Life without Cable? Believe it… or not.

Believe it. The folks at Time Warner have been getting nine dollars less from me each month (apropos of nothing, that nine dollars now goes towards Vitamin Water). For years, I have pushed for “a la carte” pricing for the cable/satellite industries, wherein viewers would only pay for the shows or networks they want. I still feel this form of pricing would lead to more original programming (as well as a return to niche programming) and a greater competitive edge among media outlets. Alas, it will never happen. Something better came along. Instead of paying for the shows I want, now I don’t pay for them at all.

Remember, teens: torrents=theft

Believe it. I am now one of those who find programming on the internet (why does Microsoft Word believe internet should be capitalized? It doesn’t believe intranet should be capitalized… or world wide web… or, again apropos of nothing, doo-dad). Note: I have never downloaded a torrent or watched any bootlegged shows on YouTube or any of its bastard cousins. No, I view only the programs that meet or exceed copyright standards. And, let me tell you, you can get something for nothing.

Don’t believe it. While most programming (and now I am noticing that Microsoft is adding a second M to the word programming, when I know for a fact that both the single and double M spellings are acceptable… f-ing technology thinking it is better than me) is available online, many networks require you to use their proprietary “viewers” to screen shows. And here’s where the pleasure of following the law clashes with the pain of broadband.

First, allow me to list the positive aspects of online viewing. The top of this list would have to be iTunes. For the uninitiated, the iTunes Store regularly offers free downloads of shows, particularly if it is a new series or the start of a new season. I was able to view the pilot episode of “Kings” (which I liked) and “Southland” (which was bland and pedantic) for free in HD thanks to iTunes. Unlike the rest of the viewers available from the internet, iTunes allows programs to be downloaded and viewed uninterrupted (or, if you are interrupted by other things, you need only pause the video and return to it at your leisure… an option only available on one online viewer).

One comment that applies across-the-board in terms of online viewers is the lack of in-program banner ads that can cover more than a third of the picture on programs aired on networks. Praise be to whomever decided such ads should not appear on net video. My guess is that it is assumed people would view shows on small computer screens, which would negate the visual elements of such a banner ad. Little did they know that for less than 20 bucks, you can pick up an adaptor that sends a computer’s video directly to a TV or VCR. I watch shows on my television with the audio routed through my stereo, which is exactly what I did when I still had cable. And, yes, I can record programs to that antiquated form of technology known as videotape (and I’ve begun to recycle some of my old TDK tapes, because even reused TDK tapes are better than new Sony tapes). It is also worth noting that, since the recent demise of yet another DVD player, I also use my laptop to watch DVDs, making the computer to TV adaptor an even better investment.

CBS has, by far, the worst proprietary viewer of the ones I regularly use. The picture and sound quality are good. In fact, CBS videos have an HD option for those who truly see a difference. But there is a glitch in its system. Typically after the second or third commercial break, the screen goes to gray and you have to refresh the site, locate the spot on the video where you left off, watch the same commercial you just saw over again, and say a quick prayer that it doesn’t freeze up again, or you have to repeat the process. I’ve had the problem on three different computers utilizing two different wireless routers, so this isn’t an isolated incident or a “Mac thing.” Fortunately, the only show I regularly watch on CBS is “Numbers,” so it isn’t a huge setback. It is, however, an annoyance.

ABC’s viewer has no glitch in its system, and yet it is almost as annoying. Aside from iTunes, programs found online typically require people to sit through a 15 or 30 second commercial during what, on a network airing, would be a 3 minute block of ads. I’m fine with that. I see it as the cost of doing business. However, ABC’s viewer is quirky, in that people who view the content online must sit through 30 seconds of an ad, but the ad itself could be several minutes long. After the 30-second required viewing time, a window pops up stating, “click to continue.” If you don’t get up, move your mouse down to the bottom of the screen, and click, the ad will keep playing. In a world of remote controls and passive viewing of programs, this extra step is just annoying enough to make me publicly state that I hope the rumors of ABC and Disney hammering out a deal with Hulu are true.

Ah, Hulu. Where the bulk of my online TV time is spent. Fox and NBC have long-term partnership deals with Hulu. Cable nets like Comedy Central and FX use the site. Universal has an ever-growing archive of older (and in some cases “classic”) shows on the site. Its interface is simple. Its ads are unobtrusive, only not really. The commercials are typically timed out at 15 seconds, but, from my experience, the ads inevitably freeze up for an additional 5 to 20 seconds. I’d consider it another quirk, except the programming doesn’t freeze in this manner, only the ads, leading me to believe it is a semi-deliberate attempt to offer more screen time to advertisers, under the guise of less ads. There are also certain deals-within-deals that don’t allow some programs to be put online until days (sometimes weeks) after they air (Fox does this with “House” and FX does this with “Rescue Me”). Hulu is the one viewer that, if you have logged in, stores where you leave off on a show and will pick up the action from that exact point the next time you click on the episode.

One thing noticeably absent from the world of online viewers is PBS. I tended to watch PBS more than the big three networks combined. An online presence of PBS programming is sporadic at best. Typically, PBS provides clips of series and specials. Rarely are full episodes made available. I watched “This Old House” and “Hometime” every week (unless preempted by a pledge drive). I watched “Mystery” or “Masterpiece: Mystery” regularly. And I’ve caught cooking shows on PBS since I was a kid trying to keep up with Jeff “Frugal Gourmet” Smith or, most recently, the long running “America’s Test Kitchen.” The BBC has its own viewer made available to those in the UK only, and the public broadcasting network makes all its shows available in a convenient and timely manner. I guess that sort of thing might work in jolly ol’ England, but, across the pond, we don’t get online access to programs we either directly or indirectly finance. That seems strange to me.

My current favorite show is “Top Gear,” a long-running British series that I only recently discovered. I would be remiss if I did not point out that, though the aforementioned BBC viewer doesn’t allow US residents to watch its programming, “Top Gear” has a website overflowing with an extensive collection of clips of the series.

As for news programming, CNN has a streaming feed for any breaking news events (same goes for local news, though I rarely watched them). And the big three network newscasts and Sunday morning chat shows are free downloads on iTunes, as are the Keith and Rachel snarkfests from MSNBC. Fans of Fox News… you’re out of luck.

As for sports programming, your guess is as good as mine. Sorry to leave a large chunk of television hanging in the wind, but I’m not a huge sports fan and I really have little insight to offer in the way of what might be available online as opposed to broadcast.

I don’t know if the hassle that comes from making the switch to online viewers is worth the nine-bucks-a-month savings (the reason I only save nine dollars is because, by opting out of the “bundle” offered by Time Warner, the cost of my internet went up by 20 dollars a month). But I do feel as though I am no longer subsidizing hundreds of cable networks that weren’t offering me any worthwhile programs. I also find that I watch less television, and when I do watch, I am more committed to sitting down and focusing on the shows.

I think more people will be making the switch away from cable and satellite in the future. Judging from the way Time Warner has begun to introduce a tiered pricing system into its broadband billing, they would seem to agree with me. I think it is in the best interests of the networks and content providers to polish their online viewers to the point where they are less of a hindrance to users.