sosguy.net

In the beginning, there were really only three major television networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC. If what you wanted to watch was not airing at the time you wanted to watch it, you were quite frankly outta luck. These “big three” networks provided all the sports, entertainment, and news that people saw on TV, and they had to do it all since they were the only networks anyone watched (not counting local stations). This was all due to technical limitations and the fact that infrastructure wasn’t very well developed yet. Manufacturers of TVs set them up to receive a fixed amount of channels, having a single channel knob on the cabinet that would turn the TV off if set low enough.

As time went on, improvements in broadcasting technology allowed for more channels to be broadcast at once than through over-the-air (OTA) TV, and thus cable and satellite TV were born. These new variants used large networks of cables and satellite dishes to provide better reception, quality, and a larger coverage area than traditional OTA TV. To use these new technologies, many TVs needed to be fitted with a set-top box that contained a TV tuner; a device that would unscramble and translate the cable and satellite signals to a language the TV could understand. Now users weren’t limited to only 11 channels, and 60-70 was the norm. Instead of having 3 or 4 channels that provided a wide range of content for all audiences, many new channels employed the use of narrowcasting; only broadcasting certain types of shows for specific audiences. As technology continued to get better, more and more channels were able to be crammed into cable and satellite transmissions, and in the early 2000s companies such as Comcast and DirecTV started offering monthly deals for HUGE amounts of channels, well over 900 of them, which leads me to my ultimate question: how many channels do we need?

Looking through the TV Guide menus on my set-top box, I know that I’m missing out on a lot. You can only watch one TV show at a time, and at any one time there are 900+ channels going with whatever happens to be on. It seems like a real waste to me, as the only channels I really watch have numbers less than 70, and even at that I never have any need to visit any channel from 10-30, as nothing that appeals to me ever is playing. Smart money would say I should downgrade to a package which only has 70 channels instead of the full 900, but there are some pretty awesome channels above 70 that I like visiting that require me to pay for all of them.

If I watch 5 channels each week, and 2 of them are in the premium tier, wouldn’t it be better for me to pay for only those five instead of all the ones I’m not watching? $80 per month is an expensive proposition for 5 channels, wouldn’t you say? Here’s what I propose instead: what if we paid each month a flat rate for the set-top box rental fee and a reasonable fee for the basic tier content, but then we’d have a choice: either the classic premium tier 900 channel deal or a new one in which you first select the premium channels you know you want to watch and you pay for unlimited viewing for the entire month for those channels. The TV listings for every channel will still show up in your guide though, and if you go to a channel you haven’t subscribed to and want to watch, you can either set up an unlimited subscription to it right from your remote, or you can buy 24 hours of viewing for a few cents. If you only watched 5 channels, you’d pay in proportion to what you use. In my opinion, this would be a big win for consumers, but I don’t know whether or not it’s feasible from a business standpoint.

With the advent of narrowcasting, it doesn’t seem right that providers still make us pay for the broadest selections of channels. To conclude, I hope that someday a change will be brought about in this flawed system.

Our hero keeps on keepin’ on, and advances in his story as he travels to the top of the staircase in the next thrilling episode of Let’s Play A Blurred Line! I’m going to be doing a video every two days until the 4th when I’m gone for a week, but I think I’ll be resuming soon after. This is a LONG game, everyone, and it might take 10 parts or so to finish it all. Let’s hope so so that my 2-digit part numbers actually make sense. Until Thursday, friends!

What’s this? Part 2? Whenever I label something as part 1, it’s usually the last of it’s kind, but this time I really am going to play through the entire game! Sit back, relax, and enjoy this video until it abruptly cuts off. Spoiler: I go into a warehouse, and you’ll see what’s on the roof NEXT TIME!!!

It’s easy to see why one of the world’s most hated companies is changing its name to Xfinity… yeah, that’ll totally work. Put on a fake mustache, big nose and glasses and nobody will recognize you. I really hate Comcast’s converter boxes; not so much for the fact that my analog cable was perfectly fine before the transition, nor for the fact that they’ve taken away a bunch of channels if you don’t use the box (though I do dislike these facts) but rather for the simple reason that the boxes DON’T WORK most of the time, and that we now need to pay an extra fee for something we could use without a fee before. Seriously, watching TV on this Comcast box has become a chore, as every time I turn on my TV the channel defaults to channel 8, just like with a hotel TV. Channel 8 is all in Japanese. All I can ask, Comcast, is WHY? Why is it that I can’t leave your box on channel 2 when I turn off my TV? Why is my TV’s remote not good enough on its own anymore, and why must I have two volume controls? Can’t your box just output at full volume the entire time and let me use my TV’s volume controls instead of finding a balance between the two?

I know that there are other remotes one can use that will control any device, and I know that Comcast’s remote can be programmed to turn on your TV, but what if I want to switch input or use some of the cool built in features on my TV? On my big Comcast dual tuner non-DVR (no HDD) box why can’t I use Picture-in-Picture? I was able to get HD channels on the HD TV before I got Comcast’s tiny box (of which my service is interrupted all the time as seen in the first picture) and now I’m not able to. Sometimes the box just freezes up and I’m completely out of luck, unable to change the channel or anything until I unplug it for a long time, then fight with the remote to get it to respond to anything. Everything used to be so simple, but now Comcast’s messing it up. (It’s not just Comcast, I know, but they’re just about the only provider of cable where I live.)

Above: what I deal with every other day it seems like. If you’re going to charge extra for this device and make it so I can’t watch the same channels I already pay for without it, at least give me something reliable.

Above: the dreaded box itself. I’ve talked to others who share my hatred of this horrible device (this blog is biased in case you didn’t know) and they have similar stories of it crashing and burning when they’re trying to watch TV. I feel it isn’t just me when I say people despise needing to use two remotes on their TV’s, and without the IR receiver this box would be completely unbearable, as I’d need to keep it on top of my TV stand instead of in the cupboard where it belongs. After needing to replace these boxes twice in the last year because they stopped working on me. Bottomline: I’m disappointed.

Oh boy… this is going to be fun, isn’t it… I’ve started on my very first Let’s Play video, and quite possibly the last. It’s completely unedited and I have completely no idea what I’m doing. That said, you all should play this game! I know that most of the people I’ve recommended it to have not played it since it was too long and they didn’t understand it, but it’s an amazing game if you give it a chance. I could easily see a good movie made about it if they gave the plot a bit more focus and sped up the pace.

Comments? I know I’m pretty bad at this, but anything I can do to improve it would be greatly appreciated!