One year without TV - Part One

In just a couple of weeks time, it will have been a year since my wife and I last received any kind of TV broadcast into our home. We don't even own a TV since we moved to Canada.

That's not to say we don't watch TV shows, news and movies, it's just that we've been using different technologies to do it. In this first post I will explore why we did it,  how we made the transition away from broadcast TV, and what technologies we found to be useful. In part two I'll look back at our experiences and assess the pros and cons of not having a TV, and discuss where this might lead, for us and for society as a whole. If you'd prefer a shorter version of this post, you can head on over to my posterous blog.

Watching TV at a time that you choose

So, why did we make the switch? One of the biggest reasons was time pressure. It's an inescapable truth that we are all much busier than we were 20 years ago, in the days when there were fewer TV channels than fingers on your hand. We have gone through a lifestyle revolution where an almost infinite numbers of online and offline activities are available to fill up our time.

When it comes to TV, it's no longer practical to watch a show at the time when it's on, at least not if you want to catch every episode. And who has time to mess around with videotapes? (or these days, DVD recorders)

The solution that presented itself was PVRs (Personal Video Recorders), which allow you to automatically record all episodes of a series by the push of a button, and watch them back in your own time. You can also pause, rewind and fast forward through ads. Being in the UK, Tivo was not an option, but we were still able to get on the PVR bandwagon. We had Sky+ for a couple of years, and then V+, which worked quite well for us. And once you've had a PVR, you'll never want to go back to normal TV (sounds like a line from a commercial, but it's true).

The burdens of PVRs

But we found that having Sky+/V+ presented new problems. This was the first time we'd had digital TV or cable/satellite TV too, and it meant an increase from 5 channels to around 300 channels. This was not a good thing. More channels meant more shows that looked interesting, and more choices about what to watch. More choice is not a good thing. We found that we were accumulating shows we wanted to watch faster than we could watch them, and were having to spend time deciding which shows to delete, or copying recordings off to DVD. What was supposed to bring us more entertainment was becoming a chore.

What's more, at that time it was more or less impossible to have PVR technology without paying an expensively monthly contract (usually higher than a standard non-PVR subscription). Now, you can get PVR boxes that work with Freeview or Freesat - meaning no monthly fee. This would be a slightly better option - but I would anticipate an excess of content still being a problem.

Airdates and TV downloading

The other thing that was happening around the same time was that we were getting into more and more American shows - such as Lost, Heroes, Jericho, 24 and Enterprise. Typically these shows air weeks to months earlier in the USA than in the UK. And in the case of Lost, we found ourselves unable to watch it legally without switching provider when Sky One and Virgin Media fell out over licensing (see right). And there was no legal way to obtain any of these shows when they first came out. So we began to download shows as .avi files from the Internet - typically using torrent sites such as isohunt and the Pirate Bay. This meant we could get the shows we wanted as soon as they came out, while everyone else is still talking about them, and best of all, with no adverts.

Now of course these files are natively viewed on a computer, not a television, which was ok on my widescreen monitor, but not ideal. Computers typically aren't set up with a nearby couch or armchair for viewing. So we started to look at media players - put simply, a box that sits under your TV and lets you watch computer media files from its own hard drive or from your home network.

Media Players

Our first media player was a modded XBox games console (modding is a legal process which involves adding a chip to the console so it can run any software, and installing a new software interface). We used the very impressive XBMC (XBox Media Centre) software, which lets you run XBox games from hard disk, run emulators, stream internet radio, watch movie trailers, and play any music or video files from an internal hard drive or your network. XBMC remains one of the best interfaces out there, with beautifully designed screens, easy to use and highly functional. It pulls in movie & TV thumbnails and info from the internet automatically.

We found it was a very powerful way to watch downloaded episodes on our TV - by simply sharing the torrent download directory over the network, browsing the directory on the XBox, and clicking the file. We now had all the PVR like features (pause, rewind/fast-forward, watch when you like) for our media files.

NAS (Network Attached Storage) and Digital Downsizing

We continued using this system in parallel with our PVR, and accumulated more and more media files of TV shows and movies. We realised we needed to have a single machine to store all our files, accessible over the network, so we began to construct an Ubuntu Linux computer into which we could put lots of hard drives to store our media. This had some limited success, but I don't get on with Linux configuration, and it just became too much work.

Fortunately, I discovered FreeNAS, a Linux-like operating system pre-configured for exactly this purpose, sharing files over a network (known as network attached storage). There are more expensive options available, but FreeNAS can run from a USB key stuck into any old PC you have lying around - and can be easily configured with no command-line stuff from a powerful web interface. It was just the job, and worked beautifully. Soon we were buying 750Gb and 1Tb hard drives (surprisingly cheaply) to store our media files.

By now it was early 2009, and we were making plans to emigrate to Canada. We realised that taking our huge collection of both bought and recorded DVDs and CDs was not an option, and that we could digitize all our music and movies onto the NAS hard drives - and take those hard drives with us to Canada. Mrs Alex did all the hard work, and we soon had eight hard drives full of media to take to Canada.

Soon after getting to Canada, we acquired an old PC cheaply, and installed FreeNAS again, to make a new NAS server, which I affectionately call Tardis, giving us access to all our old files.

A 21st century living room

As we set up home in Canada, we thought hard about how to lay out our living room. We realised that we spend a lot of our time on our laptops, and that having a TV in lounge makes the room very TV centric. My monitor was able to function as a "TV screen" for media playback from the NAS, swivelled round to face the sofa when needed as a TV, and swivelled back to the desk when needed by my Mac. And so we were able to layout our living room without a TV. Looking back, I guess this was the moment we decided not to have broadcast TV any more.

I can't describe how much nicer it is to not have a TV in your lounge. By default, you sit down and do other things - whereas in most lounges when you have a big TV screen in front of you, the room almost invites you to turn it on.

The Popcorn Hour, HD, and Video Projectors

And so we enjoyed this set up for the first six months of our "year without TV"... downloading new shows and watching films from our collection via the NAS and my computer monitor. But by now, some of the shows we watched were also available in high definition, which couldn't really be played back on my 1680x1050 monitor. And I was aware that audio-wise, our system was not ideal (we were just using my computer speakers). We started to wonder about the possibility of setting up a home cinema.

I'd been thinking for some time about getting a better media player. We'd left the XBox in the UK, being too heavy to transport, and using my computer to play shows was a little annoying. The media player market is still in its infancy, but there are many many choices available. There's MythTV (too much Linux configuration for my liking), Windows Media Center (not so great at playing back some video formats, plus, it's by Microsoft), Apple TV (but you can only play shows and movies bought from Apple), and many more. Ultimately the device we settled on is a Popcorn Hour (also known as a Networked Media Tank).

The Popcorn Hour is a tiny box (not much bigger than a hard drive) that plugs into a TV or projector to stream media from your network. It has some of the best support for different video formats - including our digitized VOB files (DVDs) and FLAC files (Audio CDs). What's more it is capable of HD output and optical audio out. I also like it because you're not running a noisy PC, it's quiet and very low power consumption. From a technical point of view it's hard to beat. My lovely wife bought me one for my birthday.

It does have some disadvantages, it's interface is much more primitive than the likes of XBMC, and not very usable for music files. You can install better interfaces, but this involves a lot of work labelling your files in special ways and generating custom menus. Unfortunately the device is not as powerful as a PC, and it shows. But I can live with that, for what it does. Functionality is more important than ease-of-use (much though it pains me as a user-centric designer to say that!)

In August, we moved to a bigger place with 2 living rooms, and setting up a Popcorn Hour-powered became a real possibility. Our friend Eric very kindly lent us an HD-capable projector, and we put up a shelf and drilled a hole through the wall so that we could have our NAS server in the spare room but the Popcorn Hour and projector in our lounge. We painted the walls white to give us a better surface to project onto, and before long it was all systems go. We were even able to hook up our Wii to the projector as well.

This is a great set up, we're now able to watch our movies projected onto the wall, and when you watch HD films you can see every detail. We've been enjoying this set up for the last 6 months - downloading new shows like Dollhouse, Doctor Who and ReGenesis as well as our old favourites like Lost and Heroes.

Watching TV online, proxies and protected content

Beyond downloading, there's another way to watch TV online, that we've dabbled in but not fully explored, and that's watching TV streamed over the Internet. Probably the best example in the world is the BBC's iPlayer, which allows you to watch BBC shows soon after broadcast, streamed over the Internet. Unfortunately, because the BBC is funded by UK licence payers, the service checks what country you are accessing the site from and blocks you if you are not in the UK (as do the UK's other online TV services - 4od, demandfive, ITV Player, MSN Video Player, and Zattoo.)

Similar geo-IP technology is used in the USA to restrict access to Hulu and ABC, and is also used for audio services such as Pandora (US) and Spotify (UK).

As a UK citizen living abroad this is very frustrating. I would be happy to continue to pay my license fee while abroad in exchange for officially supported access to BBC content. Unfortunately the legal and technical systems in place do not allow this.

But fortunately there is a workaround - to use a proxy server. A proxy server is a computer in the country you want to pretend to be in, that relays your connections, fooling sites like iPlayer into believing you are in that country. We've started to use a service called Flote, which for 9.99GBP a month, gives access to US, UK, Canadian and Dutch proxies, enabling access to almost all of the services listed above. Proxies are legal, but something of a loophole at the moment. If you'd like to learn more about proxies, there's a good description in this episode of the excellent CBC Spark podcast.

The proxy service means I can watch UK shows like Doctor Who even while out of the country, but in practice I mostly download the torrent files unless I am away from home. This may be partly because I haven't found a good solution to get Internet streams onto the projector (One option might be a Slingbox, but they're not cheap).

Life without a TV

So this brings me up to the present - you can see how we got here, and hopefully you learnt a thing or two along the way about what options might be available to you. If you're thinking of breaking free of broadcast TV you may also want to take a look at Jeff MacArthur's decabled.com.

In the next post I will tell you about what the experience has been like for us, the pros and cons, and where this might all lead.

Thanks for reading!

Posted via email from Bowyer's Bite-size Blogettes

Read more...

TARDIS is alive! :-)

Back before we left the UK, Mrs Alex and I (ok she did most of the work) digitized all our CDs and DVDs not to mention paperwork, recipes and all sorts of other documents to reduce the amount we had to take with us to Canada. Given we've also been living here in Canada without a TV for the last six months, we have accumulated plenty more downloaded movies & TV shows. We brought about 8 hard drives with us to Canada and our FreeNAS install media, and after 2 case upgrades, 2 additional green 1 Terabyte hard drives, 2 new 4 port PCI SATA cards and a beefier PSU, not to mention much consolidation of data from smaller, older IDE drives, I am pleased to announce our behemoth of a fileserver is alive.. Just short of 6 Terabytes of storage for our viewing and data storage pleasure! Hurrah! Now to get my Popcorn Hour media player which Alex bought me for my birthday working.. and then it's HD projector time (which is handy as we have just painted the walls in the lounge of our new apartment white which is just the right colour for projecting onto)...

Posted via email from Bowyer's Bite-size Blogettes

Read more...

Is the increase in choice bad for society?

"Content is King"

Since getting my N95 8Gb I've been listening to a lot more podcasts (I set them to download overnight) and have been particularly enjoying Stephen Fry's Podgrams, which are basically random musings by Stephen Fry, who I've always found intelligent and witty in equal measures, a rare combination. I'm met him too and he is very down-to-earth. Anyway, this isn't a Stephen Fry fan blog, I have a serious discussion point to raise, so without further ado..

Podgram #4 "Broadcasting" consists of Stephen delivering a speech that he gave in response to OFCOM's proposal that the UK TV licence fee should be shared between the BBC, Channel 4, ITV and five. (For more info on this, check out these links - [1],[2],[3]). This is a worthy topic for debate in its own right, I can see both sides but ultimately think it's a bad idea and would agree with the point of view "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The thing that I found most thought provoking though, was not the licence fee issue, but the idea that "Content is King". Stephen talked a lot about this; the idea that we have completely changed the way we consume recorded content - be it television, film, radio, podcasts, music or audiobooks. He makes the point that we do not think in "channels" any more, thanks to 24 hour channels, digital TV and its hundreds of niche channels, PVR systems, DVD-rental-by-post services, digital downloads, torrents, podcasts, iPlayer and the like.. As viewers we simply seek out the content we are interested in, get hold of it in whatever form we can, and watch it. In general, we do not care about a channel in its own right, we are far more interested in particular shows or types of shows that appeal to our interests. Hence the phrase "Content is King".

Stephen argues (I hope I'm summarizing his view correctly) that this is not a good direction for television, and that the BBC is one of the last channels that people have brand loyalty to because of its reputation for good quality programming across a wide range of areas - not just the big audience "entertainment" shows like Doctor Who and Strictly Come Dancing, but wildlife shows, current affairs, documentaries, science, religion, arts, music etc. He argues that this would be eroded by the so-called "top-slicing" of licence fee revenue, because we then would be totally abandoning the idea of channels, abandoning the BBC as a viewing destination in its own right and reducing it to a producer of public service content.

He paints a picture of a future world where there are no broadcast channels - everyone has their own "narrowcast" personalised channels, with only those shows they like, catered to their exact demographic and interests, with advertising tailored to them. You can really see this happening already, with services like TiVo in the broadcast space, and with RSS aggregators for podcasts & blogs in the Internet space. The only real difference is that we form our personalised channels manually at the moment, by our selections from the plethora of content that is out there. It won't be long before it's done for us (TiVo is already ahead of the game on this one).

This really struck a chord for me, especially when I consider how my own viewing habits have changed since Sky+, V+ and BitTorrent. I'd already observed that I really don't watch live TV anymore - with all the Series Links I have set up, as well as the shows I can only get via BitTorrent (such as Lost), I have such a choice of things I am interested in, which I rarely get to the end of, and this has meant far less "random" viewing - I watch a lot more of the things I know, and a lot less of the things I don't. At first glance this seems a good thing, but if I'm honest I know that I watch far fewer documentaries, current affairs programmes and the like, even though I sometimes set series links - because why would I watch Dispatches or Newsnight when I have a backlog of The Gadget Show, Top Gear, QI or The Apprentice to watch? I am as guilty as anyone else of going for a short term highs rather than something that will be more mentally exercising but better for broadening my knowledge.

It's when I think of this in terms of how much entertainment television is now watched versus "public service" programming (think of the rising popularity of Big Brother, X Factor and Shipwrecked and the declining audiences for current affairs programmes), and the wider picture of how these changes affect society as a whole, that I begin to be a bit more concerned..

Personalization of content - More of what we want, but at what cost?

The whole point of public service broadcasting is that it raises the level of education of the population, covering issues and spreading knowledge on topics that would be not be commercially viable to produce programming about. For this to succeed, it seems there needs to be some element of "chance discovery" of content - like when you turn to a channel you know produces good content, like the BBC, and find something interesting that you weren't looking for. I'd not really thought about it from this angle before, but it seems that this is something that we are all overlooking with the abundance of seductive and appealing content before us, not just in broadcast media but on the Internet too. (Maybe this partly explains the appeal of StumbleUpon!) We need exposure to things we were not seeking and did not know about, in order to challenge our thinking, expose us to new ideas and general broaden our minds.

And there may be other disadvantages too, to the personalization of content - because the more we are drawn to specific interests, given the raise of social media, we are likely to form communities around those interests as well... So the viewers of a highly personalised channel, be it fishing channel, a goth music channel, a single mums' channel, a Christian prayer channel or a new age spiritualist channel, will form communities around those channels and only interact with those people and those ideas. And just like we see ethnic minorities or social classes clustering in certain areas of cities, seldom mixing outside those circles, we will start to see an intellectual, or rather an "information" segregation, where people polarize into different specialized groups that do not cross paths or spread knowledge, potentially resulting in even more segregation, discrimination and "tribal" problems. This can't be a good thing for society.

This struck me as a really important message - and I know I have gone way beyond the point of Stephen's speech, but for me this debate about public service broadcasting and the BBC licence fee was just the tip of the iceberg - This "Content is King" ethos that we all eagerly feed on, perhaps without realising, is something that could spell a real "dumbing down" of society if left unchecked. We need to make sure we continue to be exposed to new ideas, unfamiliar subjects and a balance of public service and entertainment content. And we need to remember that more and more content on the Internet is written by individuals or corporations with their own agendas, and thus, the truth will be harder to find. (Relevant book: Cult of the Amateur - I confess I haven't read it yet)

Choice in news media - is it a good thing?

So, we can now see that the abundance of choice we have today encourages us to select & personalise content we find most attractive, and that while this has advantages it also has some dangers to society as a whole.

It seems to me that there are other potential pitfalls of too much choice, particularly when you look at the effect that 24 hours news channels and websites have had on the quality of journalistic output, and on public opinion.

Overwhelmed with news stories, and often feeling too busy to read stories in depth, it seems we often believe that which is easiest to believe - a story about someone who is being questioned in connected to a crime, gets summarized as "so and so is guilty of that crime", and then that story spreads around the net, and before you know it, the person is guilty. The truth as commonly believed and the truth as based on actual facts, diverge. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, a story about a scientific development gets exaggerated by the media, and by people believing what they want to believe - extrapolating an early step in the right direction through to the technology that might be possible if developed further (e.g. "OMG! Scientists invent Holodeck")

Is society dumbing down?

In our rush to consume as much information as possible in a an ever growing sea of information and content, we over-summarize and cut corners. We forward heartfelt e-mails of tragedies and brushes with death without checking them for authenticity or accuracy. It's ironic really that the the Internet gives us more power to research the accuracy of information, and yet we seem even more inclined to just believe what we read without doing so. Children are losing the skills to analyse the relevance and accuracy of information.

Negative feedback loops

It's really concerning to me as well, how there is now a feedback loop between media stories and reality itself. 24 hours news reports come out every hour for days that Northern Rock is in crisis - and a panic is created, making a possibly recoverable problem into an unrecoverable situation that spreads out to affect the whole industry.

Newspapers report that a politician is "tonight under intense pressure to resign" even though he only pressure is from the media, suddenly they are under intense pressure, and resign. TV reports that "people are up in arms about a possible emissions tax" and people are put off the idea before they even get the chance to work out the facts of how it will actually affect them. Constant reports of problems in the property market make people even less inclined to buy property than they were before. Collectively, the media and newspaper outlets notice (or create?) trends in public opinion or public behaviour, and report them in a sensationalised, exaggerated way, designed to have the maximum emotional impact, because the most sensational stories are those that will be easiest to digest, and will stick in our minds most - this usually means those stories most likely to induce negative emotions such as outrage, distrust, fear or disgust (Good news reporting has died out) Before you know it, the media reports has affected what people behave, which in turn affects how we act, and what started as nothing more than a story or an idea has actually affected the reality of the situation itself. It's like some sort of societal version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The other effect of this is that even though there is more choice of media sources, there is less breadth in coverage, everyone jumps on the bandwagon and the same stories get regurgitated for weeks on end (think Princess Diana inquests, 10p tax rates or Madeline McCann hunts - Was the public really so interested in those stories or was it just the media getting into a frenzy and feeding off each other?).

The media believe they are giving us what we want, so they produce more of the same, and the repetition of the same type of stories again and again forms a vicious circle, reinforcing the nation's out-of-proportion obsessions with child protection, fear of terrorists, suspicion of immigrants, distrust of government, and so on.. (I recommend Noam Chomsky's book Media Control for more on this topic)

In summary

It must be time for me to get off my soapbox now! :-) I hope that I am wrong that the overwhelming choice we have won't mean the dumbing down of society, and that we can find a way to be less affected by media coverage in what we think and believe.. I'm very interested in noticing trends in society and this does seem to be one possible way things could go if we continue on the current course. Let me know what you think!

Disclaimer: This is very much an opinion piece, which I will have on my blog from time to time. It is not my intent to force my point of view - just to share ideas & stimulate debate - which I welcome through the comments, whether you share my concerns or think I've got it all wrong, provided it remains courteous! I look forward to reading your comments!

Read more...