Check out this story. What jerks. Apparently networks are deliberately shifting the start and end times of their shows to confound TiVo users. Networks hate TiVo due to its commercial-skipping powers. By making time-shifters miss the end of their recorded shows the practice is discouraged.

Of course, you can manually extend the recording period by the necessary minute or two, but if you're planning to record NBC at 9 and ABC's 8PM show runs until 9:01, your one-tuner DVR will typically decide there's a conflict and conclude that it's not worth recording any of the NBC show. ABC gains an advantage either way: either time-shifting is discouraged, or its competitors get fucked over. Great job, guys!

It's curious how this innovation has popped up, yet, having had decades to offer additional value to consumers by competitively scheduling their commercial breaks -- that is, not having them simultaneously -- the networks have managed to stay in wonderful synchrony: when one is at commercial, so are all the others. Hmm.

Obviously something has to pay for TV, but I don't think it's going to be commercials for much longer, ill-advised legislation notwithstanding. Networks will increasingly have to turn to subscription fees to support themselves. There won't be a massive switch to an HBO model, but fees paid by cable companies will slowly increase. Some networks will disappear and your cable bill will creep upward. That's a shame, but if it means I can escape a nightly corporate assault on my subconscious it's a tradeoff I'll be happy to make.

In the meantime, I suggest you apply the power of righteous indignation to downloading this week's episode of Lost (click the link, click on 'Lost', then scroll down). Who would have thought that the pregnant girl's backstory episode would be so fascinating and spooky? I liked the show before, but I thought it was going to end up with an unfortunately mundane foundation once the island's mystery was stripped away. Now I'm not so sure. Seriously, go watch it.

A while ago I wrote about Philadelphia's plans to offer citywide wifi access. I argued that data should be thought of as a utility, that it's a natural monopoly, and that it ought to be run by the municipal government. I also said that Philly's plan was doomed, since the city is Comcast's home base. Well, I was wrong. It looks like the city's wifi plans are going forward. And it turns out that Comcast wasn't a jerk about it. Verizon was.

Right before the plan went through, some eleventh hour legislation magically appeared forbidding Pennsylvania towns from offering fee-based broadband access without giving the local phone company the right of first refusal. If the telco decides it'd rather not have the government offering cheap, universal service, it can veto the plan and offer a similar service within 14 months.

Some folks were a little irked by this. The argument goes along the lines of "WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VERIZON'S PERMISSION TO BUILD PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE?!" I guess you can argue it's unfair for industry to have to compete with a partially-subsidized civic scheme -- although you'd still have to convince my why I should care. But an entirely subsidized, no-fee service is specifically allowed by the legislation. So I'm at a loss -- why should Pennsylvanians have to ask for Verizon's seal of approval if they want to leverage economies of scale to save some money, attract hi-tech companies and help bridge the digital divide?

Amid the controversy Verizon graciously agreed to waive the right of first refusal they were fighting so hard to get. Hurrah! What great guys. The broadband plan can proceed. And oh, while we're at it, let's just sign that legislation anyway. You know, it's already all drawn up. Might as well. ...That's it. Right on the line here. Great -- thanks! Oh, and FUCK YOU to every other town in Pennsylvania. Verizon's your daddy now.

I don't want to beat up on Verizon -- or at least I don't want to want to. They've consistently stood up on their customers' behalf against the RIAA and its nasty DMCA subpoena factory; plus they don't employ secret bandwidth caps like some of their competitors. But whatever goodwill they've earned with my inner geek, the rabid technosocialist in me bristles at the idea of legislation that halts progress in order to legally enshrine a corporation's imagined right to profit.