I'm Giving James Corden a week...

Ok, so I know the topic of late night talk shows is about as relevant as the width of men's neckties in the grand scheme of things but I have something of an investment so bear with me.

I haven't had pay TV for about 2 years now which means my choices for non-interactive visual media are fairly limited.  Yes I know, there's YouTube, XBMC, Hulu and Twitch to name a few but to me those are very solitary experiences.  

There's great content to be had but all of those options are to me more like checking a book out of a library than going to a movie.  I just like the idea that I'm watching the same thing at the same time as a lot of other people.  A shared experience.

So I'm weird, whatever...

When I had Satellite TV, I could care less about who was hosting a talk show on CBS.  When Conan O' Brien left for TBS, it was the only show I'd even think about watching.  Even then it wasn't a regular thing as he was at his best back when he was doing late nights at NBC (pre Tonight Show.)  At least in my opinion.

As I mentioned earlier, my choices have become a bit more limited as of late.  That means I had to give broadcast TV another look.  At some point I happened onto CBS' Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.  I was an instant fan.  Ferguson was plain spoken, irreverent and a natural entertainer.  

What I liked about him was that he didn't take himself or his show too seriously.  It never felt scripted even when he was forced to interview yet another Hollywood airhead.   He had a habit of tearing up note cards before beginning an interview which was a signal that this was not going to be the same scripted diatribe you saw on every other talk show.  It was like listening in on a conversation between friends.  The celebrities loved it and so did I. 

Ferguson had a run of close to 10 years and developed a kind of cult following not unlike Conan O'Brien.  Late night TV is the purview of those not quite in step with normal society.  Yeah, that means the stoners and the sub culture types but it also means the 2nd shift worker and the entrepreneur for whom clocks and sleep are a damned inconvenience.

To see the difference in audiences just watch a few of Ferguson's reruns on YouTube then watch one of the early morning news/chat shows like the Today Show.   Those giggly, empty talking heads drive me insane but that's what the cheery 9 to 5 types demand. 

I most unequivocally do not...  I hate morning people.  If you're the type that thinks 9PM is late then you should either be writing sermons or milking cows for a living.  

Think I'm wrong?  Then think about this.  Technology didn't advance much till the 20th century, know why? The damned light bulb that's why!  Without night people, you day people would inherit a world in flames!

But as always, I digress...

In short Ferguson was our kind of people.  Funny, direct and entertaining without pretense

But nothing is forever...

Ferguson decided to end his late night tenure last year with the final episode of his Late Late show airing on December 19th.  There was much speculation as to his replacement as his run had proven to be the most successful of any show in his time slot on CBS. 

Back in November, America was officially introduced to the new host of the Late Late show in the person of one James Corden.  He made an appearance on David Letterman's Late show which airs in the timeslot immediately preceding the Late Late show.  Letterman's own Worldwide Pants production company was behind both. 

When Ferguson left it was announced that Corden's first show would air on March 23, 2015.   The intervening 3 months found CBS scrambling to find a succession of guest hosts to fill in.  It also meant Letterman's production company had to continue being on the hook for the filler shows till CBS officially took over with Corden.

During one of those filler shows, Letterman was interviewed by guest host Regis Philbin and expressed irritation with the delay saying, "Where is he? Why are we talking to you?" "There aren't that many shows. How bad does he want it? Where is he?"

While Letterman is known for a dry wit, the comment was not made in passing but rather part of a much longer rant that included, "This guy... where is he? Is he even in this country? Don't you think that's a question that should be answered - where is the guy? I do."

Work ethic aside, it's doubtful anyone was really waiting with baited breath for Corden's debut.  His initial appearance on Letterman was uninspiring and yawn inducing at best.  

Anyone would be nervous in his position but Corden seemed more interested in his personal life than his new gig.  At the time I remember commenting that as nice a guy as he may be, he was the wrong choice.  It seems that CBS believes the formula for success is nothing more than a funny accent from somewhere in the British Isles and a fancy set.

So that's the backstory and for the next week I'm going to be doing short reviews of the new Late Late Show every day.  I'm going to give the kid a chance but I'm not holding out much hope.

What the FCC's ruling means to you

So for the past year the battle has raged between the proponents of a free and open Internet and corporate interest.

It seems everyone had an opinion from podcasters to John Oliver and most of them rose in opposition to the flimsy pleas of poverty from the likes of multibillion dollar corporations with names like Time Warner and Comcast.

To listen to the ISP's you'd think that Net Neutrality or at least Netflix would be the death of them.  "They use 30% of the bandwidth!"  and "Somebody's got to pay for this"  All the time failing to mention the thousands of miles of "Dark Fiber" sitting unused for decades.   

And what of the promises not kept?  When AT&T threatened to curtail its services if the FCC changed its rules, the company seems to have conveniently forgotten its own obligations.  Time and time again they promise 100% broadband coverage if only they were allowed to gobble up another competitor or get another tax break.  They rarely deliver.  When it comes to ISP's you need to have a conversion chart to figure out what they mean by 100%

But that's all in the past now and and Wednesday's FCC's ruling makes a free and open Internet all but guaranteed, right? 

After all, the FCC has changed its rules and barring a successful legal challenge (unlikely as the changes follow court recommendations from their last go-around) ISP's are now just like your local power or water company.

Maybe...

Of course there'll be the requisite court battles waged by the ISP's where every "I" will be checked for the appropriate dot and every "T" scrutinized for the correct cross.  But in the end, it will happen.

But to you and me, it really doesn't matter.

The argument has been all about Internet Fast lanes with current rules allowing the "theoretical" throttling of services who can't "pay to play."  Treating ISP's like any other public utility puts an end to such a prioritization of services.  

Of course there's merit in that but for the average consumer it's the argument of an idealist.  Yes corporate interests should always take a back seat but if you're really expecting more competition and lower prices for your Internet services I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

Here's why...

ISP's are either regional monopolies or down-level customers of services from those monopolies.  That means no matter what, they still hold all the marbles ( or fibers ).  If Google comes to your town that's great but if AT&T, Verizon or Comcast have a lock on the right of way Google's out of luck.  

You need look no further than other regional utility providers currently under Title 2 for an example.   In many parts of the country your choice of a power company is dictated entirely by your geography.  Meaning the only competition consumers enjoy comes from a moving truck.  It also means that with little oversight, rates can be set on a whim.

It's true that there are no fast lanes in water and power utilities but there's also little to no competition.  Where you are dictates your service and your bill.

The same can now be said of ISP's with many areas only having one or two providers who more often than not have completely different offerings ultimately negating any equivalency.  Worse, due to the broken promises of coverage from companies like AT&T and Verizon, millions of customers are still lacking the barest minimum of broadband capability (now 25Mbps.)

So in the end, Netflix may come to you as quickly as Hulu but that's about the extent of the FCC's ruling.  You're still at the mercy of geography and you won't have much recourse when they jack up your Internet bill.

This was a ruling based largely on a "potential" injustice not a current one.

The FCC may have allowed us a moral victory but we have a lot further to go before consumers see any real benefit to their own bottom line.

Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same

Article first published as Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same on Technorati.

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill.   His proposal is to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously unheard of in the industry.  That is, only pay for what they want to watch.

A belief shared by McCain's colleague across the aisle, Senator Jay Rocefeller (D- VA)

"...rather than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want, consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise.  Look at any cable or satellite TV provider and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers.  The only a la' carte options you have are for the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable.  A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or more per month with no premium channels.   Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't watch.  That's because providers negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and Time Warner.  It's an all or nothing deal that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a dozen others.  That's why a tiff between a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank channels instead of content. 

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options,"

Of course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually care to watch.  Even if you don't,  you're going to pay for it anyway and that's the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online media sources like NetFlix and Hulu.  Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model.  Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue model.    It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great consequence to you  about what happens to pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.   

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't.    If the industry is forced into the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV.  That's because the channels don't own the content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. 

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable.  Lest we forget data caps imposed by most Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we choose to view their content.