StoryBoard Tv

According to an article in yesterday’s NY Times, we are on the brink of 3D TV. Manufacturers will soon be releasing 3D capable sets, and the channels aren’t far behind – Discovery, Imax and Sony are partnering on one, and ESPN plans to launch ESPN 3D in June.

I can see how this technology would be cool for nature shows, and even a football game or two, but I just don’t know if I want to be watching something like The Office in 3D. I sort of like the world of television being IN my television, and me being on my couch. I wonder, if all TV eventually turns 3D, will we have more trouble separating ourselves from our fictional friends (see earlier post – Is TV your new boyfriend).

For more about what ESPN is planning, go here.

Your thoughts?

An article in today’s NY Times called “Next Up on Cable TV, Higher Bill for Consumers” does a very good job of explaining just why your cable bill is so high, and why it’s only going to get higher. For people who’ve been following the economic meltdown of the television industry, it’s nothing new – but for me it was interesting to see just how much I pay for channels I rarely, if ever, watch. For example, ESPN costs an average of $4.10 and the Fox Sports Network gets about $2.37 a month. I’m not an ardent sports fan – in fact, I’m not a sports fan of any kind – and yet these channels (and their costs) are bundled into my cable package. Even if I wanted to remove them, I couldn’t. I think at most I watch about 20 channels, and yet I’m paying for hundreds. If I paid for the channels I actually watched, my bill would be something like $20 a month.

Says the Times: “In Washington, where proposals for “à la carte” cable pricing were popular in recent years, some lawmakers and regulators now look to the Web as a more attractive, market-driven solution. Viewers will increasingly be able to bypass pay TV service and watch whatever they like online.”

Sounds good to me. The real question is, without television channels, who is going to fund the production of our favorite TV shows? As Fox has recently demonstrated, advertising alone cannot bring in enough cash to cover costs. Financial support from viewers is needed as well. Right now, this support comes in the guise of the cable bill. But if we were to lose cable, and just pay per show, would viewers be willing to kick in the money to watch?

You’d think that since we already pay for cable, the answer would be yes. And yet, I wager that most people think of their cable cost as an access fee to a world of free content. They would tell you that television should be, and is, free. And they would argue that the networks agree with them, because even without a cable subscription, most of a channel’s shows can be streamed free online.

But as Fox has most recently demonstrated, the status quo is just not sustainable.

My point: the coming revolution in television production (yes, the revolution will be televised) is going to require a complete mental reorganization on behalf on the viewer. If we want to see something, we’re going to have to pitch in to make it. If the audience for a particular show isn’t extremely large, we may have to deal with lesser production values in order to keep it “on the air”. But in this approaching sea change, we might just become more committed to watching shows that really make a difference to us – because hey, this time we’re paying for them.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ve noticed by now that I’m turning tech crazy. I promise, after today, I will get back to more philosophical/theological issues regarding TV.

But I’m just so excited about the future of media distribution. I love that someday soon I can choose NOT to use a cable company (as long as Comcast doesn’t take over the world). An article in today’s New York Times features some computer saavy people who’re already experiencing cable freedom. Still seems a bit too complicated for my tastes, but exciting nonetheless.

So apparently I am way behind the whole TV technology curve, because I thought ROKU was the only alternative box, and of course, because we live in a capitalist society where anyone is free to compete, there are TONS of alternatives.

And one such alternative is Boxee. I recommend you check it out. Besides the fact that the design is really f—ing cool, their new software (currently in beta form) makes navigating around different types of media look really fun. Plus, you can add apps that give you access to Netflix, web channels, etc.

All I’m saying is that the future looks bright for webTV. Take that, Comcast.

“In response, Comcast and other operators are busy creating so-called authentication systems that will allow subscribers to stream a buffet of shows — but will lock out people who do not pay for cable.”

Interesting article in the NY TIMES about the Comcast – NBC deal. Read it here. Yikes!

This morning, Comcast reached a deal with GE to buy NBC Universal. What does this mean for the future of television viewing? Time Magazine’s TV critic James Poniewozik speculates in his blog that while it may not mean much in the short term, in the long term it’s a game changer. It’s an interesting article, and I think quite clearly explains what changes we could be seeing – such as being able to watch tv on various media devices, seeing movies released to the small screen in quicker time, and being forced to pay for services like Hulu.

The scary thing about this Comcast buy is that other media companies might also strike deals just to compete. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief executive of the Media Access Prokect, claimed in the LA Times today that “if media ownership were further concentrated, consumers would see higher prices and fewer choices.” According to this article, he warned that online video and other new forms of competition could be squashed “before they can gain a toehold in the market.”

Interesting times…

What is ROKU? Well, as far as I can tell, ROKU started out as an Apple TV for Netflix content. It’s a small box you connect to your TV that allows you to stream available media from the nice people who send you DVDs in red envelopes. What makes it different than Apple TV is that you get to stream content immediately (no downloading) and everything you watch is included in the price of your Netflix subscription. Where this wonder gadget falls short, of course, is that you can’t instantly access new shows. So if you want to watch the latest episode of Mad Men, you’re out of luck until the whole series comes out on DVD.

Ok, all that said, I’m feeling a bit about ROKU because of what’s happened since its inception and because of where I think it’s headed. Since joining with Netflix, it’s also added a channel of Amazon Video on Demand (you pay per watch) as well as MLB baseball (so you can stream live games and watch archived ones). PLUS, it’s started working with internet channels. You can now stream some shows made directly for the internet onto your tv screen. Right now, there are only 2 or 3 internet channels, each heavily curated so you can’t just watch anything you want to. But I imagine that eventually, more channels will be added and that these channels will begin to act more like portals than like networks (think iTunes instead of NBC). And I’m hoping too that ROKU will start making deals with internet channels that are live streaming (like Ustream, Justin.tv, etc.)

So, my question is this: Is ROKU the first step in a TV making revolution – one that allows creators to bypass networks and stream what they want to make directly to the viewer? Interested to hear your thoughts…

I keep telling anyone who will listen that the network model is dead and soon we’ll be using our television sets to call up programming on the internet. Meaning, people will be following SHOWS rather than niche network programming. And perhaps, then, there will be a revolution in story creation, new fiction television will flood the marketplace, and world peace will finally be achieved. Right? Of course right.

Anyway, an interesting article in last week’s USA TODAY talks about what’s going on in the web tv world, so if you’re interested in what the future holds, you might want to check it out.

I was reading an article in NY Magazine, posted on November 8th, called “Will Somebody Please Save NBC?” (http://nymag.com/news/media/61857/) and have been wondering since then whether NBC, or any other network, is really worth saving.

As has been well illustrated by the folks over at NBC, running a network is a costly business and when you have a large company of mouths to feed, it all really does come down to the bottom line. Sadly, Jay Leno and reality tv are both much, much cheaper to make than one hour television dramas.

And now, with the proliferation of DVRs and websites dedicated to streaming television shows, people really aren’t watching any particular network anyway. They’re watching SHOWS, regardless of channel placement.

Case in point: “Mad Men” – Does it even matter what else is on AMC?

I think the death of the network might be a good thing for fiction television. 5 million viewers will no longer be something to scoff at – because those 5 million viewers will not be responsible for subsidizing shows with even less viewers on any given channel.

They’ll just stand alone as 5 million people who like watching a show. That’s a lot of people.