Media Monopolies

Congress is preparing to decide whether or not they should allow XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite radio to merge. The two companies represent the entire industry of Satellite radio, a subscription only service that gained a whole lot of notoriety when Howard Stern left terrestrial radio for Sirius. Stern highlighted one of the benefits of satellite based subscription radio: the lack of FCC censorship.

The freedom to shout out f-bombs across the air is not the only reason subscribers choose satellite radio. The fact that many channels are commercial free, for instance, or the accessibility of various, non-local sports broadcasts are two other reasons people pay for what they could otherwise have for free.

But that's not what is at issue. The problem that has cropped up is that XM and Sirius radio, in an effort to draw in new subscribers, sought out expensive on air talent. They signed absurd financial contracts with radio personalities like Stern, Oprah, and Martha Stewart, as well as cutting multi-million dollar broadcast deals with major sports franchises. And as it turns out, they've been spending a whole lot more than they collect from subscribers each month.

The key to all this of course is that satellite radio cannot be received through regular radio transmissions. Instead, a special receiver that decodes the encrypted electronic signal from the satellite keeps non-subscribers from picking up the signals for free standard land based radio transmissions have worked for a hundred years. Like cable television, satellite radio is a premium service. Congress is now considering whether or not the combined company, representing the whole of the satellite radio industry would become a monopoly, and one that would take advantage of customers.

Opponents of the merger claim that the satellite companies, once combined, will form a monopoly resulting ultimately in the gouging of customers. The satellite companies are arguing on the other hand that there is plenty of competition: free terrestrial radio in the FM and AM band. XM and Sirius are also making claims that internet radio is a competitor.

At the moment it seems that Congress is likely to deny the merger on the grounds that the XM and Sirius would become a monopoly, and that AM and FM radio is such a significantly different market that they wouldn't really be competition with the uber-satellite company. But if this is the case, its probably time for Congress to do something about the cable industry.

Cable television, like satellite radio, is pay for service broadcast system. While the FCC still regulates things on basic cable, premium channels offer everything from cursing to penetrative sex. The cable world is largely a laissez faire environment when it comes to censorship. Like satellite radio, Cable has "competition" from free over the air television broadcasts. Cable television does have the additional competition from satellite television, but satellite television does not offer broadband internet service, a major utility now. As of this year, half of US Households will have broadband, and that number will probably reach eighty percent by 2010. Many, if not most of those users receive broadband from their cable television provider.

Broadband internet is a relatively new utility for the residential consumer, much like satellite radio or even satellite television. But it is fast replacing other utilities-- local and long distance phone service, for instance, has already been pillaged by voice over broadband internet. Internet radio has become to pop up as demonstrated by XM and Sirius to cite it has a competitor. Television services will also soon be replaced as a next generation of broadband applications rolls out. But at least for now, cable television operators have largely held a monopoly on broadband internet services. The only competition that comes close is DSL service from telecommunications companies, though DSL is remarkably slower than true broadband access.

To this end, Cable television and Satellite radio are essentially the same components of identical industries. Cable television competes with free television just like satellite radio competes with free radio. While there are several large cable distributors, and a few dozen smaller operators, rarely do any of these companies actually compete for market share. Indeed, most markets are served by a single cable operator. If Congress is to prohibit the merger of XM and Sirius, then they must also create competition in the cable market. The precedent has been set. Cable is an approved monopoly, and so there is no reason XM and Sirius cannot also be an approved monopoly.

The Grocery Store

I once enjoyed going to the grocery store. Trips to the grocery guaranteed I'd be coming home with fun knew things, but there was none of the guilt that comes with paying retail at the mall. That was the old days though, when I regularly shopped at the suburban mega mart with fresh food and empty checkout lines.

Sadly though, my trips to the grocery store are more like high school. I say its like high school because as a hormone filled, pre-teen geek, high school was nothing more than a daily frustration, just as the local super market is.

Here's the rub: there are no gourmet supermarkets in my neighborhood. There are small gourmet groceries, but not the sorts of shops large enough to actually do your grocery shopping at. And there supermarkets, but not the fancy-- and by fancy I mean clean and properly stocked-- that populate the suburbs. Sure, I could take the subway into Manhattan and visit a number of Whole Foods markets, or Chelsea Markets, or Trader Joes, all of which are to the foodie what a college fraternity party on ecstasy is to a sexually frustrated high school geek.

But lets face it, no one wants to ride the subway to do their grocery shopping. That leaves ShopRite with vegetables that look like Bob Dole: old, wrinkled, and limp. Then there is the recently renovated A&P with a gourmet selection of food, though rarely on the same day of the week. Today there was lemon grass, but no ginger. Last week ginger, but no lemon grass. How is one supposed to make a curry in this town anyway?

Oh, and don't let me forget Pathmark, its bordered by project housing on two sides, so its not exactly the gourmet selection I'm hoping for. Actually, whenever I go to Pathmark I'm really only for hoping two things: one, that the store doesn't smell like a dirty diaper and that two, I make it out alive.

I long for simple pleasure of browsing through bins of ripe fruit, refrigerators of soft creamy cheese, aisles filled with foreign delights like HP sauce and Gnutella. Where are my chedder cheese filled, TGI Friday's branded frozen jalapeno poppers A&P? Where are Italian blood oranges, Shoperite? Is it really too much to ask that you have both the fresh food I need and the deep fried frozen treats I crave?

I once enjoyed grocery store shopping. Now though, it has become a chore. But I suppose the lack of Chicken & Broccoli Croissant Pockets and the inability to find imported Parmigiano Reggiano is one sacrifice I have to make to live in an "up and coming" neighborhood.

Blame TiVo

We're fairly irate about Comcast's recent decision to install advertising on the guide menu of our digital cable box. But perhaps our anger should be directly at TiVo.

We came across this little bit from over a year ago about a Comcast / TiVo relationship.

"As an extension of the relationship, TiVo and Comcast will make TiVo's interactive advertising platform available across Comcast's customer base"

One of the alternatives we were considering was dropping digital cable and returning to the old days of standard analog cable, and buying a TiVo box for our DVR-ing needs. This would not have been quite as convenient as a direct Cable DVR box, but it would be slightly cheaper and those fuckers at Comcast would be getting a whole lot less of our green. But if TiVo is responsible for those ads, then I see no reason why they should get any money from me either. Probably just means waiting things out until Verizon Fiber Television is available.

Fuck You Comcast

If Viral Advertising wasn't enough, now Comcast Cable, my local cable monopoly has decided that $170 means you also get ads on your Guide Menu. Where once was five channels listed on each screen, there are now only 4 and a whole fucking ad for television we don't care about (read: football games, Smallville, ect.)



And cable operators are wondering why consumers are flocking to satellite providers.

Meanwhile, this ad wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't treated as an item on the list. There is no casual scrolling down the menu because as you do, the ad gets highlighted. This would be fine if you could channel surf with digital cable. But, unlike the analog signal, digital cable takes a few seconds to load each channel-- just like satellite tv. So in essence, using the menu is the only way to reasonably find the show you want to watch. And now Comcast thinks I should get to look at ads while I do this.

We've lodged complaints by phone and email. ecare-Union@comcast.com and 800.COMCAST, respectively. We're telling all our friends to do the same thing. This is bullshit. $170 gets you a lot of television, but it also means you should be able to channel surf in peice. So Fuck you Comcast.

Actually, We Don't Need Pennies

As the price of raw metals has risen, the copper used to make pennies actually is more valuable than the penny itself. So instead of adulterating the metal used to make Pennies, the US Mint came up with a solution only the government could figure out: banning the practice of melting the pennies back to their raw materials.

Director Ed Moy is quoted as saying "the nation needs its coinage for commerce." Actually Ed, we don't need the penny. Isn't it time evaluate the actual necessity of the penny? The rise in copper prices is a great opportunity to phase out what is essentially a worthless coin. Pennies don't buy anything. There is no penny candy. There are no penny arcade games. Even penny slots use credit cards or quarters. But pennies are heavy. They take up space, cost time to have them exchanged for dollars, and aren't even accepted at parking meters or toll booths. Its time to do away with the penny.

Hungry, Hungry Power Grid

The New York Times is reporting that a poorly updated national grid of interstate electrical transmission lines are causing energy prices to skyrocket. The author wants us to believe that for customers east of the Rocky Mountains, the apocalypse is upon electricity users.

Indeed, the price per customer is expected to jump $40, and in some cases more as customers aren't each receiving a fair distribution of the rate increases. But this isn't a bad thing. The United States has enjoy a long period of cheap energy prices, be it gasoline for cars or electricity for homes and businesses. While cheap electricity might keep factories humming, it also reduces the incentive to conserve energy.

Cheap electricity keeps electric companies from expanding services and upgrading facilities because there is little incentive for them to invest in new plants. So then places like California endure rolling blackouts. Or New York City's power grid blows up on hot summer days.

Meanwhile, customers with cheap electricity make little effort to save energy when the price per kilowatt keeps the bill about the same no matter how much they use. But raise the price of electricity, and using energy efficient appliances and light bulbs begins to add up. For example, compact fluorescent bulbs running at twenty watts produce the same amount of luminosity as incandescent bulbs using three times as much power. But now with the price of electricity artificially low, there is little incentive for the consumer to replace cheap incandescent bulbs will more efficient but more expensive compact fluorescents.

Furthermore, most customers don't think twice about electricty leaks-- the slow sucking of power by appliances that for all purposes appear as if they are off. However, if the price of electricity increases dramatically, customers will be encouraged by their bottom line to seek out energy efficient appliances that don't waste electricty.

At the end of the day, the cost of producing goods might go up if electricity prices rise. But America builds ideas, not things. Customers, particularly those with low or fixed incomes, might see the rise in electric prices hurting thier pocket books. Yet the average customer can make very small changes in their lifestyles-- compact flourescent bulbs, energy efficient appliances, and ensuring power sapping devices are turned off-- that add up to huge savings when millions of people across the country begin making the switch. Everyone agrees that energy conservation is a good idea, but no one agrees they should be the ones to do the conserving. Highery energy prices will help people make the decision they know they should be making anyway.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Lately there has been a whole lot of buzz surrounding "user" created content. Barely a day goes by the mainstream media, fascinated by their own shortcomings, fails to mention YouTube, the video file sharing service. But there is also Wikipedia, the encyclopedia written by the people. There is xTube and PornoTube-- you guessed it, adult versions of YouTube. There is even a cable television channel dedicated to user content owned partly by none other than Al Gore.

While Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, most of these sites are run as for profit ventures, and profit they do. YouTube sold for a billion and a half dollars. That's a lot of money for a site that mostly features teenage girls dancing and lip syncing to Jessica Simpson or the guy who shares your cubicle performing an air guitar solo to Aerosmith. The fact that so many of these amateur videos use professional musicians' music has lead the recording industry-- massive media companies-- to assume they either deserve the revenue generated by sites like YouTube or similar knockoffs or threaten to file suits against teenages for video taping their dance parties.

But apparently, media companies have every expectation to copy user content without compensation.

CNN.com a few months back launched i-Report, , a little user outreach program where users send in pictures or video clips that CNN might than use online. Or on TV. Or some future technology not yet invented. Its all there in the "Terms of Service" agreement:

"you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised, without payment to you or any third party."

Interesting how they work that bit in there.

So while Time Warner, the parent company of CNN supports the Recording Industry Association's war on grainy, YouTube dance videos, CNN is hoping those same suckers send their own grainy photographs for use by CNN without compensation. We're left wondering: if a user submits a video to i-Report that contains music froma Time Warner artist and CNN airs that video, will Time Warner sue itself for payment?

As if that wasn't bad enough, Yahoo and Reuters are apparently turning everyone in the world into a potential reporter.

"Users will not be paid for images displayed on the Yahoo and Reuters sites."

Sure, this isn't so different from Flickr, the photo sharing site that users already flock to. Except on Flickr, users control their own content, adding and removing photos as they wish. But the new service will use editors to select photos and run them alongside news stories-- this actually sounds like Yahoo and Rueters are trying to undercut professional photographer fees.

Further adding to this point is the followup:

"people whose photos or videos are selected for distribution to Reuters clients will receive a payment. Mr. Ahearn said the company had not yet figured out how to structure those payments. The basic payment may be relatively small, but he said Reuters was likely to pay more to people offering exclusive rights to images of major events."

Indeed those payments will be 'relatively' small-- relative to what professionals would earn for the same picture's usage. Amatuers without an agent or photo agency backing them will not receive the best price for their photographs or video content, while at the same time flooding the content market with images and photographs.

While media companies might think user content is a great way to generate interest in their websites and a cheaper alternative to generating content, they ultimately are hurting themselves. First, they are making a trade off of quality for quantity. With tons of content out there at a low quality, big old meida companies lose their hegemonic control over content. Second, by using user content for little or no payment, media companies are essentially telling consumers that digital content has no value-- in essence, endorsing the free distribution of digital content. And what is music or movie piracy if not free distribution of digital content. Its easy for media companies to say "do as I say, not as I do," but considering the "piracy" war needs to win the hearts and minds of consumers as much as anything, big media is only hurting themselves.

Bye, Bye, Bank of America

My relationship with my bank has been on the rocks for months. I mean you, Bank of America. Tonight our little tit-for-tat took an ugly turn when I went ahead and cancelled the credit card they issued me.

I was very happy back in the day when I was a customer of mid-sized Fleet Bank. Fleet had ATMs everywhere I needed them-- mainly the civilized sections of the country, the megalopolis between Washington D.C. and Boston. And how excited I was for them to offer me such an extensive line of credit. And yet, here we are.

Bank of America bought Fleet (who I suppose in fairness, had bought a whole number of smaller banks on the way). And Bank of America's first threat was made when they sent a new card to replace my ancient fleet ATM card. Oh how I miss that ugly aqua-marine and sea-foam green card. It was, quite possibly the easiest card to find in a wallet cluttered with dozens of similar looking credit cards and identification cards and shopper loyalty cards.

Predictably, the new Bank of America ATM card was a shade of gold that matched at least two other cards in my wallet. Fine, I conceded, I'll use your gold ATM card. But leave me my green and silver Savings Bond Visa card.

Some weeks later of course, Bank of America sent me a brand new, shiny gold colored credit card. They may have taken my sea-foam green ATM card but I sure as hell wasn't using their ugly gold and blue credit card too. So I cut the card into little pieces and continued using the Fleet credit card.

I knew though that the Fleet Savings Bond card had a limited life. I could ignore the Bank of America's demands that I use their new card only as long as my Fleet card did not expire. I had more than two years to go.

Then one afternoon I was hoping to buy a product online. Unfortunately, my two year old collector's item of a credit card had no special code for added security. The number had rubbed off sometime after the merger of Fleet and Bank of America. I called up customer service and they assured me the only thing I could do would be to wait for a new card to be issued.

I told them not to bother, preferring to keep my Fleet Savings Bond card rather than whatever fancy Bank of America branded card they would send me.

Of course, a few days later, Bank of America had sent me yet another branded card, gold and blue. Again, I sliced and diced the card into little pieces, reassured that I had at least until 2007 before I would be using their blue and gold card. I did however, sign up for a new card with a different bank, partly to have a spare credit card, and partly knowing that one day soon I'd be cutting my ties with good ol' Bank of America.

And then that's when it happens. I log into my account online and notice that my card is no longer being referred to as "Savings Bond Card" but instead "Financial Premier." Whoa there cow-boy! I have a Savings Bond card, not a Financial Rewards card.

After a few frustrating minutes trying to access "My Rewards" in my account, I gave in and decided there was one inevitable option: calling customer service. Obviously I am loathe to get involved with automated dialing systems, but it seemed the only solution. After a quick skip to dial a human, I was, though unaware of this at the time, on my way to canceling my card.

The nice lady on the other end confirmed my suspicions: Bank of America unilaterally decided to give me a Financial Rewards card. Thanks, Bank of America, that kind of personalized service is why I do business with you! Indeed, thirty seconds later I was cutting up my card, even before the nice lady on the other end of the line confirmed the account had been cancelled.

So as it turns out, I'm in the market for a new card. I think the only real criteria that I have is that the card is not Gold and Blue.

Where Have All The Six Packs Gone?

We noticed yesterday at the grocery store that soda no longer comes in six packs. Sure, you can get a six pack of 20 ounce bottles. Or a six pack of mini 6 ounce cans. Or, you can get a "convenience" twelve pack. But let's face it, there is nothing convenient about the twelve pack.

We've noticed the slow disappearance of six packs. It began with the standard bearers of the soda industry: coke and diet coke six packs were replaced with the twelve pack. For a while, orange soda, root beer, cherry soda were hold outs. But more recently, even those have been replaced with the uber-sized twelve pack.

No doubt some marketing genius came to the conclusion that only stocking shelves with twelve packs of soda would force consumers into buying twice as many sodas all at once. And what better way to drive sales of the never ending supply of new flavored colas. Vanilla Coke, Diet Vanilla Coke, Diet Vanilla Coke with Splenda, Diet Cherry Vanilla Coke-- how many new Coke formulas are there? Well, Coke is certain you'll just love them so much you want to have twelve of them crowding out your refridgerator.

Occasionally we might be inclined to sample from the bounty of flavored colas, or perhaps satisfy our craving for orange soda or Mountain Dew or 7Up. Yet, we can't really justify buying an entire twelve pack of any one of these sodas. Once upon a time, we loved our diet Dr. Pepper, which tasted more like the real Dr. Pepper. Yet, there is no reason we need twelve when maybe we want one Dr. Pepper a week.

In the suburban McMansion, leaving twelve packs lying around with one or two sodas taken from them really is not a big deal. After all, why else should anyone want 5,000 square feet of space unless it is to have a complete collection of a flavored Diet Cokes. But we don't live in a suburb. We live in a small urban apartment, just like the other 250,000 people who shop at the very same grocery store we do. We're assuming we aren't the only folks who refuse to fill our entire 4 square feet of pantry shelving with Diet Cherry Vanilla Coke.

So yesterday we did leave the grocery store with a six pack: Lemonata, an Italian soda. We skipped right passed the Diet Coke, the Sunkist, the root beer, the cream soda. Did we want an A&W? Sure. But what the hell were we going to do with the other eleven?

Oh My, The Button Fly

We recently took a little excursion to buy a few new pairs of jeans. After all, there actually is a finite number of days one can wear a single pair of jeans without washing them. We refuse to comment on the complete duration of our little experiment.

In either case, we were rather dismayed to discover that the first three pairs of jeans we tried on at the GAP came with the dreaded button fly. Our first reaction was that we had accidentally wandered into the women's section. The fact that the jeans were labeled in inches rather than obscure, random numbers denoting approximate guesses of how the jeans may fit reassured us that we hadn't unwittingly become part any androgenous fashion trends.

Nope. It appears that the zipper fly is fast becoming so last century. But what we don't quite understand is why anyone thinks buttons are a good idea for mens' flys. Men have a hard enough time matching up the buttons on a collared shirt. Now fashinonistas want us to button up five or six buttons over our crotches. Its fine to spend tend minutes attempting to button up your crotch in the privacy of your bedroom, but not in public restrooms.

Just imagine standing in front of a urinal trying to match up the right damn button with the right hole while on either side of you are two other men swinging their cocks around, looking over at you wondering why you're still standing in front of the urinal with both hands figeting with your crotch buttons. Only the other gentlemen standing on either side of you have zipper flys and don't understand that you, being the sensitive guy you are, have a button fly. No, they think they've caught you imitating Paul Ruebens while they stand there attempting to go about their business.

Meanwhile, all you want to do is get the fuck out of there before somebody calls the police and you have to explain to them, "no officer, I wasn't fondling myself, I was just trying to button my fly closed." So instead of ensuring that all the buttons are securely fastened, you make a hasty departure. But because you're a man and buttons really aren't your thing, you've misaligned the holes. Now you're either incredibly uncomfortable or might come spilling. Either way, you're now regretting that somebody in the fashion determined that button flys are the in thing.

We searched through the store until we found ourselves the what could be the very last pair of zipper fly jeans ever made. Our only hope is that by the time we worn these to the conclusion of their usable life, someone will have figured out the button fly is not forward think men's fashion.

Where Have All The DVD's Gone?

How Hollywood's Digital Rights Management Is Strangling DVD Sales

Five years ago, the DVD revolution insulated Hollywood from the rapid changes in technology. As prices of home theater equipment dropped, so did attendance at movie theaters, hurting Hollywood's bottom line. The popularity of other entertainment mediums such as video game systems and the internet lured consumer dollars away from Hollywood. But then there was the DVD.

"DVD sales represent more than half of the revenue studios generate from most of their movies" reports The New York Times.

There is no denying the appeal of a DVD. Inexpensive for studios to reproduce, profit margins are high. As media, DVD's are compact to store and easy to use. Hardware prices dropped quickly and soon became as ubiquitous as television sets. And the insatiable appetite for amassing personal libraries both as a trophy and by providing unlimited access to favorite films helped propel sales.

But it seems the career of Hollywood's golden boy has come to a sudden halt. Sales of DVDs have and are projected to remain fairly static after tremendous gains. Meanwhile, other distribution methods are gaining in popularity including Video on Demand and other incarnations streaming video renting. But the DVD is still where the money is.

Hollywood is hoping the high definition revolution will do for the industry what DVDs initially did, that consumers will want to built libraries of high definition movies to play on their HD Televisions. But even including high definition discs in projections, sales of movie discs are to remain static. The high def revolution will create more problems for Hollywood than are solved.

For starters, high def technology is still expensive. High definition is years, if not decades away from installation in every American living room. Then of course there are the actual disc players. The new players will be launched sometime this year, maybe. They will retail in the very reasonable $1000 range. A low end DVD player can be found for $30, off the shelf, at full suggested retail price. Studio executives may not realize this, but that's a difference of $970 going to hardware makers rather than Hollywood studios.

And then there is the issue of compatibility. The Blu Ray and HDDVD formats are competing for supremacy. But with the high cost of setting a high def player, consumers are certainly going to hesitate before amassing large collections. Just consider how useful those eight track collections were. In either case, high definition discs sales will not likely bring the same surge to the industry as DVDs did, or at least won't for another three to five years. And by then, no one will be watching movies on discs anymore.

And while the studios clamor to release high def movies on discs, a rise in popularity of the discs will probably also hurt movies attendance. At the moment there is still something to be said for seeing a movie in a cinema on a 40 foot wide screen. But high def discs will bring that clarity to a 30 or 40 inch screen, further deflating movie attendance.

Movie studios should have instead been concentrating on the smaller, 2 inch screen. iPod with video offers a portable movie experience. Cellphones are also beginning to play video, albeit shorter clips. In either case, by the time High Def discs are able to "save" Hollywood, tiny portable devices will have also saturated the market.

The trouble is this: Hollywood has insisted that DVDs not be transferable to the iPod, or for that matter, any other portable device. They see piracy as a bigger threat to declining sales than mere disinterest.

Indeed, Hollywood sees the key to profitability as simple formula: keep DVD sales going strong.

"Studios earn $17.26 for each DVD they sell, but only $2.37 for movies on demand" says The New York Times. Obviously then, studios would rather sell DVDs. But rapidly changing technological advancements have altered perceptions and expectations of the value of media.

Content owners, be it the Recording Industry or Pornographers or television producers or movie studios, have been firm on one point: piracy is bad. Rightfully so, considering the high cost of producing that content. But the way content providers have gone about protecting their content is now beginning to hurt the sales of that content.

A DVD has no value to a consumer who is not sitting at home with that DVD. The rise of iTunes music store has demonstrated that consumers are willing to pay for media as long as they can take it with them on their iPod. Most CD's still have a high value, because the content stored on the discs can be placed onto an iPod. Indeed, last year when Sony introduced a virus like piece of copy protection that, among other things, prevented the disc content from being placed onto an iPod, the consumers revolted. In a bit of role reversal, consumers sued Sony, and the worthless discs were replaced.

But DVDs still can't be imported directly onto an iPod. This means that from a consumer's standpoint, a DVD is no more valuable than a video on demand rented through a cable system. A DVD can only be viewed at home unless the cumbersome DVD is taken to another location with the necessary hardware. But thanks to technological advancements, a DVD is larger than most portable media players. Even portable DVD players are several inches larger than an iPod Video, and can only store one disc at a time. iPod's on the other hand, can fit in a pocket and store multiple hours of programming on the little harddrives. Meanwhile, video on demand rentals have similar restrictions as a DVD in terms of where the media can be played, but without the need to carry a disc around.

The bottom line is Hollywood wants to sell DVDs. Consumers want to be able to take their media on the go. The next logical step then would be to allow consumers to buy DVDs and load them onto their iPods or other portable devices just as they can with music CDs. iTunes and Windows Media player have been fairly successful at maintaining strict copy protection standards.

Sure, iTunes users can burn a CD of the music in their collection, and then use that CD to put the music onto a friend's iTunes library. But because of the way the data is compressed, every subsequent copy of a song degrades in sound quality, effectively limiting the total number of times a song is copied. But consider the same result with a DVD. If iTunes could convert a DVD to the QuickTime format needed to play the video on an iPod, the quality of the movie would not be high enough to create a copied DVD. But if studios wanted an even stricter policy, iTunes software could simply prevent a video from being burned to DVD.

iTunes and Windows Media Player devices have been effect effective at locking songs into either system's digital rights management and preventing file sharing. One big concern of movie studios is that high speed internet connections have allowed movies to be shared over networks, doing for movies what Napster did for music. But as far as file sharing is concerned, iTunes and WMP files are secure.

Hollywood dabbled in portable movies with the Playstation Portable. Recognizing that portability meant a smaller size, Sony created a new format, the PSP disc. For all purposes, the format was a giant failure, with most studios no longer releasing films in the format and retailers not restocking. Sony made several mistakes. First, the PSP discs should have been compatible with their future Blu Ray discs-- much like CDs half the diameter of regular CDs can still be played by standard CD players. If the PSP discs were blu ray compatible, Sony's format would have had an advantage when the high definition wars finally took off because consumer libraries would already have been started.

The other problem with the PSP movie discs was the assumption that people wanted another device to carry around. There is no denying the popularity of iPods, which control something like three quarters of the MP3 market. But there is only so much space in consumers pockets. Add a cellphone, and there just isn't room for the PSP. Additionally, if a user wants to watch any more than a single disc, they also have to carry around the extra PSP discs rather than simply loading the data onto the hard drive of a device. In short, the PSP movie discs were a failure because they didn't address the larger issue of portability.

Indeed, the simplest solution it seems would by for DVD's to play on a video iPod, or a similar competitor's device. The iTunes music store dominates the legal music download services. But there are others, and consumers are upset that they are "locked in" to a particular service. The best way for the consumer to get around this is to keep buying CDs (which the recording industry obviously prefers) and loading the music from the disc onto the device. They also have the added benefit of a hard copy of the CD that can later be used to reinstall the music if the current device they are using fails or is lost or stolen. The same would be true with DVDs, making the discs more valuable than a video on demand rental system-- and thus justifying the higher profit margin for Hollywood.

DVD sales are a crutch for Hollywood. The high sales of the discs came at a time when Hollywood was "suffering." Expectations of new revenue streams from High Definition discs are unrealistic and will never be fully realized. The best way to maintain profitable DVD sales is by answering the demands of consumers and making the media portable.

Copyrights Gone Wild

We've been saying for a long time that the DMCA was an asinine measure to protect copyrights. Here's another reason why. A major cell phone company is suing the maker of software that unlocks phones. A "locked" phone is a phone that is programmed to work specifically with one wireless carrier. An unlocked phone can be programmed for any carrier.

The above linked article goes into how the issue plays out in terms of violating the DMCA, and cites another example: the Lexmark Printer case. Lexmark sued makers of generic print cartridges claiming they violated the DMCA by circumventing the software that requires Lexmark ink.

In either case, the very fact that people think its a good idea to sue people using the DMCA over cases like this, we think, is reason enough to scrap the whole law.

If we buy a cellular phone, its ours, not the phone companies. If we want to change the software on it, there is no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to. The DMCA was largely pushed by the recording industry to stop Napster and Napster like services. Again, the problem comes along with what rights does the consumer have.

If you buy a recording of music, there should be no reason for the recording industry to dictate how you listen to that music. If you want to copy the CD onto an ipod, well yuo should be able to do that. If you want to copy the music onto a cassette, then power to you for that also. The only issue that really comes up is if you start handing out copies of the music to friends. Handing out copies to friends for free, was allowed before the DMCA, which closed the loophole. But then the recording industry used the DMCA to prevent not sharing copies of music, but to prevent people from listening to music they purchased in the format they wanted.

Another similar instance is game consoles. Consoles, particularly the more powerful xbox, were modified by users with additional harddrives and software to turn the devices into full portable media centers. Under strict interpretation of the DMCA, such modification are illegal. And early on, Microsoft had looked into taking legal action.

All of these instances are thanks to the DMCA, which big business essentially wrote, handed over to congress, who then passed the bill without actually reading it.

Dunking Donuts Ladies

Our local dunking donuts insists on placing donuts in the same bag as hot coffee. For some donuts, this isn't really a problem-- think vanilla kreme. But for any donut with a soft layer of frosting-- boston cream, marble frosted, strawberry frosted, ect., the hot coffee causes the frosting to melt, and then stick the inside of the bag. The result is a donut completely void of any frosting. At first, I thought perhaps this was a mistake made by a new employee. But after several occurences, I realized dunkin employees are simply retarded.

Retail Employees: Officially Retarded

There has been a lot of talk of advanced copies of Harry Potter books accidentally being sold. Are american retail clerks so fucking stupid they can't read "DO NOT SELL BEFORE ABOVE DATE"? And even if the packages were mismarked, are they so out of the news that they don't know they can't sell the book?

Couch

Tommorrow morning in the early A.M., we'll be having a grown up couch delivered. By grown up couch, we mean, not IKEA. Indeed, it comes fully assembled and carried up by two hulking delivery men. If all goes well, we suspect large amounts of our disposable income will be going to furniture.

And A Fuck You Too

We bank with Bank of America. This really wasn't our choice. We had enjoyed Fleet's services for a while, mostly becuase branches are located in areas important to us: New Jersey, Philly, New York, Boston, and on Cape Cod. The other reason we liked fleet is that we thought its size would keep us from being gobbled up by an even bigger bank; so much for that. Bank of America really enjoys testing our relationship.

This morning we pulled into a drive-up ATM just as two ATM service people were getting out of their Loomise Fargo armored car. Since we were getting ready to use the ATM, our window was open. The guy said to his female co-worker, "let him go through first." Her response was an audible, "he can wait." She then proceeded to shut off the ATM and take it out of service.

Hackensack is a city that has been struggling with transportation for quite a while. The other two Bank of America's don't have customer parking, and the customer parking attached to this branch was on the other side of a no left turn sign. The result, not only were we unable to use the drive-thru atm, but we then had to leave the parking lot and circle the block in morning rush hour traffic simply to park to use the ATM's inside the branch.

This was not a matter of laziness, but rather, a matter of time. Walking ten feet from the car to the bank and then back again is not really 'exercise,' especially considering this morning we went power walking at 6am. But a trip through the drive up ATM should take 90 seconds. Parking, walking to the bank, getting in the bank, and getting back out of the parking lot takes two or three times as a long.

As we said, the drive up ATM would have been a 90 second transaction. The very large woman from Loomis Fargo was presumably being paid by the hour, or at the very least on salary: she was getting paid for her 90 seconds waiting for us to take out 40 bucks. On the otherhand, we were not on the clock, and running late.

Dear Bank of America,
Fuck you and your customer service.
Thanks.

UPDATE: We filed an official complaint with Bank of America. We'd like to think the woman will spend the next year at home unemployed thinking about how she probably should have just let us take money out of the ATM before closing it down.

A Bank is Like No Other Business

Banks are amazing. Even when the line is out the door, literally, they feel no need to open another teller. Even Wal*Mart doesn't keep shoppers waiting so long.

Also, the local PNC branch is set in a quaint mix of colonial america and 1987 post modernism that is still baffling me 30 minutes after leaving.

Brilliant Customer Support

Cablevision internet went out today in the middle of the work day. Their recorded message suggested checking out their website for trouble shooting. Yeah, so if ou were AAA and I was calling because my car wasn't working, you'd tell me to drive it to the nearest service station so a mechanic could diagnose the problem.

Dear Cablevision,
Thanks for the advice.
Your BFF [Best Friend Forever]

Cablevision

We recieved a call from Cablevision trying to sell us voice over internet phone service. Of course, we've recieved literally dozens of direct mail advertising on the subject. But we've made the switch to cellular technology and aren't going back. Why should we be tied down by a landline phone? In either case, we don't need cablevision calling to use our daytime minutes in an attempt to sell us something we don't want.

Dear Cablevision,
If we could get Time Warner, we would. Thanks for being usless.
Yours Truly.

Products Best Left for Dead

Hurt yourself cleaning up after the Blizzard of '05? With the all new Whovel you won't break your back while shoveling out. As the demo shows, nothing is better for removing two inches of snow. And its fun.

Have to go on the go? Women should never have to worry about dirty toilet facilities again with the Magic Cone. The magic cone is the portable, disposable pee assistant for women. You should be disturbed.

Economic Recovery

At the high end, luxury emporiums like Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, and, to a lesser extent, Saks Fifth Avenue, are recording double-digit increases in sales, as their shoppers display a seemingly insatiable appetite for $3,000 handbags and fur-trimmed tweed jackets. [source]

Its good to see war, poverty, and God haven't interfered with folks' ability to buy things. Our nation is headed in the right direction.

Software Companies Stick It Where the Sun Don't Shine

Sometime a year or two ago, a Princeton researcher was able to undo anti-pirate technology music companies were employing to protect their CD's. As it turned out, holding down the shift key undid the six figure copyright protection software. He was sued.

Now a software company is trying to have a Harvard researcher jailed for "cracking" their anti-virus software. The company is suing Guillaume Tena and claiming he infringed on their copyright when he published academic papers exposing flaws in their software. As it turns out, users might get better virus protection having unprotected sex with a Dutch prostitute then useing the Viguard antivirus software.

Viguard like most software packages probably had a software license that Guillaume Tena had to "accept" before installing the software. No one ever reads software licenses, but they come with every piece of software a user installs. They read something like this: user agrees that any error in the software is their problem, not the problem of the software maker; user agrees not to modify the software, even to fix the mistakes that we, the software company forgot to make; the user will not talk about fight club.

Essentially, software licenses are meant to indemnify software makers from any harm that might come to your computer for installing the software. Refusing to agree to the license prohibits you from using the software.

If cars came with these licenses, it might read something like this:

Thank you for purchasing your vehicle; Before starting your new vehicle, you must agree to the following conditions:
1. The brakes on this car may fail at any time for no reason, and you should be aware of this.
2. In case of fire, do not operate vehicle; vehicle may catch on fire while you are operating it, in which case it is not our fault because we warned you.
3. The left rear door on some vehicles may not lock allowing intruders to easily access your vehicle's contents, or steal your vehicle. Never leave valuables in your new vehicle for this reason. We are not at all responsible for theft of your vehicle.
4. You cannot modify your vehicle at all. You may not make repairs to the vehicle, even if we forgot to install a part. In most cases, the part is not necessary. Tinkering with the car is illegal and we will prosecute you. After all, we send you a monthly bill, so we know where you live.
5. You are the only person allowed to drive this vehicle. Other members of your family will have to purchase their own vehicles.
6. We own your child.

Credit Cards and Other Offers We Can't Refuse

Apparently, Rutgers College has sold our personal information to Mastercard. We keep recieving special offers for credit cards that send a portion of our purchase to our Ala Mater. We're still pissed about our experience there so we won't send them a nickel.

And since we've been thinking about all the trees turned to pulp in attempts to sell us this card with no annual fee, we decided the addressed, postage paid envelope should not go to waste.

We mailed Mastercard an orange Post-it. Just one.

We're looking forward to sending out more responses to credit card inquiries.

I Heart Walmart

This article from CNN discusses Walmart's next hurdle: its image. CEO Lee Scott claims he likes to talk with people who don't really like Walmart to try and make it better. Well, that's me.

I rarely go into Walmart, and when I do, I almost immediately regret it. Sort of like eating at McDonalds: in principle it seems likea great idea, but twenty minutes later after I've just chowed down a few double cheeseburgers, I get the runs.

Ok Mr. Scott, listen up. Maybe what I have to say won't work well in rural West Virginia, but you've conquered that territory years ago. Its my world you want, upper income suburbs. And this is what we hate:

Cleanliness:
Walmart is dirty. Very dirty. I know you can't do anything about getting your loyal clientel to shower more frequently, but at least keep the store clean. No dust bunnies, no grease on the carts, no wads of paper floating around the bathroom. Target is never dirty.

Space:
We've accepted that you are going to turn acres of open space into a giant parking lot and warehouse size store. So stop trying to save a few square feet and make the aisles bigger. Everytime I'm in Walmart, I only want to leave because everything is so tightly packed in there. Since you've already plowed under the farm, why not add a few thousand square feet to the store so I'm not tripping over extra super savings when I turn a corner.

Drop the Social Agenda:
You're a corporation, not an evangelist. Every corporation has some bad things to labor, the environment, and civil society, and while most have not destroy Main Street USA, even this can be overlooked.

But the reason I GO OUT OF MY WAY to avoid shopping at Walmart is the social agenda the corporation is pushing. RU-486? Censored CD coverart? Removing books from your shelves?

So you want to promote a "family atmospher". Right. Fine. You don't need to have end of aisle displays showcasing RU-486, but at least stock it behind the counter. Satan a little too much to but on the CD stand? Fine. Hide it behind the counter. Don't like the free press? Don't sell books. Its unacceptable that Walmart feels they should judge what I want or can purchase.

Drop this social nonsense and we'll gladly come to Walmart more often. Until then, you can find us in the Target.