Nikita or Yet Another Re-Make Done Too Soon

From 1997 through 2001 a show known as "Nikitia" in Canada or "La Femme Nikita" in the USA aired. That show starred some great actors. Peta Wilson as Nikita, Roy Dupuis as Michael, Don Franks as Walter, Eugene Robert Glazer as Operations, Matthew Ferguson as Birkoff and Alberta Watson as Madeline (for the rest of the cast list visit here). Tonight across the same two nations another show called Nikita began airing (CW Network in the US, A-Channel in Canada).

First some bias and observation about the original TV show. Yes, I am aware there was a movie that the show is based on. I have not seen that movie, although recently I have been debating watching it. I am an avid fan of the TV show. In fact I currently am finishing up the final season of the show. For a time TheWB.com had the show streaming on their website. It has since been taken down in favor of the new show. Lucky for me, I have Netflix and am able to finish the series out on DVD (I was not happy when I found out the original had been pulled in favor of the new). To me, and other fans I've noticed comments from, Peta Wilson is Nikita and always will be. I think I can safely add Roy Dupuis as Michael and Matthew Ferguson as Birkoff to that list as well. The new show, however, isn't terrible.

The new Nikita, played by Maggie Q (of Mission Impossible III and Live Free or Die Hard), leaves something to be desired for me. First off, Nikita is a blond, not a brunette. Second, she's at very least European, if not North American, not Asian. I have no problem with Asians, I just have an image of who should play the role. Maggie Q, doesn't fit that image. She's a great actor, just not for the part. The fact that Michael and Nikita are not involved (at least at this point) is a major flaw in this new show. That is what the original show as based on. Without their relationship the original would not have survived. Another blow to the new show, at least as far as original show fans should be concerned is two fold. First, there is no Section anymore. It's now Division. I guess same idea different name? Why not keep the original, you kept names like Nikita, Michael and Birkoff, why change the name of the covert agency they work for? Second, the show is now clearly based in the United States (despite being filmed in Toronto, Ontario as was the original show). I believe this creates a problem. Whereas before, Section One's actual location was never revealed (although in my opinion show clues placed it somewhere in Europe, possibly France), it is now clear where the target is. This could possibly be a part of the story not yet revealed but I doubt it. To me this just makes the new shows creators and producers seem a bit too ethnocentric, which is a disappointment to the franchise more than to the viewer. My biggest problem will never be addressed, however.

Why is Nikita not in Division? She is apparently a rogue agent. According to the new show, she escaped 3 years ago. The rest of the back story is the same, but this part is different from the original show. Now, if you haven't seen the original show, let me tell you the end. Nikita is still in Section, the final scene has her running the place. Where did she escape, if you go back to sometime in Season 3 I believe, there is a pilot program where she is let out of Section for a time. Could this be the so called "escape" that the new show refers too? I hope not as that would dramatically change the original show timeline. One more note, Nikita (original show) never loved, was proposed to, or even saw anyone named Daniel (as far as I can remember and tell from the quick episode guide searches I just completed). She lived alone and had several neighbors that were her friends when she wasn't inside Section. Her cover wasn't much ("between jobs and working on stuff"). Now she's supposed to be a consultant of some kind. As one final thought, before I wrap up this fairly long rant. The original show ended in 2001. It's not even 10 years later and some network executives thought a remake would be a good idea? I guess if it works for 90210 why not try it with Nikita eh?

Is it a good show? I think time will tell the most. As one of the people on twitter put it tonight "this one doesn't know what it is yet." I agree. The original show was good from the start. This one looks like it will need some time. All in all, if you're looking for a good action show, I don't think you can go wrong with Nikita (either the Original or the New). No star rating on this but I am going to keep my eyes on it over the next few months. To find out more about the original show go to this fan site or IMDB.com. The new Nikita airs Thursday's at 9 ET/PT on The CW network in the US and A-Channel in Canada. As always, comments are appreciated and moderated. Thank you for reading.

Really, he finally decided to post something?

As a matter of fact I did. I know, I know I haven't posted since May. And for that I'm sorry. I wish I could say I've been busy (which is actually true). But that is really no excuse for not coming up with some pithy comment to post. As I write this post it's quite early in the morning. About an hour ago I tried to go to bed. I'm still awake and my brain was moving so fast that I had to get up and do something. Writing my thoughts out to the world seemed like a good idea. I have a whole bunch of topics to talk about but for now, I'll keep it short. There are several more posts in the works (don't laugh I'm really serious). Some might be funny, others inspirational and still more just musings. There will be complaints (as there have been on multiple occasions on this blog). There may also even be a few new podcasts and/or Vlogs in my future too. If I do podcast or vlog I'll make sure to put links here. Oh, check out the links on the right for my Youtube.com page. Any new video stuff I do will likely find its way there at some point (it's pretty limited right now, but I plan expansion). The podcast is already linked (and available in iTunes unless they kicked me off due to inactivity). Anyways, on to topics that I'm working on.

1. Saying goodbye. How do you do it? I have some ideas especially when it involves a long radio career. I'll talk about how it affected me and why you should care.

2. Finding a job. No I can't help you find one, but I still need one, so it's something I'll talk about.

3. Hockey. Hey, what do you know it's not first on the list it's third, that's not too bad. Just in case you didn't know the season starts in a little over a month (preseason is in a couple of weeks).

4. What inspires you? This actually may get back to #1, but we'll see.

5. Politics and more. This one we'll see about, I'm not sure I'm ready to take this one on quite yet.

More? Probably, I have ideas that just run around my head a lot. I need to just remember them and start writing.

As always, thanks for taking the time to read. Comments must be approved by me before they are posted.

An Open Letter to NBC and the IOC

To: The Executives of NBC and NBCOlympics.com

CC: The Members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Subject: Open Letter regarding NBC and NBCOlympics.com 2010 Olympic Coverage

Before I get into the actual subject of this letter, let me first admit my bias. I was born and raised in Canada. Therefore, I have grown up watching CBC and CTV's coverage of the Olympics. Until 2000 I had never seen a single minute of NBC Olympic coverage. Since 2000 I have been forced to watch much more NBC coverage than I want to. I believe there are major flaws in NBC's coverage both on their broadcast network as well as their online content. In addition to my issues with NBC I also have a problem with the several IOC decisions all of which I plan to address. It should also be noted that much of what I am referring to is in regards to the most recent Olympic Winter Games, held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in February 2010, however, I noticed some of these problems as early as the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, New south Wales, Australia.

My issues with NBC are as follows: first, NBC did not, and does not regularly, carry Olympic events live across the United States. Second, NBC's online content, for the 2010 games, required that you to be a member of a particular subscription based service in order to watch live online content (including full event replays). Third, NBC airs far to many commercials. Fourth, NBC does not air enough sport, they instead choose to broadcast multiple interviews and athlete profiles instead of showing more sport. Finally, NBC chooses to only show a particular list of events and leave out a large amount of the events held at the games.

In addition to my issues with NBC, I have two questions for the IOC. First, why does the IOC insist that you must live in a country in order to watch that nations coverage? In other words, why if I live in the United States can't I watch coverage out of Canada, the UK or France? Second, why does the IOC allow NBC to essentially charge for viewing online content, especially when other nations do not (like Canada)?

I will be specifically looking at NBC's 2010 coverage as compared against CTV's 2010 coverage. I will also do my best to only include an argument based on broadcast channels only. I'll start with the issue of live coverage. For the second time in 10 years the Olympics were held in North America. This means that a lot of events took place near or during prime time both in the Eastern time zone as well as the Pacific time zone. NBC decided to only air events live during Eastern prime time. This means if you lived in Central or Eastern time you got to watch the Olympics as they happened on NBC. If you lived in Mountain or Pacific time, you had to wait three extra hours for your prime time (aka 8pm local) to watch the events that ended at minimum 3 hours before. Compare this to CTV, not only did CTV start their broadcast day at 3AM pacific, it didn't end to 11pm Pacific. There was one exception, CTV took a 30 minute news break at 2:30pm pacific. Three sets of hosts ran the shifts throughout the day, one set from 3am-9am, another from 9am-2:30pm, then a final host from 3pm-11pm. After 11 there was another 1 hour news break, followed by some replays from 12-3 again hosted by a late night host (who was live as well from what I understand). That's 22.5 hours of live Olympic coverage every day of the games. Oh and just to emphasize this point that was all nationwide. CTV was on 22.5 hours nationwide with Olympic coverage. NBC on the other hand was live in less than half the country (by land mass, not population). Some may make the argument that The Today Show which also airs on NBC should be considered Olympic coverage, even with adding that in, NBC is only up to 7 hours a day and none of it was live in the time zone that the games occurred in. NBC should learn from their Canadian counterparts and figure out the meaning of the word live. No one wants to watch the games after they know the results. The Olympics are meant to be watched live.

NBC's record of online content has been fairly good, up until this year. NBC has somewhat led the world when it comes to online Olympic coverage. During the Summer Games in 2008 NBC provided a lot of online content all for free (with ads). So naturally I was expecting NBC to provide the same sort of coverage this year. Not so. NBC, for this games, required that you be a subscriber of a specific internet provider and/or cable or satellite provider. This means that almost half of Americans were unable to watch live event coverage online. In addition, NBC also required that same "subscription" for full event replays online. But they had lots of highlights. I don't want to watch highlights, if I wanted to watch highlights I could just watch their broadcast channels because that was all NBC carried during prime time. You want an example? The men's downhill. NBC carried 5 skiers in the men's downhill during their prime time show. I know for a fact that CTV carried every single one of the top 30 skiers and most of the top 50 on the network. During prime time CTV did re-air fewer skiers but they still aired more than 5. Another example...the Figure Skating gala. NBC carried 6 skaters (Joannie Rochette, Evgeni Plushenko, Evan Lisachek, Yu-Nan Kim, Charles White and Meril Davis and Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir). I don't remember exactly how many CTV aired but I know it was more than that. Especially because NBC did not carry any of the pairs finalists (2 men, 2 women, 2 ice dance). In addition, CTV's partner Sportsnet carried the entire event live. I don't believe any of NBC's partners did.

Commercials are essential to television, I understand this. But there is a difference between essential and over doing it. NBC over did it. During the figure skating instead of showing the skater in the "kiss and cry" area, NBC almost always took a one minute break instead. CTV took breaks too, after about 3 or 4 skaters, that equals one or two breaks ever 6 skaters or every flight. NBC also aired to many spots during events that you shouldn't break from, like the Opening and closing ceremonies. The closing ceremonies for example NBC cut the speech of the CEO of the Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) nearly in half. Now, I will say that Mr. Furlong's speech did not start well (his French left something to be desired) but there is no reason to break away from that especially when it was to promote a reality TV that was immediately following the conclusion of the games. Oh, and did you know there was a concert during the closing ceremonies? If you watched NBC you didn't because they cut that too. What were the advertisers paying for? Athlete pieces about Apollo Ohno over and over again. NO, advertisers are paying for event coverage. Now that I've taken on NBC I turn my attention to the Internation Olympic Committee (IOC).

The IOC is not without controversy. Decisions they have made on where to host the games, issues with the officials. When you consider the size of the IOC, it actually doesn't do a terrible job. I would however, like to know the answer to the questions I posed earlier. The IOC claims that each nation (and/or group of nations in the case of parts of the EU) can have one broadcast network that carries the games. They are also allowing multiple cable companies (owned or partnered with by the broadcast company) to carry other elements of the games. This next statement is going to be controversial. I believe the IOC is discriminating by this policy. Cable is still not fully integrated into any nation. Only half of people in the United States have cable, even less have all the NBC channels that carried the Games. But I'm getting off topic. Why does the IOC block nations from watching other nations coverage? Is it money? Probably. Is it that the IOC doesn't care about ex-patriots? Probably not. But it sure does feel like that. To me the IOC should at the very least allow the online content to be available to the world, no matter who is broadcasting it. In my case, I would rather watch CTV and/or CBC (the contract just moved) over NBC. But I can't because my IP is blocked by CTV, something the IOC mandates. I just want to know what the true reason behind it is. Second, and probably more important, is the "cost" of some online content.

Let me preface this by saying that CTV carried ALL online content for free. Most of that content was online broadcasts of their on air broadcast coverage (yes, CTV basically did web casts of their broadcast channel for the duration of the games). It didn't matter if you didn't have cable, you could still watch TSN or Sportsnet (which are normally cable only) online. Meanwhile, in the USA. NBC forced internet providers to have "deals" with them in order for you to be able to watch live event coverage. That amounts to having to pay for Olympic content. Why is it free in some places (ok, I'm talking about Canada but I know it's not the only place) and a cost in others? Second, why does the IOC allow networks to force this "charge" on consumers? I don't have an answer to this question. I don't know why NBC gets away with it and CTV doesn't even think about it.

I know this is very long. But it had to be. There is a lot of issues with NBC and the IOC as far as I'm concerned. One more thing, perhaps if the IOC would actually look at broadcast bids instead of just taking the one that gives them the most money, they just might get a quality product, especially in the United States. I know this is rambling, again, it could not be avoided. This is how I feel about the issue.

To NBC please change your ways. Please make the largest event in the world accessible to the whole country as a live event (especially when the games are carried in a North American time zone). To the IOC either tell NBC to change or get a new Olympic contract for the United States. The Olympics don't just happen in prime time. They happen all day for the 17 days of the games. Viewers should be able to see it as they happen not when some network decides they should. NBC carry more sport, especially if you aren't going to extend your coverage. Athlete interviews and profiles are fine, but you have to have more than 4 hours to put them in. If you only have 4 hours a day, skip the profiles carry the sport. To the IOC, open the online content up to the world. Who knows you might find that I'm right. some countries have better coverage than others and you could, since you control content so much, force some changes in the whole world.

I know this is well after the fact, but I think the sentiment remains the same. I hope this letter can cause you to think and consider the coming games in London (2012) and Sochi (2014), both of which as of right now are still being carried on NBC in United States.

Thank you for reading. Please note all comments must be approved by me before they are posted. If you would like to contact me directly, my email link is listed on this page.

New Posts Coming

I know it's been a while since I posted something. I'm working on a couple of topics and hope to have at least one of them done soon. I'll get more consistent with this eventually. I just don't know when that will be. If I do decide to make the podcast more prevalent you will be the first to know.

Jump Pages

Ok, I'll admit it, this is a little random but hey it's what I want to talk about. If you have ever picked up a newspaper and read it you've come across the phenomenon known as jump pages. Basically the newspaper prints part of the story on the front page with a big bold headline to match and then near the back of the paper they print the rest of the story. This means if you want to finish the story you have to "jump" from the front of the paper to the back page (or jump page). To be honest I find the practice rather irritating, especially when they jump mid-sentence. Despite not liking it, however, I do understand why papers do it. It's all about space. What I don't understand is why email's need them. Let me give you a rather common example in my inbox.

I subscribe to several of Kim Komando's daily email offerings. Now please do not misunderstand me here. I'm not picking solely on Kim, there are plenty more just like her, she just happens to be the most common one in my inbox as it is a daily email. Every day I get three emails from Kim. One of them offers a site that might interest me, another is a tech news feed, and the third is her daily tip. By the way, you can sign up for all three at her website. In her daily tip Kim often responds to a letter from a subscriber. The email usually included the letter and about 3 paragraphs of response from Kim before it abruptly ends and there is a link that says something about reading the rest by clicking to go to the story on her webpage. Invariably I either don't care or don't want to take the time to click on the link to read the rest and the email gets filed away. I just want to know why the whole story can't be published in the email. It's not like there aren't any ads in the email or that the email costs so much more than the site. It just makes sense to me to include the whole answer to a question in a email. Like I said this happens a lot, I get it from several different sources some daily some weekly. All of them I wish would include the whole answer or story or whatever instead of making me jump to their website. I know it's not going to happen but I wish it would.

Thanks for reading.

Finally he quit talking about hockey...

Ok, so I know I've talked about hockey a lot (it's been on my mind with the season and all) but today is going to be different, I promise. I want to talk technology. Yesterday was not a fun day for me, I spent most of the day offline dealing with a computer that for some reason would not work. After re-booting it about 10 times (amongst other things) it started working again. It never came up with a real error except maybe on IRQ issue. That, of course makes me a little nervous, as I don't know if something is failing in my system or if it was just a little problem. Needless to say my day could have gone just a little better.
The whole ordeal got me thinking about buying a new computer and maybe possibly some new accessories. So I grabbed what I like to affectionately call "the little blue flyer" (aka the Best Buy ads although it's yellow instead of blue now) and started looking through it for what the newest products might be. I was pretty disappointed. Laptops with no more hard drive space than I already have, no improvement in graphics and less battery life than 2 years ago. Not exactly what I'm looking for. But that's not even the worst thing.

There are lots of people out there paying way to much for tech products. Let me give you an example. HDMI cables. If you have a newer TV, sound system, computer or DVD player you've no doubt heard of this new way of connecting devices to a TV and getting better picture and sound out of it. The question is do you know how much the cables cost? According to the Fred Meyer ad (Best Buy doesn't have one on sale this week) you can get a 4 ft. HDMI cable for $32. It's a 4 ft. cable!?!? What's it made out of GOLD?!?! Well, actually it is, the ends are gold plated to be corrosion resistant. You want to know how much I payed for the 2 HDMI cables I have in my home? About 17 dollars and that includes a $6 S&H fee. They work fine and bonus they're 6 ft. long instead of only 4. WOW! How can I get that deal you might ask? It's simple go to www.monoprice.com. Cheap cables, heck they have tons of cool tech stuff for cheap.

The second product that I want to talk about is batteries. Since the dawn of digital camera's batteries have been trying to keep up. First there were Nickel Cadmium rechargeable batteries. Not better than the Alkaline ones already on the market but at least you could re-use them. Then they came out with Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH). Those started out pretty weak but improved and eventually surpassed their Alkaline counterparts, but they have one major flaw. They don't last when left sitting. If you're like me you take pictures maybe a couple of times a month, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on the events going on in your life. I got really tired of having my NiMH batteries never giving me enough power to take more than 20 or 30 pictures. So I started talking to people. My cousin and my uncle both found the best batteries I have ever used. Hybrid Rechargeables! They're an 80%/20% mix of NiMH and alkaline. They are guaranteed to hold their charge above 80% for 6 months. I never have a problem with them anymore. If you want those you can find them in the US at www.batteriesplus.com. In Canada I've been told they are a little easier to find, Wal-Mart and London Drugs are probably good places to check. These batteries use a standard NiMH charger and require a lot less maintenance to stay in good condition. There now didn't I just make you feel either a lot better or a lot worse about tech stuff. I really have to start making these posts shorter (I'll work on that). Thanks for reading.

An Outdated Concept? Really?!?

The headline reads "Bettman casts doubt on NHLers in future Olympics." Now, if you've read my last couple of posts about hockey you have an idea of how I feel about Commissioner Bettman. I think he's wrong, in it for the money, doesn't care about the fans and with this article (the link is also available by clicking the title of this post), he also doesn't care about the league as a whole. The article I mentioned was an interview conducted by the Canadian Press regarding a wide variety of issues. The biggest one for me is a comment Bettman made about the Olympics. He basically says he doesn't think that NHL hockey players should play in the Olympics after the 2010 Winter Games except maybe if the games are played in North America. The two week shut down of the league every 4 years in February is apparently more than the league can handle. Bettman said he doesn't see any point in having players play games around the world especially because no one in North America would be watching. The next are being held in Russia, roughly 13 or so hours ahead of the east coast, so games may not be played during prime time in North America. Bettman thinks the added exposure isn't enough to out way the loss of those two weeks.

Let's look at a couple of things, first off the "complaints." A) The Olympic break comes at a time when there isn't much other sports going on in North America and b) it comes right as the NHL is beginning it's playoff push. First my answer to part a. Relatively slow time in sports in North America in February??? Funny, the NBA season is in full swing and, living in a NBA market, it's all most people want to talk about. The Olympics are watched WORLDWIDE!!!!!!!!! Taking a week break every 4 years to show the world the best hockey players the NHL has to offer and possibly the best players in the world sounds like a pretty good trade off to me. It's not like hockey doesn't need more exposure in the United States, particularly in markets where people don't go to games like oh I don't know Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville, Florida, Tampa Bay. Olympic coverage makes more people aware of the sport. More people aware, means more who want to play, more people who want to play means more competition, more competition means...well you get the idea. Now for part b). The Olympic break only happens every 4 years. Just based on that alone I don't understand what the problem is. Every 4 years the playoff race is put on hold for two weeks and the whole world watches the Olympics instead of the NHL.

Mr. Bettman if you want to grow the NHL and make it better quit treating the fans like crap and demanding that everything be done your way. If you want to grow the league get exposure worldwide by allowing NHL players to continue to play in the Olympics. If you want to diminish the NHL and make it a place where fans and players alike don't feel accepted keep doing what your doing. You and you're management team are fast becoming the laughing stock of the major leagues in North America. Heck some people even say that MLS is doing better than the NHL. Really, soccer???? Change your ways Bettman or you will lose respect from even more fans and players and you might even completely destroy one of the oldest and greatest hockey leagues in the world (notice I said world not North America, yes, I know I'm being redundant but I'm trying to make a point here). Go Oilers! Go Hockey! Go Olympics! Vancouver 2010 130 days and counting.

It's The Most Wonderfull Time of The Year

Ok, so maybe the title is a little misleading. But if you're a hockey fan you know exactly what I am talking about. It's October 1st. Why is October 1st so important this year? Nothing really, aside from the official start of the NHL regular season. If you're a fan of the NHL this is the day you have been waiting for. If you're a fan of the NHL in the United States and don't have cable or satellite, this is probably the first time you're hearing about this. That's right, I'm going to complain about how little hockey coverage there is in the United States. I'm currently listening to the best local sports station in the Portland Metro (95.5 The Game if you're interested). They're talking about fantasy football, real football, soccer and basketball. I can turn on the regular talk station in Edmonton (630 CHED) and hear more about hockey in 5 minutes then if I listened to The Game all day. Now I'm not blaming The Game. They can only work with what they have. The Portland Metro has no pro hockey (the Portland Winterhawks are pre-draft and let's be honest haven't been that good for quite some times). For that matter the Portland Metro only has one pro team and that's basketball.
But this blog isn't about 95.5 The Game and their lack of hockey coverage. This is much bigger than that. This is about national NHL coverage.

In a previous post I commented extensively (okay, I rambled I know) about how much I disliked a couple of NHL decisions with regarding television coverage in the United States. In Canada the CBC, for all the problems it appears to have, has carried Hockey Night In Canada every Saturday night for longer than my parents have been alive. HNIC is a Canadian staple. Hundreds of thousands of families sit in front of the TV every Saturday night and watch two teams battle it out on live television. In the United States what do you get to watch on network television on Saturday afternoon/night? College football on ABC (at least through January), re-runs or paid programming on CBS and NBC. FOX actually has new shows. Saturday is a dead night for networks in the US, why not put hockey on then. NBC currently has the right to the NHL for over the air broadcast. NBC could easily put one NHL game a week on Saturday night. It makes sense to me and would get me to watch NBC more often, even if I don't like their coverage.

Still I'm a little but frustrated that all the major leagues in North America have decided that a vast majority of their television coverage is not accessible to that common person. The common person doesn't have cable and can't (or shouldn't be able to) afford to pay extra fees to watch games online or via special packages. I think NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is taking the league in a direction that could ruin it. I won't even get in to what happened in Phoenix over the summer (yeah, I need more time to process, there will be a post about it soon). The NHL needs to figure out that it's fans want hockey to be easy to view. More viewers equals more money. Make it easier to see and you'll do better. Keep trying to get it on some channel owned by Comcast (Versus) instead of on major networks and you'll never get ahead. Just my two cents. I would really like to watch hockey tonight. Maybe I'll find someone streaming it online for free....sigh. Thanks for reading, you know how to get a hold of me and comments are moderated but welcomed.

The Digital Switch

Ok, really truly it is coming. The digital switch is here. This Friday, June 12th TV stations all over the United States are turning off their analog channels in favor of digital stations. HOWEVER, there are some stations that are not switching. This is not because they don't want to or don't need to it's because they don't have to. Stations designated LP or low power are currently exempt from the digital switch. They will eventually switch too but not right now. So if you live in an area that is outside of a major city and watch your TV on a translator it may not be changing to digital. I know of at least 1 in my part of the world that will not be switching for now. I believe, and I could be wrong on this, that translators and LP stations have another 2 years to make the switch. So how do you get ready in the last 3 days for the digital switch?
There are several ways. First, buy a digital convertor box. If you live in an area that has digital and analog stations make sure you get a box that allows for analog passthrough as well. Second, you could switch to satelite or cable. Both are essentially immune to the digital switch, as they are either doing the translation for you or you already recieve a digital signal from them. Third, you can get a new digital recording device (like VCR/DVD combo, DVD recorder or even a DVR). This will allow you to recieve digital channels through your VCR or DVD recorder but not through your TV, so if you're watching something different than you're recording you're out of luck. Finally, and the option that I chose and the one I think is the best, get a new TV. New digital LCD TV's range from $200-$4000 depending on what you want and what brand you get. I recommend you go to Consumer Reports and check out their ratings. In addition to a new TV and/or new digital recorder you will likely need a new antenna. The title of this blog links to Antennaweb.org which will tell you what antenna works best for your area and which direction you should point the antenna. As far as TV brands go personally, I'm partial to the big names, Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony. Although I have heard good things about Vizio, Westinghouse and some of the smaller brands. Remember when it comes to LCD TV's only a few companies make the panels it's the extra components and menu's that are different across brands.
In addition to a new TV I got a digital recorder in the form of a DVD recorder so I don't need a convertor box for my VCR (a good thing given how many stations I record from in the same night).

All this to say that you need to get ready for the switch. If you don't on June 12th, your TV will begin displaying nothing but static.

Before I go I'll also give the channel lineup as I know it for the Portland, OR metro. 2.1 KATU-DT, 2.2 THIS, 6.1 KOIN-DT, 8.1 KGW-HD, 8.2 KGW Weather Plus, 10.1 OPB-HD, 10.2 OPB-SD (if you get a convertor box this is the best OPB for you), 10.3 OPB-Create, 10.4 OPB-Radio, 12.1 KPTV-DT, 17.1 KORK-DT (anticipated on June 12th, I'm not recieving this right now it's on analog 35), 22.1 ION-DT, 22.2 Qubo (by NBC), 22.3 Ion-Life, 22.4 Worship, 24.1 TBN-DT, 24.2 TBN-Church, 24.3 TBN-JCTV, 24.4 TBN-Spanish, 24.5 TBN-Kids, 32.1 KRCW-DT, 32.2 US-DT, 49.1 KPDX-DT (on June 12th). If I missed any I'm sorry. One last thing, on Friday when you get a minute no matter what box you have use the menu to re-scan for all channels you recieve. Once you're done you should be all set. Thanks for reading and happy viewing.

Lord Stanley's Mug

Yeah, in case you didn't know, which living in the part of the world I live in you probably don't, the Stanley Cup is on the line in a great final series in the NHL right now. But if you live in the Pacific Northwest (or I'm guessing any place that has a basketball team and nothing else) you probably haven't heard more than a few highlights and scores. Maybe it's because I grew up in Canada, but when there is a major playoff series in hockey, the whole country shuts down for the night to watch the game on the CBC. Now I understand the NBA playoffs are going on right now too, and last night the Penguins vs. Red Wings was competing with the Lakers vs. Magic. But still the NHL finals shouldn't be relegated to being mentioned after baseball. The station I listen to, always starts their reports with basketball, then it's on to baseball, then football even during off season, then maybe if they have time (and only during the playoffs) hockey. Now I understand starting with basketball, I do live just outside of Portland, Oregon, home of the Trailblazers but really relegating the NHL to last spot and only playing 1 highlight. The games 3 and 4 of the series have had a total of 12 goals (8 for Pittsburgh and 4 for Detroit). Surely stations can play more than 1 highlight (and definitely more than the same highlight) during their sports reports.
Sadly, no one in the PNW cares. The official sports order for here is basketball, baseball, football and then maybe hockey or soccer or tennis or...(name obscure sport here). I understand that the closest NHL team is in Vancouver, BC but does that really mean you shouldn't report on a international league that has 30 teams in 28 markets? I don't think so.
Now let me talk about national coverage of the finals. The NHL has for the past few years, in their infinite wisdom, let an obscure sports network known as Versus carry most of the season hockey games. Versus isn't available to most regular cable and satellite subscribers. You have to have a sports package to get the channel (whereas ESPN is usually just included or you only need one add-on not a special package). In February NBC is allowed to carry one game a week on Saturday or Sunday and it is almost exclusively between two US teams and most of the time two bad US teams. They do that till around late April when playoffs start then NBC turns off coverage until the Final series. In the past NBC has carried all the games in the Stanley Cup Finals. But not this year. This is one of the most anticipated Final series since Edmonton/Carolina as far as I'm concerned. It's a re-match of last year's final. This year the NHL (and I'm assuming NBC) in their infinite wisdom decided that only games 1, 2 and 5-7 (if necessary) would be played on NBC. 3 and 4 would be played on Versus. Many of you know how mad I am about all of the shows and sports that keep abandoning network television for cable (and obscure cable for the most part). This one takes the cake for me. In Canada millions of people watch the CBC from the first drop of the puck in the NHL to the end of the final whistle in Final series. Sure there are games on cable/satellite, but the big ones are almost always on CBC.
Lets look at some stats, and I know my numbers are rough. 30 million people live in Canada, if even half of them watch hockey during the finals that's 15 million people watching one network (CBC). In the USA there are 300 million people. If even 10 percent watch a game that's 30 million. Versus and the NHL were very proud of the fact that they got 3 million viewers on Versus during game 3. 3 MILLION PEOPLE!!!?!?!?!!!! Are you kidding me? That's terrible. That's 1 percent of the US population. Does that tell you something Gary Bettman???? Maybe, if you actually tried to sell the sport on a network that a majority of the country can see you would get more viewers. How about putting hockey on the CW or heck MyNetwork TV. Nobody watches original programming on those stations anyways!!!!!!! Then at least you have potential to get more than 3 million viewers in your so called biggest market. Of course it will never happen. This commissioner isn't concerned about anything but money. He's going to sign the contract that pays the league the most and who cares how many fans it screws over. On another note, Detroit won game 1 and 2. That meant that if Pittsburgh did not win 3 and 4 that Versus could have been the network that gave away the cup...an obscure cable channel giving away the oldest trophy in major sports history. Does that seem right to you? It doesn't to me.
Not only am I mad at the NHL for letting NBC dictate what games they will carry, I'm mad about NBC's coverage. The host and play-by-play announcer is a guy named Mike "Doc" Emrick. This guy is an award winning sportscast and I can't stand him. He needs to quit yelling when he talks, and maybe just maybe I would like him a little better. He should also not be the host. IT'S THE NHL FINALS NBC!!!! Do you think you could maybe pay someone to sit in a studio and act as a host? Heck, I'll take Bob Costas, even though he doesn't know a thing about the sport. In Canada, we have had the greatest callers in the NHL. Foster Hewitt, Rod Phillips, Jim Hughson, Bob Cole, Harry Neil, Don Whitman, Dick Irvin and Chris Cuthbert. Those names are famous for what they did in the NHL. I think NBC and the NHL should think about putting one of those names (I realize some of them are no longer with us) on the air instead of the so-called legend they have now. Maybe it's just because I was raised on the voices I just named but there is just something about Don or Bob or Jim calling a goal that Doc just can't do for me. A studio host, like Ron MacLean, would be great too but I'm sure that's to much to ask. Hey NBC how about letting the CBC run your coverage for you. More people would watch and they actually know a thing or two about the sport. Like I said maybe this is just because I was raised on these voices but I'll take a CBC caller over an NBC caller any day. I'm going to watch the final 3 games on NBC but only because I have to (and I can't get CBC in HD at my parents house). If I could get CBC in HD I would be watching it there. When I get CBC in HD I won't watch NBC's hockey coverage again.
Ok, I've ranted and raved long enough, if you agree, disagree, can't believe that I care or think this doesn't make any sense at all go ahead and comment, I'm interested in what everyone thinks. Thanks for reading....
GO PENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!