The days of being tied to a traditional TV to watch your favorite shows is becoming less and less of a dream — at least for Mediaroom 2.0 users, like those who subscribe to AT&T U-Verse. It hasn’t even been a full year since Xbox 360 owners were first able to launch a U-Verse blade to watch TV, but it has been about nine months when we first heard rumors of Mediaroom clients for Windows Media Center (aka Monaco), Silverlight (aka Taos) and Windows Phone (aka Rome) would see the light of day. A recent post on William Zhang’s blog, a Microsoft employee, confirms the rumored code names in addition to giving us reason to believe those using Mediaroom 2.0 software might still realize the three screen dream by the end of 2011 after all.

New Mediaroom clients to bring Microsoft’s TV platform everywhere this year originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:24:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink The Digital Lifestyle  |  MSDN Mediaroom blog  | Email this | Comments
Engadget

As a journalism startup run by a widely-admired former Washington Post online veteran, TBD.com had a lot of high hopes riding on it. Among other things, it looked like the site could help to pave the way for other smart, locally-focused media experiments, and provide a kind of antidote to the institutionalized approach that AOL’s Patch is taking to local journalism. But co-founder Jim Brady suddenly left TBD not long after it launched, and the site has since been absorbed by its corporate parent, which runs a series of traditional TV stations. Some have argued that local online efforts like TBD simply can’t succeed, but others maintain the site’s failure is a result of corporate infighting, and says nothing about the strength of the original concept.

Although the original announcement from Allbritton Communications a few weeks ago suggested the site was simply being tweaked a little, along with some management and administrative changes, this week, it became obvious that TBD has effectively been demolished. More than a dozen employees were let go, most of whom had been hired specifically for TBD, although some were told they could apply for a handful of new jobs at the company. The actual site itself — designed to be an ambitious, Washington-focused, news site with hyper-local aspects involving a local blog network and other crowdsourced content — is apparently going to become a niche entertainment and lifestyle destination, while the TV arm of Allbritton has taken over the news operation.

Alan Mutter, a media-industry veteran who writes a blog under the name Newsosaur, said the failure of TBD was yet another example of how “hyper-local” journalism doesn’t really work as a business and how such projects are “more hype than hope.” Mutter noted that several other hyper-local news experiments have also failed, including one called Backfence that was shut down in 2007, and a more recent one called Loudoun Extra, which was financed in part by the Washington Post and was closed in 2009. Mutter said such sites failed for a number of reasons including:

• Small audiences. Most such efforts expect a large number of people will want to read local news, but “practically, there is not that much compelling news about the average community in the average month.”
• Big expenses. Producing quality content requires a lot of staff and significant production costs, and selling advertising to local businesses also requires a lot of people and time.
• Small revenues. Because such sites have small audiences, they can only sell sponsorships for tiny amounts of money, and “the low yields barely cover the cost of the sales effort.”

Rick Edmonds at the Poynter Institute also argued Allbritton made a number of serious mistakes with the launch of TBD, including choosing an unknown brand for its new venture and relying on the “pedigree” of its founders and early hires instead of coming up with a compelling idea. Poynter has more coverage of the story, and others have also weighed in on the demise of the site, including former Guardian editor Emily Bell, who now runs the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, and founder Jim Brady, who talked about the project in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review.

John Paton disagrees with the pessimism of Mutter and Edmonds, however — and he is putting a lot of money on the line in defence of his views, since he is the CEO of Journal-Register Co., a chain of small daily and weekly newspapers in New Jersey, Connecticut and several other states that he took over management of after it went bankrupt last year. Paton has taken an aggressively open and web-based approach to the restructuring of the company, including a number of innovations such as a “community-centered newsroom.” Paton took on some of the critics of TBD in a blog post entitled “Hyperlocal Can’t Be Monetized and Other Lies You Heard This Week About TBD,” saying:

What Allbritton did was ‘back’ a high-profile strategy that got them lots of positive press. It hit some bumps in the road and then they simply stopped because they never understood what they were ‘backing’ and it was costing money. Perhaps more than they first thought. Well, welcome to the business jungle.

Paton made it clear he is moving forward with his company’s hyper-local news approach online, and he’s not alone: AOL’s Patch has spent close to 0 million setting up local news operations in almost 1,000 towns and regions across the U.S., and the company said it plans to continue to roll out that strategy. As Patch continues its moves into the Washington region, Allbritton Communications may wish that it had invested more time and money in building TBD instead of shutting it down so quickly.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

• How Media Companies Can Compete Online
• Privacy: How to Avoid the Third Rail of Online Services
• What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s Open Platform

Post and thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user Stewart Chambers

alt='The exponential data center is here: Juniper Networks'
border='0'
/>

GigaOM

While Google TV might be a good idea to many, a downside of it seems to have surfaced. It won’t be a surprise to anyone, considering that Google is in the advertising business, Google TV product manager Rishi Chandra has confirmed in an interview that ad skipping will not be allowed on the Google TV platform. This might come as frustrating to some as many folks have become accustomed to skipping ads on their home set-top boxes. The idea is that traditional TV advertising didn’t allow advertisers to personalize ads in any way, but with the web, ads can be more targeted, allowing them to reach the users that they’re looking for. Granted, nobody wants to be served ads, but let’s see if Google can turn on the magic and make this seem like a win for consumers too.

Permalink: Google TV Won't Allow You To Skip Ads from Ubergizmo | Hot: Macbook Pro Review, iPad Review

D-Link just went official on the Boxee Box. But they still didn’t answer our only last question: the price. All they said is that it will be less than $200. Thanks, we kind of figured that along with that the device will stream media from various big-name sources like Netflix, Pandora and Last.fm. Stay tuned though, more info is likely going to drop at CES in a day or two.

D-LINK DEBUTS BOXEE BOX AT CES 2010; DIRECTLY LINKS INTERNET ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES TO TVs EVERYWHERE

Networking pioneer and popular entertainment software
create the best way to get the free entertainment the Internet has to offer with no monthly fee

LAS VEGAS, CES Booth 36232, South Hall, LVCC, Jan. 5, 2010 – D-Link made lots of geeks and early adopters happy today by introducing the revolutionary Boxee Box by D-Link, winner of the CES Best of Innovations award in the Home Entertainment category.

The Boxee Box by D-Link reinterprets what TV should be. The Boxee Box delivers movies, TV shows, music, and photos from a user’s computer, home network, and the Internet to their HDTV with no PC needed. Additionally, Boxee’s core social features make it easy for friends to discover new content from each other through social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and more.

Internet Entertainment
Boxee is a popular PC, Mac, and Linux software program that lets users watch hundreds of thousands of popular TV shows and movies. Instead of sifting through millions of confusing Web sites, when users search on Boxee, TV shows and movies are delivered to them with the click of a remote control. Nearly a million Internet users around the world have already downloaded Boxee to enjoy their online entertainment.

The Boxee Box by D-Link takes the same popular software and offers it up as a great device — the perfect companion to a high definition TV. The Boxee Box by D-Link provides access to more than just traditional TV content. It includes a huge library that spans the Internet, such as university courses, panel discussions, academic lectures, presentations, web-only videos and more from TED, Stanford, FORA.tv, Kid Mango, Next New Networks and others. Boxee also makes it easy for users to add their own favorite entertainment sources with simple RSS or XML feeds available for most online video.

In addition to video content, Boxee users can access great music from sites like Pandora, last.fm, shoutcast, and We are Hunted as well as stunning photos from sites like flickr, Picasa and Facebook.

Personal Entertainment
For entertainment lovers who have built their own collections of digital media stored on their computer hard drive or home network, Boxee automatically identifies their content and downloads relevant cover art, synopses, reviews, subtitles, lyrics and more. This feature turns boring files and folders into beautiful media libraries that make it simple and appealing to navigate a collection of favorite movies, TV shows, and playlists with a simple remote. Furthermore, the Boxee Box by D-Link has extensive format support (see below) which ensures that when users hit the play button, they get instant gratification, with no need to download codecs or drivers. Also, with built-in 802.11n Wi-Fi support, it can transfer files without delay and from longer distances within a user’s home.

Social Features
The Boxee Box by D-Link keeps people connected with social features to help users discover new content from friends, experts, and tastemakers.
The first step to discovery is sharing, and Boxee makes this easy by letting people recommend any playing content to friends. Additionally Boxee automatically uses recommendations from a user’s Twitter and Facebook friends so they can find new content and instantly enjoy it on the big screen. Since anyone can build on top of Boxee’s open App platform, users can craft their own truly custom experience by creating or downloading plug-ins, add-ons, games, and more.

“We are pleased to partner with Boxee and to be the first with such a ground-breaking device,” said Nick Tidd, vice president of sales of D-Link Pan America and vice president of marketing for D-Link North America. “This powerful device with its unique form factor truly leverages Boxee’s service and is the best way for consumers to quickly access the growing volume of Internet content, organize it and stream it to their TVs and home entertainment centers.”

“D-Link’s successful track record in bringing to market, award-winning digital home networking products, and its global marketing, distribution and channel sales capabilities made them a great fit for our first hardware vendor.” stated Andrew Kippen, vice president of marketing for Boxee, “The Boxee Box by D-Link gives consumers what they want – an easy way to watch Internet or personal entertainment in their living rooms with a simple set-top box that costs under $200 and has no monthly fees.”

The Boxee Box by D-Link is scheduled to ship in the first half of 2010 through the company’s vast network of retail and e-tail outlets, and at D-Link’s online store, www.dlinkshop.com.
Supported Codecs & Formats
Boxee can be used to play/view practically all common multimedia formats, including:

VIDEO:
Adobe Flash 10.1
H.264 (MKV, MOV)
VC-1
WMV
MPEG-1
MPEG-2
MPEG-4
AVI
Xvid
Divx
PCM/LPCM
VOB

AUDIO:
MP3
WMA
WAV
AIFF
FLAC
AAC
DTS
Dolby Digital
Ogg Vorbis

PHOTO:
JPEG
TIFF
BMP
PNG

More FCC news for you, this Wednesday morning (and before Droid news consumes us all). The agency is considering taking some of the bandwidth that is currently allocated to digital television, and auctioning it off so that broadband companies can bid on it. The point, of course, is to increase the availability of wireless broadband.

There’s a few sides here, each with some valid points. You’ve got the current TV station owners who, as you might expect, don’t want to lose any spectrum, even if you compensate them with giant bags of money. Then there’s the broadband companies who are all, “Please oh please let us have the spectrum, so we can create some new broadband service, and sit back and watch the money roll in.” You’ve got people who are against the move because it might put in jeopardy the spectrum that the federal government spent billions of dollars convincing people to switch to (the switch to digital TV). And then you’ve got people who just hate the FCC, and think that regulating the Internet isn’t even part of its charge.

It’s important to keep in mind that, by definition, the spectrum belongs to all of us, as citizens. It should be used in such a way that is beneficial to the most citizens and not just a handful of TV station owners, for example.

Now, will this even happen, auctioning off some spectrum so that broadband companies will bid? It might happen, but no rules will be put in place till February at the next big FCC meeting.

A strong argument in favor of this: broadband access is simply more useful than traditional TV. You can only watch TV, which is fine. With broadband, you can watch, sure, but you can also participate (in debates relevant to you: PS3 vs. Xbox, the public option vs. something else, etc.), which is vital to having a fully informed citizenry.

But don’t freak out: the FCC can say, come February, “Yeah, we can’t do that broadband spectrum auction thing. Sorry. Next question.”

I only watch a handful of the 200+ DirecTV channels I pay for. To see whether I could survive without the pricey service, I simply went without it. I soon wondered why we all don’t just turn off traditional TV.

As illustrated in a few of our surveys, many of you have already made the jump, catching fresh TV via broadband instead of actual channels or even DVR. But the vast majority of us are still watching TV the old fashioned way—paying for packages from cable or satellite providers. But from what I’ve seen in my own house lately, I suspect that it won’t be long before this practice is as archaic as owning a landline. Many of you refuse to pay for a phone twice, so why are you paying for two or three different ways to see your favorite TV shows?

There are, of course, drawbacks to a life without a broadcaster-friendly set-top box, so I spent a month trying to find out whether or not these drawbacks were significant enough to justify the huge additional cost.

The Experiment

Since this is Prof. Dealzmodo, you already know the impetus for this experiment was money. In particular my 12-month introductory package runs out soon, and the same channels will soon cost me nearly $80 per month. But why? The channel lineups are bloated and padded with filler—a veritable hot dog of entertainment where the real meat is mixed in with a lot of hooves and snouts. I mean, 70 music channels? Really? Isn’t that what services like Pandora—and about 100 others—are for? Speaking of services, I decided to play it straight. I didn’t get shows via BitTorrent. For a month, I simply used easily accessible, generally legal alternatives like Netflix, Hulu Desktop and network websites, plus Windows Media Center, which comes “free” with most PCs these days. The idea here is to prove that you don’t need to spend tons of money, use complicated software or go to extreme measures to watch what you want.

Hardware

First let’s talk about hardware. I don’t see the point in spending money on niche players like Apple TV , Vudu, and Roku to get internet content onto your television. These players only handle a fraction of what any home theater PC can deliver. Also, sticking with a computer makes it easier to roll with new services and software platforms as they’re released. (Hulu isn’t on any set-top box yet, but it’s available to every Mac and PC, in several ways.)

You don’t need something elaborate here—an HTPC’s main purpose is to browse the web and stream video. Just about any computer will do—including the old laptop you’re thinking about replacing anyway. Back in the day, I used to attach my laptop to the TV with a simple S-video connection, but a lot of today’s laptops and home-theater PCs make things extremely easy with an HDMI port.

If you don’t have an HDMI port, there are simple workarounds. For older computers in general, there are DVI-to-HDMI (video only) and VGA-to-component cables are also doable for older PCs, and if you already have some video cables, there are adapters out there that might do the trick for less money. Owners of new Macs have to fudge a bit with Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI converters, but even those, from Monoprice and others, are getting better.

There are plenty of products out there designed for the home-theater market that cost less than $500—including the Asus’ EEEBox line and the Lenovo IdeaCenter Q700. Plus, there is always the option of buying refurbished or upgrading a cheap PC yourself to control costs.

If you want to cheat and record broadcast shows, you still don’t have to pay for cable—you can get an over-the-air HD TV tuner. Generally, a USB dongle TV tuner or PCI card like those from Hauppage will cost $100 or so, and they work reasonably well, though you may need an external antenna for best results. You don’t have to pay for service, and you can be assured of local news and other local programming, if that’s important to you. Just don’t come crying to us if you can’t get your rabbit ears into just the right position.

No matter what computer and accessories you use, the added cost will probably pay for itself pretty quickly when you start canceling all those expensive subscriptions. As I mentioned earlier, going broadband-only will save me about $80 a month in satellite fees—in 8 months, I will have recouped my $600 home-theater PC investment.

In the end, my entire monthly TV entertainment budget runs about $60—that’s $50 for basic broadband plus $10 for Netflix. Compare that to the $140 I would have paid starting in February for the combination of all that plus DirecTV. (As a sports fan, there are online programs that I do pay extra for, but you get what you pay for—as you’ll see below.)

How To Manage and Control Your TV Content

You will have to sacrifice the basic (if not exactly pretty) UI you are used to. Fortunately, things are getting better. Hulu Desktop looks more like what you would find with a broadcast set-top box, and with Windows Media Center, having Netflix and other plug-ins makes finding and watching on-demand shows a whole lot easier. And there’s at least one new website, Clicker that is taking a crack at organizing internet content into an easy-to-use programming guide.

Fortunately, I managed to keep the number of remotes on my coffee table to a minimum. I have a Windows Media Center remote to handle Netflix, DVDs, Hulu Desktop and downloads. Mac users have their own little white remote which handles much of this functionality, too. (A wireless keyboard and mouse are essential for more intricate navigation and many PC functions, but those can stay out of sight for the most part.)

iPhone/iPod Touch apps like Air Mouse and iTunes Remote have made my iPhone an all-in-one solution for controlling my computer and its software.

Watching Your Favorite Shows

I’m not a TV addict by a long shot, but there are shows that I watch religiously. These shows include 30 Rock, Lost, Family Guy, Californication and Dexter. The following graph illustrates the pluses and minuses of viewing a handful of different shows—not just my favorites—from popular networks.

The newest episodes of many of these shows are on Hulu, which mostly hosts fresh content—there isn’t a huge back catalog of shows. The catch with new shows, on Hulu or on network websites, is that you usually have to wait a day to see them. (For many DVR devotees, that’s not a big deal anyway.)

It’s also important to point out that certain networks tease their new seasons in many locations online—NBC has been offering free HD downloads of many new shows on iTunes, in hopes you’ll buy the season pass for $40 or more.

Netflix is another place where networks promote new shows: I was able to see the first episode of Californication and Dexter on Netflix during their limited time Watch Instantly preview. Speaking of that, Showtime shows, if available at all, do tend to appear on Netflix, but mostly only in re-runs.

As you can see, not everything streams in HD quality, although this appears to be changing. ABC is already streaming in HD, and others like Hulu and Netflix are dabbling, so it’s only a matter of time before HD content is widely available for streaming online.

What’s Not Online

CBS, HBO and Discovery: I’m talkin’ to you. I couldn’t care less about CBS programming—though it’s the #1 rated network, so clearly somebody does. CBS.com (and TV.com) offers a handful of full episodes (CSI and NCIS), and some of those show up in Netflix too, but until CBS decides their agenda, you may have to wait for new seasons of Big Bang Theory to show up on DVD, or try to record over-the-air broadcasts (see above).

I love History Channel and Discovery Channel, and these guys are also reluctant to accept reality, move away from old revenue models and look towards the future. Nonetheless, I still get my fix though Netflix. Early seasons of some of my favorite shows (Deadlest Catch, Man vs Wild) are available for streaming via Watch Instantly, and more recent seasons are available for rental. I have the patience to wait for some of my favorite shows to arrive on DVD or Blu-ray—it’s a virtue that could save you lots of money.

Let’s Talk Live Sports

Traditionally, one of the major drawbacks of internet TV is a lack of live sports. Again, I don’t know what sports and teams you are interested in, but for me it is all about football. For example, a few days ago I checked out the Steelers/Chargers game on NBC Sunday Night Football online. The streaming content is “HD” quality (at least it’s in the realm of HD) and the service offers a viewing experience that is actually deeper than a standard broadcast. Users have access to DVR style controls, four separate camera angles, highlights and live analysis.

I also have the privilege of access to my beloved out-of-market NY Giants games each week with DirecTV’s online Supercast service. It broadcasts all of the Sunday Ticket NFL games over the internet, but access to the online content requires DirecTV service and the full SuperFan package that runs a ridiculous $400 per year (Manhattan residents can access Supercast without DirecTV service). However, if you know someone with a Supercast account, you can piggyback.

If baseball is your thing, MLB.com offers a service similar to Supercast for around $100 per year depending on the package—although it only includes out-of-market games. Live golf can be viewed for free on PGATour.com; college sports, baseball, tennis, soccer and more is free on ESPN360 (if you are affiliated with an ESPN-approved broadband provider) and streaming sites like Justin.tv offer plenty of free sports viewing options, including live ESPN. Windows Media Center owners can also get SportsLounge, with Fox Sports.

The Future?

This is still the wild west, and things are apt to keep changing. I already mentioned services like DirecTV’s Supercast and streaming games from MLB.com. Little by little, you will start to see primetime shows or packages offered a la carte online too. I hope we don’t get to a point where we are paying more for access to online content than we now pay for cable content, but there has been serious talk by executives from Time Warner (HBO), CBS and Hulu (Fox, NBC, Disney) about that very thing: Either charge subscribers for premium content on demand, or simply verify that they are already paying customers of cable and satellite, and grant them access to stuff others can’t see.

If the broadcasters have their way, you’ll pay for it one way, or you’ll pay for it another. Still, technology has a way of keeping pace with the dreams of media execs, and the experiments conducted by YouTube and Hulu and others with advertising may lead to some kind of compromise, too. It is really all up in the air, but for now…

What You Should Think About

When all was said and done, I found my experience without standard cable television to be more liberating than anything else. Sure, streaming video isn’t always HD quality, not all of my favorite shows are readily available, and I have to search around a bit more for the things I want to watch—but I didn’t suffer and I didn’t feel like I was missing out. The added expense was not justifiable—especially when I was paying for a bunch of things I never watched. The best part is that I was able to get pretty much everything I needed with a basic set of tools that anyone with a computer can take advantage of right away.

Not everyone shares my taste in television but, at the very least, you should take a good look at your cable or satellite bill and ask yourself if it’s really worth all that money.