Keith Olbermann Returning to Television

Image from MSN

Well, I had to temper my squeee! when I found out that Keith Olbermann's long-awaited return to television is in a sports capacity. I have only slightly more affinity for sports than I have for religion. Which is to say, not much at all. But good for Keith, glad he got a gig. He probably doesn't need the bucks, but I'm sure he misses the limelight.

[Excerpt]

Keith Olbermann to host TBS' MLB postseason coverage

Keith Olbermann is getting back in the game -- but not the political game. The former ESPN personality will host TBS' studio coverage for Major League Baseball's postseason, the network announced Wednesday. . .

Read more at: MSN

Free, Fast, Nationwide Wireless Internet?

Whee! Image from Raw Story.

Over the years, I've gone from basic cable and home telephone for maybe $40 total (we're talking 1986ish), to three land lines and extended cable (late 90s) for somewhere between $80 and $100 per month. Eventually, dial-up modems were replaced by cable modems, and we whittled down to one phone line, with more advanced cable, and we were firmly over $100. In 2004, we got our first cell phones for $60 per month total, added to our now $135 (at least) cable and $25ish land line. Cell phones became smart phones, the land line/internet/DVR/cable package is now bundled, and we're talking $130 for the phones and $200+ for the cable. We're at over $330 per month for various forms of media, and we don't have everything. No, we cut Starz, no Cinemax, no whole-house DVR, no iPhones, no iPads. But I have a hard time believing we're paying what we already are, so haven't added anything in a while.

But imagine that the internet portion was free. And everywhere. Imagine that devices grow with this, and change. I have to think that cell phones would become fully internet phones, no provider. Land lines would become redundant. With services like Netflix and so much content online, cable would be (and sort of already is) replaceable. All other things remaining equal--other than the cost of devices--my media bill could be $0, excepting Netflix or other specialty services.

Or could this be Skynet come to life?

There is no way in hell that Time-Warner, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, ComCast and CenturyLink are going to take this lying down. If it looks like free wifi is on the horizon, there will be massive lobbying to fight it, curtail it, throttle it, hobble it. For a time, they might try to innovate, offering more for less. Maybe they'll finally take cable a-la-carte, allowing to pick whatever channels you want. There would still be subscription services like HBO and Showtime.

Our newly evolved net-phones would have to be produced by somebody, and you know that if they can't hook you for data, they're going to get you with the device. There will still be the latest and greatest, and it won't be free unless you sign a contract, right? So, you know the providers will survive. But I've got to think it would bring the price down from the stratosphere.

[Excerpt]

FCC chairman developing plan for free wireless Internet access: report

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is developing a set of proposals that would establish a public wifi network that blankets the country with a high powered signal anyone can access for free, according to The Washington Post. Such a sweeping change would be years in the making, but companies lobbying for it say that universal Internet access could spark an explosion of innovation and help usher in a new age of prosperity. . .

Read more at:  Raw Story

Blast from the Past: ABC-TV in the 70s

This week's edition of Blast from the Past is going to be a little bit rushed. We're preparing for a trip, and I don't have the focus, nor the energy to put in a text-heavy edition this week. So, here's a trip down memory lane, if you happen to have spent a significant time in front of a television between--oh--1975 to 1979. In no particular order. This, is what I mean by the whole concept of Blast from the past, when I distill it down. The era of That's 70s Show is the sweet spot of my pop culture brain.

For the record, that's Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Three's Company, Soap, Charlie's Angels, Wonder Woman, The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman. These are the primary shows I really glommed onto as a kid, though thee were lots of others. And with that, you have a window into my childhood. And that will do it for now!

Happy Monday, everybody.

Blast from the Past: The Days When ABC, NBC and CBS Ruled

I grew up a media savvy kid in an era when there wasn't much of it. We had three major television channels, with the dubious addition of PBS (which kids hated unless they were pre-schoolers), and the odd local channel. In the mid-to-late 70s we got cable, but even that was public affairs programming, and a couple more independent channels. This meant mostly reruns of The Lucy Show and The Andy Griffith Show.

These days, broadcast television networks are still prominent, but they have to struggle for dominance with original programming from AMC, HBO, Showtime, USA and FX. As you can see, most of them are still very fond of alphabet soup.

But back in the day, the big three were king. They'd jockey for position, and once and a while one would serioiusly tank for a few years. But they were all we had. For a pop culture kid, a lot of the "network stars" stuff really hit home. The slogans, the logos. I ate it up.

CBS TV is 60 Years Old

Image from AOLTV

I have to say, this surprises me. It shouldn't, since I know that broadcast television started in the late 1940s, so 1951 sounds about right. But damn, I'm 45 years old. CBS was only 15 when I was born? I Love Lucy debuted on CBS in 1951, and was a hit right out of the gate, meaning that CBS was too.

When I was a kid--when there were still basically three networks and a couple of independent channels--it was ABC that was the network to watch. Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, Charlie's Angels. . .CBS didn't make as big of a dent. They were big with shows like Barnaby Jones, The Waltons, Gunsmoke and Cannon. But they started to get a little "hip" factor with The Incredible Hulk, The Dukes of Hazzard, Wonder Woman, Magnum PI, Simon & Simon and Dallas. And who didn't like The Carol Burnett Show? So, happy birthday, CBS, even if you did make too many years of Murder, She Wrote and The King of Queens.

[Excerpt]


CBS Celebrates Eye Logo Anniversary

For 60 years the CBS logo has been watching you watch TV. The iconic eye logo debuted 60 years ago on Oct. 20, 1951 and has been an ever-present fixture on the network. . .

Read more at: AOLTV

NBC Universal Unveils New Logo. FAIL.

The New (ugly) "logo." --from source, Huffington Post

There is a lot I don't like about the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal. I mean, NBC Universal was already the merger of two big media companies. Every network was already owned by a huge conglomerate (Viacom owns two of them, CBS and the CW). As with seemingly everything else in this country, one of these days, there will probably be only a couple of giant owners, splitting the whole media pie. You can go to any hardware store you want, as long as it's Home Depot or Lowes. Any book store, as long as it's Borders or Barnes & Noble. Any media source, as long as it's DisneyViacomWarnerFox or ComcastNBCUniversal.

Previous (better) logo --from source, Huffington Post

I'm a graphic artist though, so another problem is their hideous new logo. NBC has done great things with logos over the years, with the great brand recognition of their peacock. The previous corporate logo neatly blended the two identities of NBC and Universal. It was cool; simple but classy. The new one? It isn't a logo at all. It's a typeface. And it isn't even an attractive typeface. Somebody gets paid for this stuff? How do you get a gig like that?

[Excerpt]

NBC Universal's New Logo Ditches Peacock


NBC Universal is now NBCUniversal - without the space, the peacock or the globe silhouette.



That was part of the message delivered to the company's 25,000 employees at a town hall gathering on Thursday that featured top executives from prospective new owner Comcast Corp. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

A Few Unanswered Questions About Lost

I liked the Lost finale at first, but the more I thought about it, the less fond I became.  Here are some of the reasons why. . .

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

24 Finale Better Than Lost?

Ummmm, I'm thinking yeah.  Unlike Lost, which was tasked with wrapping up a mystical/sci-fi storyline that sprawled over six seasons, 24 was pretty much just dealing with the one day (with some attendant back story, of course). So this story just had to be whiz-bang, and leave us wanting more. And by gosh, they did it!

That kind of surprises me, because the end game in this season was pretty much just Jack Bauer going on a rampage. The major threat of the season was over weeks ago, and this finale really only had the "peace accord", President Allison Taylor's rogue turn, and former President Charles Logan's sliminess going for it. But something happened to me while watching this that did not happen during the Lost finale: I got goosebumps! And that tightness in the solar plexus. I think it's what they call being on the edge of your seat. Very cool, show! I didn't know you could do that to me anymore!

Featured Site: TV Tropes

Wow. In my last post, I mentioned "Wiki-holes" and their many cousins on the internet. Basically, it is the phenomenon of getting sucked into a site so deeply that you look at the clock and it is hours later. One thing leads to another and the day (or night) is gone.

My last post got me enmeshed in yet another hole, a TV Tropes-hole. The site is dedicated to the conventions and contrivances in story-telling, mostly in TV but in other genres as well. And I'm telling you, one link leads to another. Basically, the site is for people who are too smart for the source material.

The job of a work of fiction is to engage your "willing suspension of disbelief." But if the writing or acting is bad, you get sucked out of that story zone. TV Tropes points out all the ways that can happen, and more. The terminology and the various sources sited land squarely in my pop culture sweet spot. Maybe yours too. Here's just an example of the types of entries you'll find at TV Tropes. . .

[Excerpt]

Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichés. The word clichéd means "stereotyped and trite". In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them. . .

Go on, you'll have fun (and lose several hours) at: TV Tropes