Google Fiber

[Brent]

So Google Fiber will be announcing the "rollout" schedule tomorrow. Today they revealed some additional channels to the TV lineup now that negotiations with the all-mighty ABC/ESPN empire is finally complete:

ABC Family, ABC News Now, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ESPN, ESPN Buzzer Beater, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, Longhorn Network, Ovation, SOAPnet, TBN, TBN Enlace, Velocity


http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/...l-lineup.html?

PS: It isn't racial discrimination, but there definitely is a serious digital (and economic) divide in most cities including Kansas City. Many in the media jumped on the pre-registration process saying it made it harder on the poorer areas of town. I would argue Google did a great job of encouraging many in those areas to sign up and the end result was pretty impressive. In the end most of the area Google included in their phase 1 rollout will be getting fiber. I can't wait to share more.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Slugger

It was only a short time ago that I was convinced streaming was the way it was going to go within a relatively short period of time (say ~10 years). But it seems the cable/sat companies (i.e. the distributors) saw the writing on the wall as well and said "screw that" and started buying the content ... It's to the point now where as long as the cable/sat cos own the sports content (by far the most prized/valuable possession) then the current, though flawed, model of the cable/sat cos isn't going away. And though I say it's flawed, I say so as a consumer. Of course, if you're the cable/sat cos then it's simply a cash cow, which is why they'll buy whatever they have to in order to maintain the status quo.

Welcome to my fold of belief. There aren't too many of us here in Sage-land. But I tend to think this is spot-on. It's always about the money, and cable companies aren't going to willingly give up the cash cow they've had for 30+ years.

Originally Posted by Slugger

Now if I could stream all my required sports for ~$30-35/mth then I'd drop satellite in a heartbeat (because I'm close enough to the US border that I can setup OTA and get all the major US and Canadian networks). Will that ever happen? Certainly not anytime soon, but I do monitor the situation. If I didn't care about sports I'd have dropped satellite years ago, but sports is king and the king can only be viewed on cable/satellite if you aren't willing to pay the leagues directly to stream it over the net.

Originally Posted by Slugger

There will come a time when the price point of streaming sports directly from the leagues (MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA/etc.) is cheap enough that it makes sense to drop my satellite service.

I suffer without cable/sat (sort of - there are "methods" via internet and/or PlayOn), but, per what you said above, I think this won't happen for a looooong time.

Originally Posted by Slugger

VPN is your answer, mlb.tv ain't blocking locals and it'll only run you $5/mth. So much for MLB's patented technology!

That is a solution, but you notice that I did address that above - the VPN situation (besides adding cost) is a stumbling block to this being a solution for "Joe Average". The average American consumer doesn't want anything more than a cable-provided DVR (if that), that does what it does on one TV, so they certainly aren't going to delve into the world of a VPN setup and then have to stream sports from a computer to their TV. They'd rather just pay the (outrageous) cable bill each month.

Which leads me to.....

Originally Posted by Brent

It isn't racial discrimination, but there definitely is a serious digital (and economic) divide in most cities including Kansas City. Many in the media jumped on the pre-registration process saying it made it harder on the poorer areas of town. I would argue Google did a great job of encouraging many in those areas to sign up and the end result was pretty impressive. In the end most of the area Google included in their phase 1 rollout will be getting fiber. I can't wait to share more.

....my soapbox: Forget race. Why are people who live in "poor" and "lower economic" areas paying for TV, period?? No matter what anyone says, TV is a luxury. I see the arguments being made by the leaders about internet access paving the way to job interviews, learning, etc., but why does that have to be fiber-based super-high speed?? Spend your last dime on a dial-up internet connection if you need internet. Last time I checked, no online job search or resume submittal place required high-speed internet. Drop the cable, drop the satellite, drop the high-speed internet, and get rid of the friggin smartphone with full unlimited data package. There is something inherently wrong with "poor" people (of any race) arguing that they are being excluded from the ability to get a $70/month LUXURY service of ANY kind.

/off soapbox

[drewg]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

....my soapbox: Forget race. Why are people who live in "poor" and "lower economic" areas paying for TV, period?? No matter what anyone says, TV is a luxury.

I think it is an addiction, like smoking or drinking. It is worse, actually, because people have been addicted to cable their entire lives.

My wife has a friend from HS. He never went to college, and didn't take up a trade. Both he & his wife work at dead-end jobs at national retailers. They are mostly frugal, but the one thing they spend their money on is cable TV (actually Fios). I think they feel that after ~12 hours on their feet, 5 or 6 days a week, they just need their "fix" of 500 channels to surf.

I've tried to explain to him how much money he could save by moving to a basic internet-only setup, using OTA TV and cheap VOIP, but I couldn't convince him. You'd think it would be an easy sell, since the $75 to $100 per month he'd save would make a big difference to him..

Drew

[Brent]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Which leads me to.....


....my soapbox: Forget race. Why are people who live in "poor" and "lower economic" areas paying for TV, period?? No matter what anyone says, TV is a luxury. I see the arguments being made by the leaders about internet access paving the way to job interviews, learning, etc., but why does that have to be fiber-based super-high speed?? Spend your last dime on a dial-up internet connection if you need internet. Last time I checked, no online job search or resume submittal place required high-speed internet. Drop the cable, drop the satellite, drop the high-speed internet, and get rid of the friggin smartphone with full unlimited data package. There is something inherently wrong with "poor" people (of any race) arguing that they are being excluded from the ability to get a $70/month LUXURY service of ANY kind.

/off soapbox

I'm not sure many are really focusing on the TV side of this beyond the SageTV folks. At least in these neighborhoods. It's about internet, not TV.
You're missing what will be the most used "feature" of google fiber in those neighborhoods. Free internet that is probably better than what most in the U.S. are paying for now. $300 install fee payable in 12 payments but Free beyond that. That is why it's a big deal along with the fact they are connecting key public entities like libraries, schools, fire stations etc in the neighborhoods that get the install.

[Slugger]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I suffer without cable/sat (sort of - there are "methods" via internet and/or PlayOn), but, per what you said above, I think this won't happen for a looooong time.

Hmm... I think it's closer than we think. It's very relative. For me, I drop satellite and go OTA + stream sports from the leagues and it'll cost me about $65/mth + some overhead to setup OTA (relatively small so let's ignore it). My current satellite setup runs me an avg of $110/mth over the course of the year. So for an extra $45/mth I get access to all the sports I want + timeshifted major US (ABC/NBC/Fox/CBS/etc.) and Canadian networks + premiums (HBO, movie nets, Discovery HD, AMC HD, A&E, etc., blah, blah, blah). For me, I'm fortunate enough that I can afford the extra $45/mth and feel it's not worth the hassle of dropping satellite. For me, the threshold is a savings of about $1000/yr (~$85/mth). If I could save $1000/yr by dropping satellite then I'd do it. Until I can, I probably won't. Again, I'm fortunate enough that I can set a relatively high savings threshold requirement.

Now I'm sure there are people who would gladly love to (or need to) save $45/mth by dropping sat and going OTA + league streaming. I think the reason we don't see more of this is that the people who would most benefit from this kind of setup don't even know it exists. And in larger cities (or even medium sized cities in the US), the overhead of going OTA is almost non-existent because standard rabbit ears should be able to pull in most major networks in a metro area such that a roof antenna setup (like I'd need to deploy) wouldn't even be necessary.

I'd even further argue that if you went to the average non-sports fanatic's home and ripped out their cable line and replaced it with OTA, they'd be willing to live with the OTA only setup. But, again, most people don't even know what OTA is or that you can pull in HD channels for free and with minimal equipment in metro areas.

And of course I can't find the link, but I know I recently read an article describing relatively deep subscriber losses for DTV, Dish and one or two major US cable cos over the last year (on the order of net hundreds of thousands of lost subscribers). The article says customers were dropping cable/sat in favour of going just OTA (or to IPTV such as FIOS), but a good chunk just going OTA. This leads me to believe even more that as people discover what OTA is and what it provides, we can expect more people to do it.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Forget race. Why are people who live in "poor" and "lower economic" areas paying for TV, period?? No matter what anyone says, TV is a luxury.

Premium tv is luxary, yes. Basic tv is a necessity. Before the printed media's demise, I might have entertained the argument that all tv is a luxary, but now a days you need tv & high speed internet* to be informed. A democracy's foundation relies on an informed population and in the 21st century the population is informed mainly, if not entirely, via tv and the internet. OTA would qualify as basic tv, but where OTA isn't available, I believe a basic satellite subscription to be a necessity.

Again, those who can get OTA probably don't even know it and the cable/sat cos are mostly to blame via advertising, etc. Even worse, there really isn't such a thing as "basic" cable/sat anymore - thanks to channel bundling. Bundling is the devil... and a cash cow for the distributors and the cable networks.

* There's high speed internet and then there's luxary high speed internet. 2Mb/0.3Mb is all I'm talking about as a necessity. In most places where dial up and broadband are offered, it's but a few extra bucks a month for the lowest broadband connection, making it a no brainer, imho. This is why I claim a highspeed connection is required. If the price difference was significant between dial up and broadband then I'd be persuaded that HS wasn't necessary, but that dial up would be.

Originally Posted by drewg

I think it is an addiction, like smoking or drinking. It is worse, actually, because people have been addicted to cable their entire lives.

My wife has a friend from HS. He never went to college, and didn't take up a trade. Both he & his wife work at dead-end jobs at national retailers. They are mostly frugal, but the one thing they spend their money on is cable TV (actually Fios). I think they feel that after ~12 hours on their feet, 5 or 6 days a week, they just need their "fix" of 500 channels to surf.

I've tried to explain to him how much money he could save by moving to a basic internet-only setup, using OTA TV and cheap VOIP, but I couldn't convince him. You'd think it would be an easy sell, since the $75 to $100 per month he'd save would make a big difference to him..

People like what they know and fear the unknown. They know cable tv and land lines "just work." If you could show them the alternatives in action they'd probably be more receptive to the idea.

I know people in a similar situation and they have the gold (if not platinum) satellite package, I mean they get it all and they pay for it. But you know what? That's their entertainment 29 out of 30 days of the month so I kind of get it and though they struggle, I get it. I finally convinced them to go VoIP for phone, which saved them like $35/mth (probably more because they made a lot of long distance calls, which are now free with VoIP) and I got them on a cheaper broadband plan - they were convinced by the cable co they needed the "Cadillac" connection when their usage patterns showed they needed only the basic plan, which saved them another $30 (or maybe it was $40)/mth. And these are people who dearly appreciate an extra $60 or $70/mth. I try to convince them to go OTA for tv - even offered to set it up for them - but they want no part of it. They want 600 channels or whatever it is they have every time they sit down. Is it an addiction? No, I don't think so. Like I said, where I go to the ball game or the hockey game or a show or dinner or whatever it is I do, they don't have that luxury or that disposable income so their entertainment most weekends is movie night at the house so they like the movie channels, etc. So though I shake my head, I get it and I think lots of people with "luxury" cable packages might be in the same type of situation. But then again, these people I speak of aren't exactly poor, certainly not below the poverty line or anything. If we're talking people below the poverty line, not working, strictly on gov't assistance then, yeah, no luxury cable for them, but I truly believe basic cable (or OTA) plus some kind of internet connection is at least a fair ask, if not a right in a 21st century democracy.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

and get rid of the friggin smartphone with full unlimited data package. There is something inherently wrong with "poor" people (of any race) arguing that they are being excluded from the ability to get a $70/month LUXURY service of ANY kind.

This is the one that really confuses me and I couldn't agree more. Is a cell phone of any kind necessary? Hmm... maybe, but if it is then only a prepaid, basic one would fall under the category of necessity. My friends I mention above... they get it: prepaid, basic cell, no smart phone. They pay $10/mth each for their phones, sometimes a few bucks more depending on usage. That is what I consider a necessity. Poor(er) people lining up for first crack at the iPhone 5 this week... that's crazy! Even worse are the kids of these people who also carry around the iPhone.

[Dargason]

A democracy's foundation relies on an informed population

Ah, that explains the mess we're in.

in the 21st century the population is informed mainly, if not entirely, via tv and the internet.

I think you meant to say "commercials and sensational media".

I guess I'm feeling a little cynical today.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Slugger

Hmm... I think it's closer than we think. It's very relative. For me, I drop satellite and go OTA + stream sports from the leagues and it'll cost me about $65/mth + some overhead to setup OTA (relatively small so let's ignore it).

I'm a little confused about how you answered my post, but the original point I was making (that you quoted) was that I think it will be a while because sports leagues offer a single-payment streaming option for their games, or, say, a single team. The problem is that they currently black-out the local team where you are, which (as pointed out above) then requires a VPN. Me, personally, I have OTA only, but if there is really a sports contest I want to see (rare!), I get most through PlayOn and its various plugins. However, the one thing missing is live MLB games. Those are very locked-down on the internet. I specifically want to see my hometown Cincinnati Reds. But I live in Cincinnati, so it would take me buying MLB.tv *AND* figuring out how to do the VPN thing (which is over my head) so that it didn't lock me out. The Reds have an exclusive contract with Fox Sports-Ohio, which is carried by cable, DirecTV and Dish here. But I've never found a stream on any PlayOn Plugins, ever.

Point being, I don't think MLB is anywhere close to offering me the ability to pay for all Reds games (even if no other teams), streaming. The cable/sat co's have too much invested in their contract and they know that if MLB were to start offering that, there'd be a good chunk of people who'd drop their service, because quite a few people have cable/sat ONLY for Reds games.

Originally Posted by Slugger

I'd even further argue that if you went to the average non-sports fanatic's home and ripped out their cable line and replaced it with OTA, they'd be willing to live with the OTA only setup. But, again, most people don't even know what OTA is or that you can pull in HD channels for free and with minimal equipment in metro areas.

That's why we have OTA-only. I was willing to live without the sports (or go to a neighbor's house, or get it by other means via PlayOn), and my wife was not married to anything in particular on cable. We realized that most of what we watched was on network TV, and we live on a hill with great OTA reception. Frankly, she realized that the availability of all the cr*p on cable TV was why she just found herself watching trash all the time, and it was her idea to pull the plug so she'd actually do something worthwhile with her time. Friends ask me all the time how I survive without cable and I tell them (per above), "other than missing the Reds baseball games - I listen on the radio - I don't miss it one bit."

Originally Posted by Slugger

And of course I can't find the link, but I know I recently read an article describing relatively deep subscriber losses for DTV, Dish and one or two major US cable cos over the last year (on the order of net hundreds of thousands of lost subscribers). The article says customers were dropping cable/sat in favour of going just OTA (or to IPTV such as FIOS), but a good chunk just going OTA. This leads me to believe even more that as people discover what OTA is and what it provides, we can expect more people to do it.

I hope you are right because the only thing that can stop cable/sat from increasing their costs and "bending over" the consumer is if people find an alternative and just plain drop the service. In other words, competition. Otherwise, these companies will continue to milk their cash cows as long as America lets them. But FWIW, a few years ago, I thought I read that there was only like a 4% drop in usage attributed to people going OTA-only (that might have been around the "digital changeover" time)... though I am sure it's increased since.

Originally Posted by Slugger

Basic tv is a necessity. Before the printed media's demise, I might have entertained the argument that all tv is a luxary, but now a days you need tv & high speed internet* to be informed.

If by "informed", you mean "informed about the latest antics of Honey Boo Boo", then I'd agree. ....sadly.

Originally Posted by Slugger

A democracy's foundation relies on an informed population...

Methinks you a bit idealistic. Nice idea, but, uh, no. Honey Boo Boo outdrew the national conventions in TV ratings.

Originally Posted by Slugger

Again, those who can get OTA probably don't even know it and the cable/sat cos are mostly to blame via advertising, etc. Even worse, there really isn't such a thing as "basic" cable/sat anymore - thanks to channel bundling. Bundling is the devil... and a cash cow for the distributors and the cable networks.

Agree 100%. If I could choose my bundle, I might consider a low-end subscription. But we all know that will never happen (a la carte cable/sat) because too many networks would be instantly killed as no one would order them. Seriously, there are probably 50 networks out there that would close their doors tomorrow if ESPN didn't effectively foot their bill.

Originally Posted by Slugger

There's high speed internet and then there's luxary high speed internet. 2Mb/0.3Mb is all I'm talking about as a necessity.

I don't think that's true. Dial-up is all anyone "needs" if you "need" internet. I will now (sheepishly?) admit that I, a Sage user, have 3.0 Mb internet. And guess what? My Sage still works and I can even stream through PlayOn.

Originally Posted by Slugger

People like what they know and fear the unknown. They know cable tv and land lines "just work." If you could show them the alternatives in action they'd probably be more receptive to the idea.

This actually agrees with my whole point. This is why I say that the world isn't going to go to on-demand, HTPC, mostly-streaming TV any time soon. Too many people are ignorant/scared, or just plain don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by Slugger

This is the one that really confuses me and I couldn't agree more. Is a cell phone of any kind necessary? Hmm... maybe, but if it is then only a prepaid, basic one would fall under the category of necessity. My friends I mention above... they get it: prepaid, basic cell, no smart phone. They pay $10/mth each for their phones, sometimes a few bucks more depending on usage. That is what I consider a necessity. Poor(er) people lining up for first crack at the iPhone 5 this week... that's crazy! Even worse are the kids of these people who also carry around the iPhone.

Two decades ago, only the very wealthy had cellphones (which were huge). In that relatively short period, having a cellphone DID become considered a necessity, because the American government deemed it such (hence the cheap/free phones that "poor" can get). It's the smartphones that I don't understand. I had this discussion with a friend recently and he postulated that for many poor, it's a point of pride and also machismo.... not just showing off the fancy phone to make people think more of them, but also the "toughness" factor, that "I have this nice thing and YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME". I'm no socio-anthropologist, so I don't know about that, but he made it sound plausible.

[hugenbdd]

pjpj...
I live in N. KY and work in Ohio. I watch the reds games through MLBTV. All you need is a VPN. I got one for $50 for 3 months. (Enough to get me to the post season.) it's very easy to setup if your watching on your laptop/computer with windows. All you have to do is enter the setup info once, save your user name/password, and remember to "connect" to the VPN before going to the Reds homepage.

Only down side, is that you have to pick a city where either team does not play. I switched from a VPN located in New York to Miami. So I wasn't able to stream the games this weekend but was for all others. (Home games included)

If your using Sage, you can setup a VPN. Ping me if you want more information on what VPN I use.

Dave

[Slugger]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I'm a little confused about how you answered my post, but the original point I was making (that you quoted) was that I think it will be a while because sports leagues offer a single-payment streaming option for their games, or, say, a single team. The problem is that they currently black-out the local team where you are, which (as pointed out above) then requires a VPN. Me, personally, I have OTA only, but if there is really a sports contest I want to see (rare!), I get most through PlayOn and its various plugins. However, the one thing missing is live MLB games. Those are very locked-down on the internet. I specifically want to see my hometown Cincinnati Reds. But I live in Cincinnati, so it would take me buying MLB.tv *AND* figuring out how to do the VPN thing (which is over my head) so that it didn't lock me out. The Reds have an exclusive contract with Fox Sports-Ohio, which is carried by cable, DirecTV and Dish here. But I've never found a stream on any PlayOn Plugins, ever.

Point being, I don't think MLB is anywhere close to offering me the ability to pay for all Reds games (even if no other teams), streaming. The cable/sat co's have too much invested in their contract and they know that if MLB were to start offering that, there'd be a good chunk of people who'd drop their service, because quite a few people have cable/sat ONLY for Reds games.

But what you want is available. Any option that streams you MLB games that isn't directly thru mlb.tv is, well, let's say sketchy. Of course, buying mlb.tv and bypassing their geo locks is probably just as sketchy, but it's dead easy. $5/mth and all you have to do is change the DNS settings on your router and you're done. Again, I don't do it only because mlb.tv + VPN = ~$30/mth and for an extra $35/mth I get my satellite service with movies (which I never watch, but will sometimes record some movies - movies that I will probably will never watch but they're on the NAS), HBO, Discovery HD, etc. + all my Blue Jay games are "free" on the local sports nets as part of my sat service. And I'd have to also buy nfl.com and nhl.com streaming. The savings just aren't there yet. If working around geo locks were my only issue/barrier then I'd do it because it's not a barrier.

Mind you, I still subscribe to the VPN service for $5/mth since it gives me access to hulu, espn3 streaming (this is the main reason why), etc.

Originally Posted by Slugger

A democracy's foundation relies on an informed population...

Yes, Honey Boo Boo may have out drawn the conventions, but I still contend those who want to be informed need some form of television service (plus internet) to be informed.

As an aside, I had heard of Honey Boo Boo, but didn't know what it was until I watched SNL last night. The fact that show out drew the conventions is scary to me - a Canadian looking in on USA politics. I'm sure it's scary to many Americans, too. This fact could be the reason Romney pulls the upset. You can't really question a man's stance on anything if you'd rather watch Honey Boo Boo.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I don't think that's true. Dial-up is all anyone "needs" if you "need" internet. I will now (sheepishly?) admit that I, a Sage user, have 3.0 Mb internet. And guess what? My Sage still works and I can even stream through PlayOn.

If every web site didn't splash you with every multimedia trick in the book then maybe. Admittedly, it's been years and years since I've connected to the net with dialup, but I can't image it'd be a productive experience in 2012. I say a minimal broadband connection is a fair ask in 2012. The Canadian government agrees with me as high speed internet access was officially added to the nation's Consumer Price Index in 2008 (previously "basic"/dialup access had been used in the CPI since 2001).

I'd be surprised if high speed internet isn't included in America's CPI. I know that the CPI basket of goods isn't exactly a set in stone basket of "necessities", but I feel like it's a pretty good indicator.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Slugger

But what you want is available. Any option that streams you MLB games that isn't directly thru mlb.tv is, well, let's say sketchy. Of course, buying mlb.tv and bypassing their geo locks is probably just as sketchy, but it's dead easy. $5/mth and all you have to do is change the DNS settings on your router and you're done.

You guys misunderstand me. I know I could get local MLB if I wanted to look into VPN and do it "cheating" style. But the cost of a full season of MLB.tv plus the cost of VPN comes out to about equivalent to a few months' worth of low-end cable TV, doesn't it? Regardless of that, my whole point - and I know I digressed a bit - had nothing to do with whether I could get it, but that I don't believe MLB (or other sports) are about to start offering that a la carte. MLB has too much money tied up in too many local/regional broadcasters that there's no way they are going to start offering single-team subscriptions to "the local team" any time soon. That was what the whole discussion started from (on my end). Someone said they thought sports leagues would soon offer streaming on the internet at competitive rates, and I disagree.

Originally Posted by Slugger

As an aside, I had heard of Honey Boo Boo, but didn't know what it was until I watched SNL last night. The fact that show out drew the conventions is scary to me - a Canadian looking in on USA politics. I'm sure it's scary to many Americans, too. This fact could be the reason Romney pulls the upset. You can't really question a man's stance on anything if you'd rather watch Honey Boo Boo.

The reason Romney would pull the upset has nothing to do with voters being uninformed, it only has to do with how many people vote. If the Democrats rally up all the poor, the homeless, those who previously felt disenfranchised, those who used to feel like their vote didn't matter so they didn't vote, and they get them all to the polls - just like in 2008 - the Democrats will win. If the Democrats don't bother, the Republicans will win, just like in 2004. Informed people will vote for whichever guy they think best represents their interests, but the winner will be determined purely based on numbers of uninformed people who BOTHER to vote. Simple (and cynical) enough for ya? Regardless, I don't want this to get political, but there's no clear leader with respect to which party will have more uninformed voters at the polls in November. And goodness knows if you base your opinion on American "news" channels, you are being given such a spin to the left or to the right that you are STILL uninformed.

[Skirge01]

I agreed with everything you said except this part:

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Informed people will vote for whichever guy they think best represents their interests...

It's the people who vote along party lines (or other lines: sex, race, religion, etc) who do that. They're also the ones who cause the most harm to this country. Truly "informed" people can read between the lines and wind up voting for whomever they believe will do the least damage to the country.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic...

[Slugger]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

You guys misunderstand me. I know I could get local MLB if I wanted to look into VPN and do it "cheating" style. But the cost of a full season of MLB.tv plus the cost of VPN comes out to about equivalent to a few months' worth of low-end cable TV, doesn't it?

You are very correct. mlb.tv will never offer the local team streaming (or a one team only streaming package) as long as the local networks continue to stuff MLB's pockets for those tv rights.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

And goodness knows if you base your opinion on American "news" channels, you are being given such a spin to the left or to the right that you are STILL uninformed.

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Truly "informed" people can read between the lines and wind up voting for whomever they believe will do the least damage to the country.

My point exactly. An informed person takes in all the info available, even if it leans grossly to the right (Fox News) or left (most everyone else), deciphers it, reads between the lines, then makes an informed decision based on the whole of what they've been fed. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but routinely read/watch extreme right wing programming to hear the otherside - it helps balance the obvious left wing agenda of the other programming I also watch. Throw it all in the mixer and it helps me form my political views. Without some way to take in the info there's no way to form that opinion. I continue to argue that television is a key requirement in the process.

As for Obama and simply needing to get the numbers out to vote. Yeah, I sort of agree, but what percentage of the Honey Boo Boo demographic is really likely to vote Democrat? I say Obama's best chance on Nov 6 is to convince TLC to air a new episode that night and keep the Honey Boo Boo crowd on the couch! Consider it a counter to the Republican's voter suppression laws in states like Pennsylvania .

[drewg]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

You guys misunderstand me. I know I could get local MLB if I wanted to look into VPN and do it "cheating" style. But the cost of a full season of MLB.tv plus the cost of VPN comes out to about equivalent to a few months' worth of low-end cable TV, doesn't it? Regardless of that, my whole point - and I know I digressed a bit - had nothing to do with whether I could get it, but that I don't believe MLB (or other sports) are about to start offering that a la carte. MLB has too much money tied up in too many local/regional broadcasters that there's no way they are going to start offering single-team subscriptions to "the local team" any time soon. That was what the whole discussion started from (on my end). Someone said they thought sports leagues would soon offer streaming on the internet at competitive rates, and I disagree.

What!?!?! How much is MLB.tv? $120/yr? I'd call that competitive. Even if you add in a VPN provider for ~$50 per season to get around the region lock, that comes out to roughly $1/game.

You baseball people don't know how good you have it have it. I'd *KILL* for a ubiquitous, cheap, NFL streaming app that cost me $170/season. I'm a long-suffering Bills fan living out of market. My only option to see the games is Directv or sketchy streams. (There is supposedly some $300 PS3 app, but you need to prove you tried to get DirectTV and couldn't due to obstructions.. )

Drew

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by drewg

What!?!?! How much is MLB.tv? $120/yr? I'd call that competitive. Even if you add in a VPN provider for ~$50 per season to get around the region lock, that comes out to roughly $1/game.

Without looking up the costs, if your suggestion is correct, that's $170 for a baseball season. Basically 6 months. If you got the "new customer" trial offer for the absolute cheapest cable/sat package that carried the channel with your team's games (not even HD, as that's probably in a sports bundle, but just the SD version), you might get it for $29.99/mo, or even $24.99. That comes out to $150 to $180 for a baseball season. I'd consider that to be about even - and if I'm paying basically the same amount for either perfectly-legal cable/sat, or "illegally" faking my location to skirt MLB.tv's geo tracker, I'd go the safe route and just get cable/sat for 6 months.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Without looking up the costs, if your suggestion is correct, that's $170 for a baseball season. Basically 6 months. If you got the "new customer" trial offer for the absolute cheapest cable/sat package that carried the channel with your team's games (not even HD, as that's probably in a sports bundle, but just the SD version), you might get it for $29.99/mo, or even $24.99. That comes out to $150 to $180 for a baseball season. I'd consider that to be about even - and if I'm paying basically the same amount for either perfectly-legal cable/sat, or "illegally" faking my location to skirt MLB.tv's geo tracker, I'd go the safe route and just get cable/sat for 6 months.

If you can find a cable / sat provider that is $30/month for sports channels that you can cancel w/o penalty at the end of a season, then more power to you. We actually used to do something like this for college basketball (my wife is big college basketball fan) -- we used to watch all the games before we had a kid. When we did that, we'd sign up for cable in December and cancel it in April. At that time, the min. package to get Fox Sports South (who carried the ACC games) and ESPN (for the national games) was $40 or so. And that was 7 years ago..

Drew

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by drewg

If you can find a cable / sat provider that is $30/month for sports channels that you can cancel w/o penalty at the end of a season, then more power to you. We actually used to do something like this for college basketball (my wife is big college basketball fan) -- we used to watch all the games before we had a kid. When we did that, we'd sign up for cable in December and cancel it in April. At that time, the min. package to get Fox Sports South (who carried the ACC games) and ESPN (for the national games) was $40 or so. And that was 7 years ago..

Drew

You might be able to get one of the satellite packages really cheap on an introductory offer, but probably not cable. In my area Comcast requires you to sign-up for at least one of their mid-tier digital plans before you can get any sports channels other than regular ESPN, so you are looking at probably ~$60/month. Then they sell you the sports package as an add-on on top of that. Plus you need to rent a set top box for each TV at $9.95/mo. They will rent you a Digital Tuning Adaptor (DTA) for ~$1.50 per month per TV, but they can't get any HD channels, or any premium channels, or any on-demand. They also can't get many of the non-premium channels (like the local weather channel, science channel, etc.).

[drewg]

Originally Posted by Tiki

You might be able to get one of the satellite packages really cheap on an introductory offer, but probably not cable. In my area Comcast requires you to sign-up for at least one of their mid-tier digital plans before you can get any sports channels other than regular ESPN

Yep, and most (all?) of these intro pkgs require a 2 year contract, where a major portion is a non-intro price. Back when we did this was the "good old days" of analog cable.. It theoretically cost TWC a lot to do the truck rolls to add/remove the filter from our line, but I never remember paying for them.

Drew

[phareous]

And now this discussion has involved into sports programming. I just wished Google would tell us what they plan to offer SageTV-related (if anything) for those who can't get their fiber tv. I guess we'll have to wait another year for that

[panteragstk]

What I'd like to know is if we could "acquire" a google fiber STB to see if it will recognize our current servers...it won't, but it would still be cool. I bet jeff could pull a string or two.

[samgreco]

Maybe Brent could haul a laptop with Sage on it to the Gioogle Fiber store and plug it in and tell us