The PhoneBoy Blog » entertainment

ScreenPlay TV Link from iomega

PhoneBoy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:46:30 +0000

Sometimes, simple is good. And in the ScreenPlay TV Link from iomega, that’s exactly what you have. A simple device that you can hook up to any TV–component, composite, and SCART connections included–and play video files off of a USB drive, be it flash or a portable hard drive. If you have a HDTV, you can also hook it up with HDMI, but the cable isn’t included in the package.

What I had been doing to watch videos on my TV was to bring my MacBook down to my living room, hook it up with a Mini-DVI to composite cable, and use Front Row or Boxee to navigate my way to my videos to play. Works, but it’s a bit bulky and the video quality wasn’t always great.

This device works better. I did have a little difficulty when I first hooked it up, most likely because I have a nearly 20 year old television, but the included quickstart manual tells you how to resolve this problem. Shortly, I had a screen showing me a list of some of the movies I had shoved onto a USB thumb drive and plugged into the back of the unit. I could easily navigate with the remote control and select a video for viewing.

Why didn’t I have all the movies listed on my screen? They all weren’t encoded properly. The ScreenPlay TV Link doesn’t support every video encoding format, but it does support several common ones, including DivX and directories straight from a DVD!

After reencoding the videos that weren’t displaying on the list, I tried again. They were all there and played on my ancient TV in excellent quality!

Certainly there are other, more capable devices out there, but for what I need, this is perfect for both my home use and when I travel. It even includes interchangeable power prongs for US, UK, and EU use! I just wish it came with a small travel bag, but beyond that, it’s a fantastic buy!

Comments

30 January 2009, Dave Michels writes: Does it have a network port? All of my movies are on a NAS drive.
30 January 2009, Vik writes: Check out WD TV http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=572 supports all the formats of the iomega box and more (like mkv) plus it works with the Mac hfs file system. For NAS there is always the popcorn hour http://www.popcornhour.com/
31 January 2009, PhoneBoy writes: The WD TV box looks like it would have been the better buy. At least I wouldn't have to do as much transcoding with it ;)

This work originally came from The PhoneBoy Blog and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Fingerprint: e37ac627f3d973694c212ff9430d215a

They’re Doing WHAT To The Electric Company?

PhoneBoy — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:43:46 +0000

Growing up, The Electric Company was one of my favorite shows. I didn’t realize necessarily that it was trying to teach me how to read, or that it had big-name stars acting in it. It was just a fun show to watch after Sesame Street.

While I don’t make a habit of watching kids TV, it is an occupational hazard of having kids and working at home. One day, after one of the kids shows on PBS, there was a preview for something called The Electric Company. No, it’s not what I grew up with, but the segment or two they showed had elements of what I remember.

Then I go find the site PBS has set up for The Electric Company, which is set to premiere in January 2009. While it certainly has a lot of the same educational elements, and includes lots of animated vignettes like the original, they’ve turned what used to be a daily variety show for kids into a weekly show with an actual plot.

This show is coming out in a very different time from the 1970, when the original aired. Educational TV was still a relatively new concept in America, and there wasn’t a whole lot of other choices. There certainly wasn’t computers, the Internet, mobile phones, and who-knows what else. In the early part of the 21st Century, we’ve got 500 channels on TV, a bazillion web pages on the Internet, mobile phones, and more. Much like finding this blog post amongs the infinite bits of the Internet might be a challenge, getting the word out about The Electric Company and breaking through to kids is going to be a challenge.

Why am I writing about this program here, on a technology blog? Very simple: reading is important to technology. It’s important to just about anything else you do in life as well. It’s one of those fundamental building blocks.

And maybe, if you have kids around the 7-9 age range and you happen to stumble across this post, you’ll take a look at this program on your local PBS station when it comes out in January. Maybe the kids will like it, maybe they won’t. Hard to say. Given Sesame Workshop’s past history of excellent educational shows, it’s certainly worth a try.

Comments

3 December 2008, SomaCow 254: It’s Beginning To Look… | SomaCow writes: [...] They’re Doing WHAT To The Electric Company? [...]

Why TV Will Be More Lean-Forward In The Future

PhoneBoy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:10:06 +0000

I am now convinced that, over time, TV as we know it today will be more lean-forward, i.e. watched on a computer versus a television screen (lean-back).

My 8 year old son and my 4 year old daughter–without any assistance from me–have discovered they can watch TV programs online. They watch kid-stuff, like shows on Nick Jr and the stuff on 4Kids Entertainment that populates two of the local channels here on Saturday mornings. They eat this stuff up. They don’t care that it’s on a computer, it’s just a screen to them.

I myself watch things on sites like Hulu, Fancast, and the network sites far more often than I watch things on a regular TV. Heck, I watch videos on my mobile phone about as often as I’ll see something on TV.

While I grew up having to plan to be at the TV to watch a certain program, between videos we have at home and the Internet, my kids are growing up with the ability to watch pretty much what they want when they want. As they get older, they’re not going to accept anything less than that.

The only way I could see TV continuing to be lean-back is if the content choice and viewing flexibility on the computer screen is there and easier to use on the big-screen TV. What do you think?

Comments

2 October 2008, Irfon-Kim Ahmad writes: It's going the other way for me, actually. I watch more computer-sourced content (videos that I downloaded online, etc.) on the TV now than I used to. I control more non-visual media (my mp3 collection, etc.) via the TV than I used to. I also do more of my basic computing (checking e-mail, browsing the web) on the TV than I used to. And I do almost all of my video gaming on the TV, compared to doing all of it on the computer until relatively recently. In general, I spend a lot more time in front of the television and a lot less time in front of my computer than ever before. The majority of this can be chalked up to the Playstation 3, but I suspect that more devices will fill that role for other people. What I think about the way this is going is that increasingly people will be able to choose to experience their content wherever they like. Where they'll choose will largely depend on the situation. In a household like mine, the television is a great choice for a lot of content because the couch is more comfortable, the television is larger, the sound is good (although my computer's sound is possibly better when it's "docked"), etc. In households with a lot more people than mine, or with children, or where people want a lot of privacy, etc., then they might go the other way, choosing a personal device rather than the television for those reasons. Also, I don't know how much longer these distinctions will exist anyway. I've almost never watched television shows on my computer. When I didn't watch them on my TV via the PS3, I watched them handheld on my PSP. Is that lean-back or lean-forward? Sometimes when I want a nice large view and plan to spend a lot of time and want the comfy couch, or when I want to use a different sound system to demo audio in a more "home theater" setting rather than a more "studio" setting, I plug my laptop into the television and lean back with a keyboard on my lap and the mouse next to me. That's sort of both, under your definitions, isn't it? I mean, I'm leaning back, but I'm using my computer, but it's on the TV.
2 October 2008, spg writes: one of the most common qquestion i am asked lately is how to attach a computer to a TV. i see a lot of people wanting to make to computer 'lean back' in the living room. we may find that it we have a lean forward and than back model. with people watching TV as internet feeds but than pushing back onto the big TV screen in the living room.
2 October 2008, spg writes: just want to add. i know a few people who live in apartment with free wifi who have not signed up for cable they watch video solely on there computer. but this has a much to do with 'free' in terms both of money and subscriptions as a real decision. these people may prefer to have a cable subscription; but not as much as they prefer not to pay. if free muni- WiFi were to ever take off and could support video lean-forward would become much more popular.
3 October 2008, Goca writes: Computer have much more adds and its cool to use it,u can do anything what u want.TV is bored....
4 October 2008, Jill writes: No doubt, the internet is now a growing delivery source of TV style entertainment and eventually it'll be everyone's distribution arm of choice. But the question for me is this: will kids like your 4 & 8 year old who grew up with computers on their laps want lean-back entertainment like traditional TV or will they want something a little more interactive?

Anathem: Light Reading (Not)

PhoneBoy — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:41:08 +0000

Given the relative funk I’ve been in with respect to blogging, I’ve been trying to expose my mind to some different information. Stuff that’s a bit out of my ordinary. Books are rare for me.

Thanks to some amazon.com gift certificates, I found myself with a relatively cheap way to obtain Neal Stephenson‘s latest novel, Anathem. At this writing, I am close to the half-way mark, at the start of Part 7. Not bad for only having had the book less than 36 hours. I’ve had plenty of opportunity to read.

The book is about a different world–not unlike ours–but with a much different history. And a much different vocabulary. For example, the word plane is not short for airplane, but it means to “utterly destroy a person’s position in the course of Dialog.” Math isn’t short for mathematics, but rather “a relatively small community of avout.” A Jeejah is what we’d call a smartphone, i.e. a mobile phone with camera, web browser, media player, and so on.

Because of the remarkable difference in vocabulary, it has been a bit of work to keep certain aspects of what is going on straight. However, that’s a good thing. It’s making that brain work.

Meanwhile, I’ve got a fair bit of reading to do].

Comments

25 September 2008, Anathem review - Neal Stephenson writes: [...] Anathem: Light Reading (Not) [...]
19 October 2008, Blogging Speculative Fiction in the NYT Book Review « Books Worth Reading writes: [...] Anathem: Light Reading (Not) [...]

Made a Cameo in the Latest Mobile Industry Review Show

PhoneBoy — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:01:52 +0000

Last week, I went out to the waterfront here in Gig Harbor to meet someone to learn about a company currently in stealth mode. While I was waiting–and while the weather was fantastic that day–I took a couple of short movies that made their way into Episode 25 of the Mobile Industry Review show.

Being as I was by myself, I didn’t get quite the shots I was after. I was also battling the sun in my eye. Hopefully I don’t look too dorky, but I had fun shooting them.

Fancast: Watching TV In The Cloud

PhoneBoy — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:16:30 +0000

I can’t remember where exactly I heard of Fancast. Maybe it was those stupid emails Comcast send out to customers every month. Why? Because Fancast is a Comcast joint.

So what is it? It’s yet another one of these aggregate portals where you can video content from CBS, FOX, NBC, Comedy Central, etc. Over 38,000 videos you can watch for free–with ads, of course. The ads, unfortunately, got a bit repetitive. I saw the same ads more than once–in the same show!

Most of the videos on there play directly on the Fancast site. Shows on ABC, however, are directed to the appropriate page on the ABC site.

I liked how well it “found” stuff, but I found the player to crash Firefox 3.0 on my Mac on several occasions–particularly on the transition between ads and content. There is no marker on the player where the commercial breaks are, making it difficult to resume when the browser restarts.

Assuming the Flash player doesn’t crash your browser, if you leave the window open for an extended period of time and you’ve paused whatever it is you were watching, it recovers far better than Hulu, which frequently doesn’t under the same circumstances.

My question, though, is whether or not these programs I view on Fancast count against my250GB cap.

Comments

11 September 2008, fancastfan writes: Hi, Thanks for noting Fancast. We think our our library of free TV shows is second to none - not only great current hits like CSI, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Family Guy, Kitchen Nightmares, etc. but classics, including some of my favs from the golden age of CBS comedies, like the Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, and even Dick Van Dyck shows - programs you can’t find playing on TV anymore. We have movies too, by the way! Sorry to hear you had some tech glitches. We recently launched some improvements on the site, including an embeddable browser, but we always want to hear feedback from our users, so let us know of any issues you may find. And your readers may be interested to see our amazing selection of free programming. TV here http://www.fancast.com/full_episodes Movies here http://www.fancast.com/movies Cheers, Jim (for Fancast)

A-La Carte Cable More Expensive?

PhoneBoy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:56:37 +0000

I got a comment on my blog from someone from CableTechTalk, which is a blog of sorts set up by the National Cable and Television Association (NCTA). Clearly, this is a lobbying firm for the cable MSOs in the United States.

The post they linked to my blog dissects the A-La Carte pricing and why it is ultimately bad for consumers. However, instead of going through that post, I will dissect their talking points on a-la carte programming and why mandating it is bad for consumers.

Prices Will Go Up Because Of The Need For Set Top Boxes

They mention lots of points here, but what it boils down to is that in order to implement a-la carte pricing, you need a set-top box. Many people–myself included–don’t have a cable TV set-top box. They estimate it will drive up the cost of basic cable by $11.41, which in my case would nearly double the cost of cable.

Don’t you need a set-top box for anything beyond basic cable anyway? If I want the right to choose other channels, fine, let me bear that cost, either by leasing the cable box or buying it outright. Leasing set top boxes, cable modems, etc, is a scam in my point of view.

Reduced Diversity Of Programs

They say that less popular channels are bundled with more popular channels, in a sense creating a subsidy effect. Advertising on many of these cable networks are sold based on the number of potential viewers, not necessarily the number of people actually viewing the channel. If everything goes a-la carte, then the ad revenue of these networks goes way down, causing some channels to fold.

How is this a bad thing, seriously? I get overwhelmed when I go to anyone’s house but my own. There are too many channels to keep track of, what’s on where, when, etc.

It Will Change The Way People Enjoy Television

And this is a bad thing how, exactly? Oh yes, I can’t “channel surf” and “discover new programs” in the way you would have me do it.

Guess what, Tivo and it’s bretheren did the same thing. Instead of being held hostage by TV schedules and figuring out how to program a VCR, you just tell Tivo what you want to watch, it records it. It also records stuff you might be interested in, based on your previous viewing habits.

As far as discovering new shows? I have friends that I socialize with. We occasionally talk about what we saw on the Internet or on TV. I’d much rather find programs that way than surf 500 channels to find what I want to watch. Takes much less time and, generally, is far more enjoyable.

Studies Other People Did Agree With NCTA’s Views

They list things like the FCC report, a report by Bear Stearns, General Accounting Office, Kagan Research, Sanford Bernstein and others say the same thing: it hurts programming choice and raises prices.

I think forcing everyone to a-la carte is not what the FCC has in mind here. What they want to do is mandate that cable companies offer a-la carte, not require everyone to have it.

If people want to buy 500 channels of crap, let them do it. However, don’t make that the only way people can buy television. Not everyone wants to do it that way.

Of course, what I suspect would happen is that the cable companies would intentionally make the prices ridiculously high so that very few people would go a-la carte and they’d maintain their existing business model. Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen.

Regardless of the FCC getting involved, more and more consumers are finding alternate ways to watch video entertainment. The Internet has many, many great programs that quite simply aren’t on conventional TV. And guess what? The conventional television networks are enabling it. The cable companies only serve as bit delivers in this scenario.

The TV networks like it when you view programs over the Internet. Why? Because not only can they essentially force you to watch the commercial, they have a much better idea that you actually did watch it, too. Can cable companies say that about the ads they air on the various cable TV networks? Will companies pay more to know their ads has been seen?

It’s a little too soon to see how this will play out, though my money is on the cable companies becoming little more than bit shufflers unless they get much smarter about how they package and sell TV content.

Comments

3 September 2008, CableTechTalk writes: The point about set-top boxes is rooted in the fact that technology is required to deliver a la carte services. That will change over time as technology continues to develop, so I'm not sure if this is such a key point as it once was. But if you think leasing cable boxes is a scam, you're also upset that DIRECTV, DISH, FiOS, and U-verse - competitors to cable - all require set-top boxes, right? How is reduced diversity a bad thing? Well, you're theory seems to be that programming should be a survival of the fittest. Let all the networks fight it out and only the strong survive. What if your favorite channels are the ones to fall and the ones that survive are the ones you hate. Are you better off? In an a la carte world, advertising revenue plummets, affiliate revenue goes down, and networks now have to spend marketing dollars on promoting each channel more heavily. That means the SCI FI Channel has less money to invest in shows like Battlestar Galatica. As for TiVo's ability to let you discover new programming, that only works because TiVo can sort through all the available channels. In an a la carte world TiVo only has access to the channels you already subscribe to. And when your friends tell you about a hot new show, you won't be able to check it out without subscribing to the whole channel. As for the Internet, it's already having an effect on TV viewing and advertising, but it's very early in the game and it remains to be seen how it will play out.
4 September 2008, PhoneBoy writes: Yes, I consider all set-top boxes that I am charged monthly for scams, regardless of the service provider or the technology used. If I could buy a standard, off-the-shelf cable box and use it on any cable system in the country, it'd be a little different. By saying a-la carte channels, you are completely missing the point. I don't want to buy channels. I want to buy programs. Cable companies could make it easy to, say, get the first episode of any program for free, a-la the occasional "free episode" on iTunes. Want more? Buy a season pass.
4 September 2008, JimAtJaxtr writes: I think your point about programs is well-made because people watch programs, not channels. If itunes has taught us anything, it's that people increasingly want more control over the type of content that they view,listen to, and so forth. And on a more humorous note, stumbleupon's video section has taken over the role of channel surfing in my life.
4 September 2008, PhoneBoy writes: StumbleUpon is kind of fun that way. :)
11 September 2008, cribbagegeek writes: Additionally, the cable companies lose revenue with a la carte programming, because they would then have a harder time ensuring that THEIR OWN advertisers (cable companies insert their own commercials over the content providers' commercials, seemingly at whim - still can't figure out how that is legal/allowed) will get adequate coverage. They would have to maintain far larger sets of pricings for the breadth of popularities that would exist.
13 September 2008, Eric writes: The problem with all systems is that it still allows the cable provider to set the price, and in doing so they will do so to make a-la carte as expensive as possible to make the tiered service more appealing. They will require set-top boxes and probably require long term contracts as well. Anything to improve the EPS.
14 September 2008, PhoneBoy writes: I wouldn't expect the cable operators to charge a fair price a-la carte. I'm a bit cynical, like you are, Eric :)

Comcast: Sell Me The Shows, Already!

PhoneBoy — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:07:43 +0000

After thinking about the Comcast 250GB cap thing a bit more, I really think the caps are anti-competitive. Yeah, I said it, anti-competitive. Why? Because watching video downloaded over the Internet–particularly high-quality video–will make it very easy to meet or exceed that 250GB cap. And guess who is losing out when you view video over the Internet? That’s right, the cable operators.

Of course, I’m not talking about watching videos of dancing cats on YouTube. I’m talking about watching video that might otherwise show up be viewable via the cable television. Programs that you have to pay far too much for the privilege to watch, in my opinion.

For example, in order to get the program Battlestar Galatica over cable, for instance, I have to subscribe to a package that contains the SciFi Channel, where it is on in the United States. That would more than quadruple our nice $13/mo bill for cable television, not to mention bring in a bunch of other channels I don’t want in the house. And if I want Penn and Teller: Bulls***!, I have to subscribe to Showtime, adding another $12.95 a month to my cable bill!

If I simply acquire these shows on the web, downloading them over my Comcast connection, I can do it cheaper than my cable TV bill would be and I get the benefit of being able to watch the program when and where I want to. I am not paying for programs I don’t want to watch.

Here’s my question: why can’t Comcast deliver me these shows? In a sense, they are, but why can’t I download the television programs from Comcast directly? They’re already getting the shows to deliver to us over a conventional broadacst television system. Why not package up the individual programs and sell them a-la carte to consumers?

The programs you buy from Comcast could be delivered by a PVR that they lease you or digitially to a computer, using either Windows Media or working a deal with Apple for iTunes support. Or better yet, ditch the DRM entirely!

photo credit: orphanjones

Comments

2 September 2008, CableTechTalk writes: Problem #1: If network management is only for anti-competitive reasons, then why do colleges and universities also manage their networks due to P2P traffic? Problem #2: Your opinion may be "that you have to pay far too much for the privilege to watch" programming, but that doesn't mean that the price you'd like to pay is realistic. Problem #3: You think that paying shows on the Web in an "a la carte" fashion will save money, but it might not. Problem #4: I know you'd like to buy all programming a la carte, but that might pose problems for the programmers.

So Why Not iTunes?

PhoneBoy — Tue, 20 May 2008 08:01:59 +0000

I have a couple of Macs–and a lot of PCs. While I don’t listen to music that often, I have collected quite a bit of it–mostly on these plastic disks called CDs. Some of you might have heard of them

Anyway, when I got my hands on a Mac a few years ago for work purposes, I started playing around with iTunes. I ended up feeding it a bunch of my CDs and was fairly happy with the results. When I bought a MacBook two years ago, I decided that I wanted to re-rip my CDs in higher quality. So I went through the process–again.

Between that and a few tracks I’ve digitally acquired, I have about 2500 of them in iTunes. Generally, I can find what I need, I’ve found a reasonably sensible Smart Playlist that gives me a decent mix of music. It’s not perfect and I have to skip tracks, but it works for me.

While I do have an iPod Nano, I don’t use it. Instead, when I do prefer to listen to music on a portable device, I download music to a Nokia N95 thanks to Nokia Multimedia Transfer.

Now when it comes to video, other than for the occasional freebie from the iTunes store, I pretty much use Miro to manage video. I do this for a couple of reasons:

Support for Flash video and more types of video. I can stuff an RSS feed from YouTube into Miro and it will play the video it downloads from there.
Bittorrent Support. Need I say more?
Better at keeping your disk from filling up. Miro gives you the ability to only download episodes when less than X episodes are unwatched on a per-channel basis, a global “don’t download when less than X space,” and a per-channel auto-expiration for watched content.

Now I know some people don’t like iTunes for music. I guess I don’t see the issues, but I will admit I don’t listen to music daily. iTunes is sufficient for my meager needs. What am I missing here?

Comments

20 May 2008, Rita El Khoury writes: Yeah why not?! I've used iTunes as my main music manager on my PC ever since I got my iPod some 2 yrs ago. I find it well suited for my average usage. I also use iTunes agent, an application, to sync my smart playlist with my memory card (it can also be used for devices with internal storage). I have 2 memory cards, each is 2GB, so I have created 2 smart playlists that I sync with each card. One is my best and newest full albums, and the second is my 5star-rated music limited to 1.5GB priority to the newest. I find this an AWESOME mix, and most of all, I have to do nothing, just insert the card in my laptop's card reader, launch iTunes agent and click "Sync". Works like a charm.
20 May 2008, Marc writes: @ home - doesn't run on Linux @ work - does it support FLAC & OGG now? does it still want to download quicktime and safari? Other than that, they're all about the same I guess, particularly if one doesn't have an iPod and doesn't shop at iTunes.
22 May 2008, PhoneBoy writes: @Marc I think you can get FLAC/OGG flugins for the Mac, which means iTunes SHOULD support it. Quicktime is required for iTunes content.
27 November 2008, iTunes Music Blog writes: I think you nailed it on the head!! That\'s the point that everyone here has failed to make, nice work!! I am going to place a link to you on my blogroll, ok?

The Networks Stream To Your Cell Phone on AT&T

PhoneBoy — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:56:48 +0000

I managed to play with AT&T’s Cellular Video offering today. On their site, they offer clips to a wide variety of things. On the front page, there’s typically a link to the latest headlines from CNN. If you dig deeper, you’ll find complete episodes of all your favorite shows, including ABC’s hit Desperate Housewives!

For this service to be worthwhile, you really have to have a 3G phone. And you have to have a phone AT&T believes to be 3G. I tried several of my Nokia handsets with the URL http://cingularvideo.cingular.com, which is the URL their service uses, and no joy. If it wasn’t one of the phones they recognize, they don’t let you in, period.

It’s a shame. There’s a lot of great mobile-ready content on there, available for free! I guess this is one of those reasons they can push you to buy one of their handsets versus buying an “open” device, but why lock it up like this, AT&T?

Comments

25 November 2008, The Networks Stream To Your Cell Phone on AT&T writes: [...] The Networks Stream To Your Cell Phone on AT&T I managed to play with AT&T's Cellular Video offering today. On their site, they offer clips to a wide variety of things. On the front page, there's typically a link to the latest headlines from CNN. If you dig deeper, you'll find complete episodes of all your favorite shows, including ABC's hit Desperate Housewives! For this submitted by PhoneBoy on 14th May 2008 (via phoneboy.com) Add to Favorites Add to Saves Bury Tags: · AT&T · CNN · AT&T Comments [...]

The Twilight Zone Now on CBS.com

PhoneBoy — Fri, 02 May 2008 07:01:38 +0000

I can’t remember where I found out about it now, but cbs.com has, in addition to their primetime shows, a few classic shows. Specifically, they have The Twilight Zone, Star Trek (Original Series), MacGyver, Hawaii Five-O, and (not a classic IMHO) Melrose Place.

The Twilight Zone in particular has been the cause of productivity drains. Supposedly every episode of Star Trek is there–and I did watch one or two of them–but not all the episodes of The Twilight Zone are there. The first three seasons are mostly there, but there are some missing episodes.

Like most of the other network sites, the shows have unskipable ads in them, but each “commercial break” is a single ad that is either 15 or 30 seconds. You can, of course, skip around within an episode, though you get an ad if you cross an ad boundary. Not unreasonable.

What’s particularly cool about The Twilight Zone is that you also get Rod Serling telling you what’s on next week’s episode and you get the public service announcement at the end. I don’t know why I think that’s cool, but I do.

The video player gives good quality on both my Mac and Windows boxes. It seems to not get along with Firefox if there are network connectivity issues. I end up having to do a shift-reload of the page to get the Flash video to play again. I didn’t try Internet Explorer, but Safari on the Mac fared much better.

All in all, not a bad viewing experience. I wish I could download and save for later, but I don’t see the network sites letting me do that.

Comments

2 May 2008, gerrymoth writes: I've been watching al the Twilight Zone episodes via the Adobe Media Player, where CBS have also added THe Hills and CSI.
3 May 2008, Juan Perez writes: Buenas tardes, señor Phoneboy. Seems this great content is not available outside of the US. Too bad! Hasta pronto.

Wave Broadband On An Acqusition Spree

PhoneBoy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:01:22 +0000

Back when I lived in Port Orchard, Wave Broadband was my cable company, at least after they took over from Charter Communications. The switchover was a bit rocky, but during the last year or so I had their service, it was pretty good.

The scuttlebutt from DSL Reports is that Wave is acquiring a number of customers: more Charter customers from West Sacramento, and customers of Willamette Broadband in Oregon, including a couple of former Charter communities. This increases their footprint substantially, though other than West Sacramento, still keeps much of their footprint in the less populated areas of the country.

While I can’t say the cutover process will go entirely well, based on my past experience and the grumblings I’m seeing on the Wave Broadband forum on DSL Reports from “acquired” Charter customers in Southern California, the kinks will get worked out in due time. Customers will be generally happy with their broadband experience once it’s all over.

I do wonder about the health of Charter Communications, given that they seem to be continuing to shed markets.

Comments

30 July 2008, noWay writes: West sacramento spans a few blocks. It's hardly what you could call a city. Charter is getting rid of the fringe communities that aren't cost effective for them to carry. Read small sh*tholes that barely amount to little towns. Wave only offers 3 month free trials and has already jacked up the price in the first 2 months we had service in W.S. That isn't competition. It's monopoly hand me down.

Soylent Green–Low Tech Science Fiction

PhoneBoy — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:01:20 +0000

I’ve heard the phrase Soylent Green before, and I vaguely remember it being a movie. However, I never actually saw it until recently. I have to say, it’s a fairly heavy movie that touches on oh-so-many social issues.

The premise behind this 1973 movie is that the earth in year 2022 has been overtaken by global warming. The environment has been poisoned by pollution. Food, as we know it today, including fruits, vegetables, and meat, are a rare and expensive commodity. The economy is depressed as half the population is out of work and lives in hallways, staircases, and anywhere else they can find a place to be. Food and water are rationed out.

Food, such that it is, consists of hyper-processed wafers by the Soylent corporation. Soylent Red and Yellow are advertise as “high-energy vegetable concentrates.” Soylent Green, their newest product, is advertised as being made from “high-energy plankton.” It is highly desirable, but it is in short supply–only given out on Tuesdays. When the supply runs out–and it often does–riots ensue.

Unlike most science fiction, the “technology” in the film, such that it is, hasn’t aged since 1972, when Soylent Green was filmed. No attempt was made to make the technology look “futuristic,” though that is besides the point. Shirl is shown playing the first commercially sold video game called Computer Space, and is perhaps the most futuristic looking thing in the entire movie. Detective Thorn uses old-school police boxes to call into dispatch while he is on the street. Research was done the old fashioned way–in books. It’s a picture of a different time for sure.

What struck me most was the food situation in the movie. Most people couldn’t eat fruits, vegetables, meat, or most anything else, simply because it was rare and expensive to obtain. Only the wealthy could even affor proper food. The masses mostly ate freeze-dried food supplied by the Soylent Corporation.

In the real world, though, a lot of the food that we eat here in the U.S. comes from a package, a box, a bag, or a wrapper–almost as fake as Soylent Green. It’s not doing our health any favors, for sure, nor is it doing our taste buds justice.

There is a scene where Detective Thorn shows his roommate and “book” Sol Roth the food he lifted from William R. Simonson’s apartment while investigating his murder. Thorn shows him the various fruits and vegetables and also unwraps a slab of meat. Sol cries and wonders aloud “how did we come to this?” Watch their feast below:

WPvideo 1.10

Direct link to video

I hope that in the real world, for whatever the reason, it never comes to this. People–all people–should have access to real, whole food. Food that isn’t processed by some mega-corporation, fortified with vitamins and minerals. Unprocessed–or as minimally as possible–meat, fish, veggies, and fruits. May they be plentiful and that society doesn’t go down the road of eating Soylent Red, Yellow, and Green.

Why Aren’t All TV Shows Online?

PhoneBoy — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:01:26 +0000

I am now to the point where that the TV I actually plan to watch happens either on the computer directly or with the assistance of a computer (i.e. the computer is hooked to the TV). I will do a little channel surfing from time to time, but if I’m home alone, the TV is off. If I do want to watch something, it will generally happen on the computer.

For most of the shows out there, there are plenty of potential ways to get it–some legal, some questionable. I’d say just about every semi-popular program on TV is available online. However, not all programs are.

The networks themselves have fairly successful video portals through which to watch the programs. Currently and, in some cases, past programs are now showing up on these portals as well. What I find odd is that every single program aired by the networks isn’t somehow online.

The folks who upload things to Bittorrent aren’t getting all the programs, but they seem to do a better job than the networks “official sites” in terms of “selection.” With the torrenters, at least I can understand. The folks that do this because they like the programs and want to share. Torrent only works really well for popular things, so it makes sense.

Can someone explain this to me? Why aren’t all their shows online? My guess is that it’s all about rights.

photo credit: Noël One

Will Quarterlife Be A Hit On NBC?

PhoneBoy — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:01:56 +0000

One of the things I’ve been enjoying watching on the Internet is Quarterlife. It is produced by the folks who did My So Called Life, i.e. people with real experience writing network-quality programming. While I don’t recall watching (much of) My So Called Life, it is a well-known show.

Quarterlife was started as an Internet-only show, but ended up getting picked up by NBC to air in February. It’s kind of a boon for NBC, given the writer’s strike is still going on. It’s “fresh content” for the masses whom are otherwise going to have to watch reality shows, reruns, or other game shows.

According to the New York Times, it’s not really know how many people are watching on the Internet. The episodes can be seen on MySpace, YouTube, and quarterlife.com. While you can see how many time it’s viewed on MySpace or YouTube, quarterlife.com isn’t talking numbers. Does that mean it’s not popular? Maybe not by television standards, but it’s not bad in terms of web productions.

I’m already watching the show on the Internet. Will I watch it on NBC? I might watch an episode or two to see how they splice these smaller 36 episodes into several hour-long episodes, but quite frankly, I like watching the show in smaller chunks. Half the reason I don’t watch the TV shows I do have lying around is that it takes a hgue chunk of time to watch an hour-long show, even without the commercials. These 8-10 minute episodes are just about perfect for my attention span.

I wish these guys the best of luck on NBC. I think it’s quality TV, but I find that shows I frequently like change somehow or get cancelled. What do you think about Quarterlife? Do you think it will be a hit on NBC?

The PhoneBoy Blog » entertainment

ScreenPlay TV Link from iomega

Comments

Related Posts

They’re Doing WHAT To The Electric Company?

Related articles by Zemanta

Comments

Related Posts

Why TV Will Be More Lean-Forward In The Future

Related articles by Zemanta

Comments

Related Posts

Anathem: Light Reading (Not)

Related articles by Zemanta

Comments

Related Posts

Made a Cameo in the Latest Mobile Industry Review Show

Related Posts

Fancast: Watching TV In The Cloud

Comments

Related Posts

A-La Carte Cable More Expensive?

Comments

Related Posts

Comcast: Sell Me The Shows, Already!

Comments

Related Posts

So Why Not iTunes?

Comments

Related Posts

The Networks Stream To Your Cell Phone on AT&T

Comments

Related Posts

The Twilight Zone Now on CBS.com

Comments

Related Posts

Wave Broadband On An Acqusition Spree

Comments

Related Posts

Soylent Green–Low Tech Science Fiction

Related Posts

Why Aren’t All TV Shows Online?

Related Posts

Will Quarterlife Be A Hit On NBC?

Related Posts