Google Fiber

[darcilicious]

Originally Posted by samgreco

I think it's as much an age thing as anything else. I admit that most of my friends that are my age (mid 50s) don't have a clue. However, almost everyone I know under 30 is doing everything online. That's why I think it may not be too long. As those folks hit critical mass in income and the like, everyone will be bending over to do what they want.

Pretty much this.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Opus... while my opinion of sports and yours clearly differs (I played D1 college basketball, for goodness sake!), I think the biggest problem is that TV refuses to acknowledge the REAL length of sporting events. Baseball games are regularly scheduled for 3 hours on TV, yet routinely go 3:10 to 3:20. Football games are exactly the same. If they'd simply add another half-hour in the schedule for them, it would only be the rare overtime game that would exceed the scheduled window. I don't know why they refuse to change that; I suppose it's a result of "we've always done it this way".

I think it is intentional. I think the networks purposely schedule programming to run outside the timeslot (they even do this with scripted shows that start or end 1-2 minutes early or late). I think they do this in an attempt to keep people locked in (when the game ends at 7:40pm, there's no point in changing the channel because you'll have missed the beginning of pretty much any other show on any other channel, but if you just stay on this channel you can see whatever it is from the beginning). The longer they can keep eyeballs glued to their channel, the more ad revenue they can collect.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I've never seen stats but I suspect a good amount of people have an HD flatscreen and pump standard analog cable into it, put it on "stretch" mode so it fills the screen, and think they are watching HD.

I think you are right about this...
On a related note, I noticed that my local ABC affiliate has started broadcasting the same wide-screen programming on their SD channel as on their HD channel. What's unusual here though, is that rather than letter-boxing the picture, they are compressing it horizontally. So, if you watch it on an SDTV, the image will appear squished horizontally (or stretched vertically). But, if you watch it on an HDTV in "stretch" mode, the image will actually look OK.

This is actually a really smart way to do it, since most people probably have widescreen TVs these days, but many don't have HD sources. Unfortunately, since this is the only station that I have seen do it this way, it means more fooling around with the remote to adjust aspect ratios, when you go from one channel to the next.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I think it is intentional. I think the networks purposely schedule programming to run outside the timeslot

I hate having to deal with this so badly that I have a general rule that I don't watch anything following football on CBS. What really ticks me off is that the just moved one of my favorite shows ("The Mentalist") to CBS Sunday night. I'll just mark all the bad ones as recording errors, and wait for re-runs. Sigh.

Drew

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by drewg

I hate having to deal with this so badly that I have a general rule that I don't watch anything following football on CBS. What really ticks me off is that the just moved one of my favorite shows ("The Mentalist") to CBS Sunday night. I'll just mark all the bad ones as recording errors, and wait for re-runs. Sigh.

Drew

Or watch them online

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by samgreco

I think it's as much an age thing as anything else. I admit that most of my friends that are my age (mid 50s) don't have a clue. However, almost everyone I know under 30 is doing everything online. That's why I think it may not be too long. As those folks hit critical mass in income and the like, everyone will be bending over to do what they want.

Under 30 and record everything from directv. Netflix and hulu plus are only used when we want to watch something off the air, hulu for messed up recordings.

I know 1 person that gets everything they watch on-line, everyone else has cable, dish, or fiber. People seem to think that the "younger" generation is always on the computer. I think you guys might be surprised.

Many don't even have HD yet, most don't have a DVR. I've never seen stats but I suspect a good amount of people have an HD flatscreen and pump standard analog cable into it, put it on "stretch" mode so it fills the screen, and think they are watching HD. That's the knowledge level of most Americans when it comes to A/V stuff. And those people will still be the majority for another 30-40 years. No demand = no supply.

That is more true than people realize. When I worked at Circuit City we had to set up a display showing directv in HD and SD under it on an identical HDTV. People were shocked to see that their HDTV isn't HD unless you actually have the programming. These same people got pissed because the VCR's we sold no longer had tuners in them.

[jbuszkie]

Originally Posted by drewg

I hate having to deal with this so badly that I have a general rule that I don't watch anything following football on CBS. What really ticks me off is that the just moved one of my favorite shows ("The Mentalist") to CBS Sunday night. I'll just mark all the bad ones as recording errors, and wait for re-runs. Sigh.

Drew

All my Sunday night shows record for an hour extra on CBS and FOX (do I even have any on fox??) There are only a couple times where I missed due to the game being over an hour longer... and if I do miss it.. I grab the episode off of the torrents..

Jim

[drewg]

Originally Posted by jbuszkie

All my Sunday night shows record for an hour extra on CBS and FOX (do I even have any on fox??) There are only a couple times where I missed due to the game being over an hour longer... and if I do miss it.. I grab the episode off of the torrents..

Jim

Fox has a reasonable policy of scheduling a flexible length postgame show ("The OT") after their games. They use it as a fudge factor to get back on schedule, and their primetime lineup generally runs on time, even if they have a late game. Almost every other network in the world does this after they show sporting events.

But CBS just schedules a real show right after the game, and delays the entire lineup by some random factor when they have a late game as a special "screw you" to dvr users. I've tried adding an hour to my favorites, but, like you, I still miss some. The last thing I need is to get sued for torrenting, so I decided it was just easier to boycott their Sun night lineup.

Drew

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by drewg

Fox has a reasonable policy of scheduling a flexible length postgame show ("The OT") after their games. They use it as a fudge factor to get back on schedule, and their primetime lineup generally runs on time, even if they have a late game. Almost every other network in the world does this after they show sporting events.

But CBS just schedules a real show right after the game, and delays the entire lineup by some random factor when they have a late game as a special "screw you" to dvr users. I've tried adding an hour to my favorites, but, like you, I still miss some. The last thing I need is to get sued for torrenting, so I decided it was just easier to boycott their Sun night lineup.

Drew

True about Fox, and they used to just show a re-run of one of their Sunday animated shows in that slot but realized that they could use it for recapping the day's games and people would stay tuned in. But CBS is stuck with "60 Minutes", which has historically been such a ratings beast that they refuse to move it or to join it "in progress". 60 Minutes has for DECADES always been screwed around by football. It's the show after it that they should plan on being chopped.... but they don't because they want to take advantage of all the eyes on 60 Minutes.

Dang, I forgot about The Mentalist. My local CBS NFL game actually ended on-time this week so I should be okay (have not watched it yet, but it recorded). I'll have to set a huge buffer on the end of it to cover the rest of the season....

[Tiki]

My rule of thumb is to add 45 minutes of padding on any FOX or CBS shows that are on Sunday nights. The problem comes when new seasons begin and they decide to move shows around. The Mentalist falls into this category this year (it used to be on during the week, but they moved it to Sunday night this year). So it's easy to forget to go back and add the padding (until after you get burned by a bad recording once or twice).

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by Tiki

My rule of thumb is to add 45 minutes of padding on any FOX or CBS shows that are on Sunday nights. The problem comes when new seasons begin and they decide to move shows around. The Mentalist falls into this category this year (it used to be on during the week, but they moved it to Sunday night this year). So it's easy to forget to go back and add the padding (until after you get burned by a bad recording once or twice).

Frakking sports! More TV I'll need to view via "alternative" sources. And the networks wonder why people use the internet for TV shows...

[wayner]

The kids that are college age right now will likely never subscribe to a fixed line phone service and never sub to cable/sat TV once they move into their own place.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by wayner

The kids that are college age right now will likely never subscribe to a fixed line phone service and never sub to cable/sat TV once they move into their own place.

I agree with the first part completely. But I strongly disagree with the second part. See panteragstk's post above.

Forgive if this sounds snarkier than I really mean it to be...
I don't know who invented this belief about the "young generation" but it was clearly someone who was very "techie" in their nature and doesn't see how most people live. I'm giving people here the benefit of the doubt when they spew these statements that "everyone under 21 will only watch TV streamed on the computer", that they themselves didn't just decide that, but read it somewhere. I've always said that Sagers here - by nature, mostly a very tech-geeky bunch - have a very skewed view of the "real" world. Not only are we typically surrounded by techie people, but we generally only read techie sites and such. Many here probably live in Silicon Valley or LA or San Fran or NYC, or someplace where everyone they see is "hip and tech-smart". That's not the rest of the world. These places and people have no concept of what "most" people are like - that is, completely clueless about streaming, using their computer for ALL TV, etc.

This is what I keep trying to say. The majority of America views the cable bill as a necessary evil, just like the electric bill and the water bill. Not having cable is not even an option. NOT EVEN AN OPTION.

Now, these younger kids might not pay for HBO or Showtime, and go grab entire seasons of those shows from bit torrent sites. Sure. But they'll still get cable.

By now, you've read my posts, you know what I'm gonna say is the reason. Of course, it's sports. There's a reason that ESPN is the #1 most dominant player in cable/satellite subscription costs. Depite what Sagers think, people don't get cable for SyFy or Adult Swim or History Channel, or any channel where you could get the content a day later on Hulu Plus. Most of America gets cable for ESPN and LIVE sports. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the day being anytime soon when a bunch of 23-year-old football fans will pile into a friend's apartment to watch the big game on his laptop, or even when he'll have his 70" HDTV plugged into his laptop and be streaming it.

And as I've been trying to say, and panteragstk agreed with above, the large majority of the population - even the young ones - don't have the tech knowledge to use a PC as a DVR, or even to hook up an antenna to get the sports on OTA major networks. Cable/satellite is what was in their house growing up. It was always "just there". When they go out on their own, they will need it to be "just there" (along with a high-speed internet connection, which they'll likely get from the cable company as well). So they'll pay that bill, just like they'll pay their electric and water bills, and not think any more about it.

At work I sit next to a mid-twenties guy who is an "Average Joe". Bars and beer on Friday and Saturday nights, sports on TV all the time, sitcoms, bowling league, and softball games on weeknights. I asked him if any of his friends - especially those he knows who are a few years younger and just out of college - don't have cable and watch their TV strictly via the internet. He said "no, I've never heard of anyone doing that". Just sayin'.

[wayner]

I agree that sports are the hook to keep you subscribed but not everyone is a sports fan. I was just talking to one of my colleagues yesterday about this and his high school aged kids don't watch TV with the family - they watch in their rooms on their computers, tablets, smartphones, etc.

And I do know a few people that are a year or two out of college and that haven't bothered to get a cable sub. One of those that does only does so since it is covered in his condo rent.

I am not saying that this is everyone, certainly it is a wealthier, better-educated demographic than the general population. But I really think that it is a trend and that the under 20 crowd is definitely moving away from watching TV in the traditional sense that most of us grew up with - a larger screen in the living room often watched by multiple peole with a cable sub, or even the situation where even has a traditional TV in his/her bedroom.

[phelme]

Originally Posted by wayner

But I really think that it is a trend and that the under 20 crowd is definitely moving away from watching TV in the traditional sense that most of us grew up with - a larger screen in the living room often watched by multiple peole with a cable sub, or even the situation where even has a traditional TV in his/her bedroom.

We are migrating into a society of "screen" entertainment in isolation. And even if you are in a group watching a TV, I've noticed more people checking their devices at the same time to do whatever rather than interacting.

If I had still had 20 year old eyes, I'd probably watch stuff on a phone or tablet too, but at my age the distance of a large screen TV helps.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by phelme

We are migrating into a society of "screen" entertainment in isolation. And even if you are in a group watching a TV, I've noticed more people checking their devices at the same time to do whatever rather than interacting.

If I had still had 20 year old eyes, I'd probably watch stuff on a phone or tablet too, but at my age the distance of a large screen TV helps.

Agree with this. Kids won't all have TVs in their bedrooms in the future, they'll watch something on their mobile device. Kids are too needy of constant interaction that the days of the parents on the couch and the kids on the floor, watching the same sanitary sitcom on the living room TV, are over. I don't doubt that. And even today, the parents will often have a tablet in their lap while watching, even if it's just mom and dad. But I don't buy the idea that the kids won't have cable when they are older. For many, having a real TV with cable may almost be a statement - showing "look at me, I'm independent, I can afford a real TV and cable, just like my parents". But those same young people, when they get older and married and have kids, their kids will see them with that TV, and the torch will be passed.

Sorta like how I find myself often tuning into the local news during dinner. Because my parents always did, and it feels "normal".

As for kids not having TVs in their rooms and now watching streaming media on PC/tablet/phone.... that's a whole other issue. Personally, my children won't and wouldn't ever have gotten TVs in their rooms. When they get older, we will be setting rules about having their phones in their rooms, period. I can't imagine a lot of homework being done when the texting device is at their side, if you know what I mean. But that's a parenting issue, not a "future of tech" issue, so I'll get off my soapbox....

[davidjames]

Originally Posted by phelme

We are migrating into a society of "screen" entertainment in isolation. And even if you are in a group watching a TV, I've noticed more people checking their devices at the same time to do whatever rather than interacting.

I've got to inject what has become the definitive commercial which defines this.

There is a roof top concert with a live band. One lady video's the band with her phone and shares it with friends. The friends, who are also on the roof top with the band begin watching the shared video, instead of the live band.

Then the original lady goes over to the edge of the roof to watch a live video of the band being shown on an adjacent building, all the while ignoring the actual live band.

[samgreco]

I think the idea of equating "Cable" with big TVs is part of the problem I have with this argument.

Take the cable box out of the equation and replace it with an internet capable set top box. Everything is the same except the source of the video.

That is what I am talking about when I say that we will be online watchers soon. Not that we will be watching on our computers. It's all about the source.

If mom and dad had a box that acted just like their cable box, that let them watch what they want, when they want, would they notice or care? Maybe. But anyone growing up now won't.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by samgreco

I think the idea of equating "Cable" with big TVs is part of the problem I have with this argument.

Take the cable box out of the equation and replace it with an internet capable set top box. Everything is the same except the source of the video.

That is what I am talking about when I say that we will be online watchers soon. Not that we will be watching on our computers. It's all about the source.

If mom and dad had a box that acted just like their cable box, that let them watch what they want, when they want, would they notice or care? Maybe. But anyone growing up now won't.

I agree, but the problem is that there is no such box. All forms of internet TV require more effort than getting a cable box, plugging it in, and having it work using a simple interface that anybody can use.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I agree, but the problem is that there is no such box. All forms of internet TV require more effort than getting a cable box, plugging it in, and having it work using a simple interface that anybody can use.

Well... except for that fancy little Google Fiber TV box that this thread is actually supposed to be all about It's not 100% what we're talking about, but it's pretty darn close. And it will merge fast internet, streaming TV on demand and traditional TV broadcast (including "cable channels") all together.

Things I know are Included with GoogleFiberTV is: YouTube, Netflix, other on-demand specific to GoogleFiber
And those are to be included in search and guide in the interface... as far as I understand it at least.