tombiro.com

Sometime in the early 80s, my family made the transition from so-called wireless television (rabbit ears and rooftop antennas) to “wired” reception, via the cable company. I believe the local provider was named TKR, at least for awhile, down at the Jersey shore, and we used this nifty cable box, which was amusingly, wired to the TV. We had 36 channels, tops.

Over time, TKR became someone else, and I moved a few times, going from Cablevision to Comcast to DirecTV back to Comcast then back to Cablevision, then to Verizon’s FiOS, then back to Comcast after moving across the country to Seattle. Those experiences had some highs and lows, but one thing was consistent – paying for the television we watched, as well as what we didn’t. You begin to figure out what “works” and what doesn’t, from provider to provider.

Sometimes you’re getting what seems like a good deal when it comes to all-in-one services, such as phone, cable and Internet, and sometimes it gets to be a bit much. Is there a value in paying for a wide swath of television? Sure. Are we finally at the point where someone with a little bit of knowhow can find a “better” way to experience what they want while still providing compensation back to content creators? Absolutely.

And with that, I’m happy to announce that we’ve “cut the cord” when it comes to paying (indirectly, at least) for television.

Wired to wireless
As of this week, I’ve canceled our Comcast account, having recently ported our telephone number to Clear, and am back to the days of “wireless” television reception. We’d had both services for a few months, just to make sure it was “doable,” and finally made a move. Now, don’t get me wrong – it’s “different” than what we had before. We don’t have 24-hour cable news access. I don’t have SportsCenter on at any time I want it. The two digital antennas that are set up on the TVs in the living room and bedroom do a pretty good job with pulling in the digital signals here in downtown Seattle – though they have their choppiness every so often, so it’s still needing some fine tuning, for lack of a better word. But it feels kind of refreshing.

Here’s the breakdown. We were paying just over $200 a month for cable television, our phone line, and our Internet. The only real “premium” channel we purchased was HBO, for things like “Big Love” and “Entourage.” $200 a month is a whole lot of money, and I can’t say I was really getting the most out of the “television” portion of the bill. Additionally, as we moved to Seattle just six months ago, I felt that having a little less draw to the TV on its terms, rather than ours, would be a good thing. Do we totally veg out a number of nights a week and watch shows? Absolutely. Are we beholden to any REAL scheduling? Not really.

Sure, I’ve had DVRs and TiVos off and on for years now, but there are still things that you watch when they’re on, just because. However, I’ve found that, after having moved to the left coast, my super-connectedness via things like Twitter and Facebook make it really tough to not hear ANYTHING about what’s on, and many of my friends and colleagues are watching / talking about things hours before they even air here. I’m sure that’s not the same for everyone living in the Western U.S., but it is for me.

Time-shifting as an aside, I was really struck by the math once I started to look at what things cost, and started comparing it to how we digest things at home here of late.

You don’t always watch what you pay for
When in one of the local shopping malls, I saw that I could purchase Clear’s wireless service and add phone service for $55/month. Forever. My head calculates that there was almost $150 left that I’d previously been paying just for television, when you break it down. Now sure, it’s not a perfect calculation as my Comcast service was a bit faster on the download and the upload, but I’ve noticed no letdown from a streaming perspective on Clear. Additionally, my VoIP phone service is at the same level of quality.

So, taking it one step further, I started looking at what kinds of things I could purchase via on demand via Amazon, what shows and movies were available to stream via Netflix, which we are already paying $18/month for (making our REAL total about $220/month), and so on.

“Can I still watch all my shows?
Once I started adding up the per-episode costs at $1.99 a pop or thereabouts, or “season” subscriptions for the shows that were on the premium TV services (cable, fiber, satellite), I realized that our all-in spend would probably be more like $100-$115/month – and that’s if we PAID for everything we wanted to watch and had it automagically downloaded to the web-connected TiVos in the bedroom and living room. So things like USA’s “Burn Notice” or AMC’s “Breaking Bad” could shift to “on-demand” shows that we purchased or streamed on computers, and shows like “American Idol,” “24″ or “Lost,” to name a few, would be recorded over-the-air and watched on a whim. Interested in getting into a new show? Request it at night from Amazon – on my TV screen – and have it ready soon after.

Is the “on demand” model the same as the instantaneous nature of the cable on-demand? Not quite. But I will say that I watched about five seasons of Showtime’s awesome “Weeds” via Netflix streaming, and had no issues using the phone or Internet in the background, in great quality on my 50″ plasma.

So that’s where we are now. I haven’t even re-hooked up the Mac mini we purchased expressly for this purpose and to view our photos and videos on TV, or to play music over our home audio equipment yet. Just wait until Boxee hardware shows up.

Again, it’s not a perfect solution, but I can honestly say that we’ve “cut the cord” from television, and are still “paying” customers of television programming. We’re just not paying a third party for everything we’re not watching. So while the NYT’s Brian Stelter might be spot on about how more and more Americans continue to pay monthly fees for their television, perhaps there’ll be a day soon where Americans are simply paying for television programming, rather than the conduit for a seemingly endless supply of television they may never get to, or even realize they are “getting.”

To sum it up, I’d say that if you’re one of those people who gets most of the news, sports and weather from the web or Internet-connected devices, this is an interesting proposition. If you’re not the one who isn’t into taking an extra step or two, or waiting ten minutes for something, then maybe we’re not there yet. But we’re close, in my opinion.

Here’s today’s links you need to click.

• Via Len Kendall, I give you “Galactic Empire State of Mind,” from College Humor, of course.
• The rumors are true. Ricky Martin is gay. I don’t know how this stayed quiet for so long. /sarcasm. But like Andrew Hampp says, An entire generation of Justin Bieber fans asks, “Ricky who?”
• For all of you “24″ fans, you’ll appreciate BuddyTV’s list of Jack Bauer’s Top 5 Human Rights Violations.
• Check out this great piece from “Nightline” on MTV and the changes the network has made / is making to get to where it is today. (yes, I’m biased)
• Wanna advertise during the series finale of ABC’s “Lost” later this spring? It’ll cost you $900,000. [via wired]
• Over at Technologizer, Harry McCracken gives a look back at (gasp!) Microsoft Bob, launched fifteen years ago this week.
• Aaaaand, last but not least, play Jason. You know you want to. [via Jenn]

On the first day of 2010, Cablevision television subscribers in the NY area might have been surprised to see that they no longer had HGTV and Food Network as part of their available cable lineups, something they might have missed, given the coverage that the News Corporation / Time Warner contract negotiations had been getting. Those organizations managed to work things out, keeping the News Corporation networks on the air for Time Warner subscribers.

The same can’t be said for those other two networks, however. On Monday afternoon, I caught this tweet by marketing consultant / blogger Katja Presnal, who had just found out about the channels going “missing” from her lineup, and saw her subsequent posts on the subject, which pointed to the I Love HGTV and I Love Food Network microsites that Scripps Networks, owners of those networks, had created to distribute information and activate affected customers. Scripps has also continued its media campaign on the issue, with Food Network President Brooke Johnson going on CNBC’s Power Lunch on Monday to discuss its position.

Both of those sites are smartly built, offering easy ways to get involved on Facebook, post directly to Twitter, watch videos, and get Scripps’ POV on the situation. For me, the first thing that jumped out was how fans of shows have made a splash before and whether or not these – again, smart and solid – tools would be enough to further this particular hard-line negotiation. What came to mind was the peanuts protest that fans of CBS’ “Jericho” enacted on the network after the show was cancelled after its first season. That particular protest worked, with some 20 tons of peanuts being sent to the network at a cost of more than $50,000, and the show returning for a second season, before ultimately being cancelled a second time.

You know what, though, people? Let’s take this whole thing to the next level. Vote with your wallets.

Now I’m not going to go down the road of a la carte television subscriptions – there are people far smarter than me that can handle that discussion. Check out what people like Tim Karr or Jeff Jarvis if you’re interested in more on that subject. I don’t want to say anything about who’s right or wrong here as I don’t know the financials involved, and have worked too closely on the network side of this type of standoff, but I’m more than happy to make a suggestion to move the needle.

Where I am going to go is that if you want to move that needle in 2010, you’ve gotta vote with your wallets, purses, PayPal accounts, and so on. Want to tell Cablevision (or Scripps Networks) how you feel about this particular situation? You’ve got a few options – you can cancel or change your service, or find another provider.

Or, you can take my suggestion, and send them a buck. Before people all start sending paint rollers or frying pans to corporate offices or whatever, take that money and make your opinion known to the powers that be, whether they be at Cablevision or Scripps Networks. In fact, I’ll put up $20 of my own singles to the first 20 Cablevision subscribers who email me (tom (at) tombiro (dot) com), and I’ll send a note on their behalf along with the dollar bill to Cablevision HQ.

No, seriously.

Listen – social media tools and campaigns like what Scripps is promoting definitely have a place, but this is going to continue to be a dollars and cents issue, especially as we start loading up on Hulu streams, Netflix instant viewing, and TV-friendly packages like Boxee become more mainstream.

So that’s my challenge – I’ll pony up twenty single dollar bills, plus postage, and the rest of you Cablevision subscribers need to do the rest.

Well, I heard some funny things on Twitter last night from friends on the East Coast who’d already caught SNL, and figured I’d share something that I got a kick out of with the rest of you, if you haven’t already seen it. Oh, it’s prolly not safe for work… Get ready for Andy Samberg and ummm “Reba McEntire” like you’ve never seen.

On Thursday, Jason Kottke posted an excellent item about drinking in the office like we were all on AMC’s “Mad Men,” which is an especially funny thought, even if you’ve never watched the show. For me, this is even more funny given a conversation I was in on Wednesday night and tweeted about while walking to the Union Square subway station, that I’m including here for your reading amusement.

Check out what happened when the fine folks at Double X got their drink on, below…

Andy Samberg takes not “being part of your system” to a whole new level, and pays for it in the end, in a digital short from last night’s SNL.

Also, If that wasn’t enough for you, make sure you check up on when Madonna and Lady Gaga showed up for “Deep House Dish” – it’s fascinating. “Saturday Night Live” for the win. Well, except for that Obama sketch at the open.

[update] Over at CliqueClack TV, Keith has posted the lyrics to “On The Ground,” for those of you interested in that sort of thing.

Have you seen the latest set of Microsoft ads for Windows 7, featuring the little girl, Kylie? I’m a huge fan of this particular spot, “Good News,” purely on the amusement factor, and Kylie’s use of word “responsive” to make it happen.

Today, I’m seeing buzz on Twitter about how there’s a new spot that’s been added to a campaign, and I’ve gotta say, this one takes it down a notch. or seven. Check out “Kylie’s Conversations” below.

“Good News” is a good spot, IMHO, because it’s quick, it briefly shows the origin of the text she uses, and most importantly, it’s fun. Kylie mispronounces “responsive” – as she should as a 4 1/2-year old (though maybe she’s five by now, considering this spot, “The Rookies,” is from February).

The second ad, “Kylie’s Conversations,” just “piles on” to what “Good News” brought to the table, seemingly hoping to garner the same respect its predecessor had. The reasonably random behavior of a young girl playing around on her dad’s computer is legit. I can suspend enough disbelief to think that she’d know how to throw a slide show (or get her photos together, like in “The Rookies” spot, and so forth, but to think that the little girl is going to continue to crank out slideshows of “happy words” is just silly, no? Isn’t there something else she could be doing on the computer?

To me, this is a PERFECT example of a “oh, THIS one worked like a charm, let’s make another one just like it.” Except that’s where it fails.

It isn’t just like “Good News” at all – it’s just another way to use Kylie as the medium to push the positive reviews about Windows 7 through. Oh, and while we’re at it, it’s nice that we broke down Microsoft PowerPoint to a point where we can have multiple popping bits of text on one screen. Gasp! Now I’m impressed.

Great execution on the the “Rookies” and “Good News” spots, but the “Conversations” ad completely missed the mark for me.

If you’re into USA’s “Psych,” then you’ll get a kick out of this. Check out Boyz II Men’s version of the show’s theme song, to be seen tonight (September 25).

On Thursday morning, the ever-thinking-about-cool-stuff David Pogue tweeted about those “You Will” television spots AT&T did in the early 1990’s, pointing out how “amazing” it was how many really came true. I guess we really shouldn’t be surprised by the seemingly brilliant future view that the company had, as surely they already had seen what would go into the products featured, which included everything from digital medical records, GPS, or the fact that one day, you’d have “borrowed a book…from thousands of miles away.”

And if you thought the voiceover sounded familiar, it was. Over at TV Squad, Bob Sassone reminds us that it was done by none other than Tom Selleck. Having lived the better part of my life in the neighborhood of the Holmdel, NJ location of Bell Labs, AT&T and the Baby Bells, etc. were always in the local news for one thing or another, and it was certainly a matter of local pride that a lot of cool stuff was created. Tens of thousands of patents and multiple Nobel Prize winners can’t be wrong.

Good show, AT&T.