicly speaking, let's say that I paid $59 for my FN service and they did not upload ANY of the videos on demand until the first week of August. Would I have a right to complain? After all, DCI didn't promise WHEN they would upload them. But, I think there is an implied understanding that they would upload them in a timely fashion, especially since a precedent has been set.

Let me change my anaology a bit. If I order some chicken at a restaurant should I expect it to be moist or bone dry? What if it is in fact bone dry? Did I get what I ordered? Technically, yes. Should I complain? Sure I should. Will it be resolved? Maybe. Should I order chicken from there again? Depends.

Excellent post yourself. Your examples are exactly why I stated "reasonable" expectations. Obviously we as consumers have a right to expect something from DCI. But your examples lean more toward them doing the worst job possible, i.e. getting BELOW the bare minimum of expectation. I just don't feel that describes what we've been presented so far. Would I love for the performances to be loaded up within minutes? Abso-freakin-lutely! But is that a reasonable standard just because they have been able to do that in the past? Not necessarily. Now, that doesn't mean they should wait 2 weeks to get them loaded either, but "reasonable" is a very subjective term, so you end up finding yourself with a lot of middle ground. I just want people to realize that simply because they don't get exactly what they want, how they want it, when they want does not mean they should treat it like they NEEDED it in that manner or that the product in question is an "epic fail."

[MagicBobert]

The quality drops shouldn't be due to the economy...

That's not entirely true. Bits are expensive when you don't have peering agreements (and DCI is way to small to be peering with anyone).

DCI uses Brightcove for their video distribution network (not a choice I would have made, but whatever) so they shouldn't be having scaling problems because Brightcove's CDN will scale just fine to the amount of traffic DCI expects.

This leads me to believe one of three things are happening here:

1) They are being hit harder with bandwidth costs than they expected from Brightcove, and are trying make up for it by lowering their bitrates. This doesn't seem all that likely to me, specifically because things like the Stanford webcast have 1500 Kbps video, which makes me think that it's more likely that...

2) The guy at the helm doesn't know what he's doing. The only time you should ever use something as low as 16 Kbps is for spoken word. You should never encode music with a bit rate that low, in fact 48 Kbps is pushing it. Music should always be encoded at at least 64 Kbps, and considering that this is a music-driven activity, one could argue that they should crank up the bit rate since more emphasis is put on the music. I would rather have had 768 Kbps for video and 128 Kbps for audio on the Stanford VOD than the rather lopsided 1500/16 that was used. However, I find it hard to believe that the person who built Fan Network is a complete idiot, as the structure of such a site is relatively sophisticated. Thus, I think it may be more likely that...

3) DCI has ulterior motives in keeping the bit rates low. Perhaps they are afraid that a decent audio bitrate will cannibalize their APD sales. Perhaps they are afraid that decent video will cannibalize their DVD sales. It's tough to tell, but if they are concerned about that they could take a big lesson from the record and movie industries. Most people who pirate your content would never had paid for it anyway, even if it cost a penny, so they aren't lost sales. Treating your paying customers like potential criminals doesn't increase your sales, it leaves you with ###### off paying customers who won't pay for your stuff again.

I understand why the live streams may be lower quality. I've never done business with Brightcove, so I don't know if their infrastructure supports live streams, but if it doesn't, lower bit rates are fine. Live streaming is a whole different beast, especially if you're not taking advantage of things that cut down your infrastructure requirements like multicast. But there's no reason they can't be recording the show and upload higher quality versions later for on-demand.

Lastly, I am still irritated that the Fan Network doesn't work correctly in Firefox. Don't say "works in my Firefox", it doesn't. There's some poor JavaScript programming in there that causes navigation problems Firefox. As a web developer myself, I would be embarrassed if any of my sites didn't work in Firefox, especially since it's more standards-compliant than IE.

Edited July 10, 2009 by MagicBobert

[victrussell]

Again, expectations have to be reasonable.

What is unreasonable about expecting DCI to provide video for a show that includes the Madison Scouts during the first half of the season? I note, for example, two DCI videos of the Mandarins and two of the Colts (corps that did not make the top 12 last year and were also involved in rained-out shows) were posted (by DCI and not the individual corps!). Also, DCI posted videos of several Open Class corps. It looks to me like the Scouts is the only top 12 corps for whom DCI has not posted a video. Why couldn't DCI video the Michigan City show -- a site just up the road from DCI headquarters in Indianapolis? I don't think DCI was even handed in choosing shows to video tape.

I understand that DCI will cover a show that includes the Scouts on July 11 in Denver. The Scouts, however, are rumored to be putting changes into their show for Denver. That means there are no early Scouts shows posted to compare with the Denver show. I think my complaint is very reasonable.

Vic Russell

[AlexL]

What is unreasonable about expecting DCI to provide video for a show that includes the Madison Scouts during the first half of the season? I note, for example, two DCI videos of the Mandarins and two of the Colts (corps that did not make the top 12 last year and were also involved in rained-out shows) were posted (by DCI and not the individual corps!). Also, DCI posted videos of several Open Class corps. It looks to me like the Scouts is the only top 12 corps for whom DCI has not posted a video. Why couldn't DCI video the Michigan City show -- a site just up the road from DCI headquarters in Indianapolis? I don't think DCI was even handed in choosing shows to video tape.

I understand that DCI will cover a show that includes the Scouts on July 11 in Denver. The Scouts, however, are rumored to be putting changes into their show for Denver. That means there are no early Scouts shows posted to compare with the Denver show. I think my complaint is very reasonable.

Vic Russell

Im sorry... scouts just got unlucky with rainouts. I can very much empathize and understand the frustration. Theres only so much DCI can do there though , and in this case, any financial limitations DCI may have faced in this economy would become all the more applicable when you start talking about paying to send someone up to the show with a video camera to record the show. Some of the lower placing corps just happened to be lucky in that they were at shows that 1. were on video, and 2. were not rained out. In addition, a lot of the west coast corps have gotten on video regardless of placement because there have been a few more big shows out there, such as stanford, where everyone that was on the west coast tour was at (including some open class corps). Everyone else has been pretty spread out.

I wouldve loved michigan city video as well, as blue stars only have had one video.

As far as amount of shows covered, last year a lot of corps didnt get on video at all until about this time. There were several more early season shows set for recording, and a few of them got rained out in the midwest.

Edited July 10, 2009 by alarson83

[ShortAndFast]

I just feel people are going too far when they call this an EPIC FAIL. The truth is FAR away from that description.

It's maybe not an Epic Fail, but it's a big step backwards from the 2008 product.

I don't think DCI is serving themselves well with the current FN product. If they needed to charge more money to deliver at 2008 levels, I think that would have been the smarter move for them.