HinesSight

"How Can Salem Become a Strong Town?" -- October 5 Chuck Marohn talk

I'm really looking forward to this free talk by Strong Towns founder Chuck Marohn. Put it on your Must Attend list for October 5.

I'm pleased that Salem Community Vision is supporting this event (I'm a member of the SCV steering committee). It took us about zero seconds to decide to do this. Chuck Marohn is an energetic, creative, thoughtful advocate for the sorts of positive changes that need to happen in Salem.

Salem Weekly has a good story about the Strong Towns talk in its current issue. Check out "Reimagining Salem as a Strong Town." This is how the piece starts out:

When they were first conceived of, streets like Lancaster Boulevard [actually, Drive] in Northeast Salem were projected to be a source of commerce and community wealth for all. Subdivisions in south Salem were designed to provide housing that would bring ongoing good to the city as healthy places to live and thrive.

But because of the way they were designed, says Chuck Marohn, founder and President of Strong Towns, a non-profit organization working to support a better model of development, Salem’s decisions about downtown, its roads and neighborhoods, actually created long term debt for citizens and for the community as a whole.

Well, also long term ugliness.

Lancaster Drive is a street that I do my best to avoid. It's a great example of urban planning gone wrong, a Stroad through and through. Here's a Strong Towns video about Stroads, a horrendous combination of a street and a road that combines the worst qualities of each. 

 

Salem has a lot of them. South Commercial is another example.

They are dead zones for pedestrians, cyclists, and anyone else not driving a car. Living as I do in south Salem, I drive along South Commercial almost every day. It isn't quite as ugly as Lancaster Drive, but that's about the only good thing that can be said about it.

Since City of Salem planners, managers, and elected officials have gotten Salem into its current Weak Town state, we can't rely on them to get us into Strong Town mode. I liked the end of the Salem Weekly story by Helen Caswell.

Marohn believes that solutions can be found right in a community like Salem. He says local leaders who can lead the way don’t have to have degrees in civil engineering to address these issues.

“And, they’re not necessarily the mayor or city council, either. Often they are people who care about their block, who volunteer in the community, who are invested in their church or school. These are the people who know what needs do be done and will actually do something about it.”

The cities Marohn sees as being most successful in creating long-term wealth, jobs and healthy communities are those who recognize how critical it is that decisions arent simply left in the hands of planners accustomed to the status quo. “People like city leaders and department heads of local governments,” in contrast, “often have a hard time really understanding what things need to change.”

Pac-12 Networks now on Sling TV. Because of me! (I like to think)

I DID IT! (in my magical thinking brain, at least)

Just five days after my annual blog post rant about DirecTV not carrying the Pac-12 Networks -- and the Pac-12 Networks not being offered on any streaming service -- today a deal has been announced between Sling TV and the Pac-12 Networks. 

SAN FRANCISCO– Pac-12 Networks announced today a new agreement with Sling TV to make all six Pac-12 Networks regional feeds, which collectively offer live coverage of more than 800 sporting events, available to Sling Orange and Sling Blue customers who subscribe to the “Sports Extra” add-on pack as six separate channels. Sling TV is Pac-12 Networks’ first over-the-top provider to offer the network’s content, enabling Sling TV customers to watch Pac-12 games, regardless of their location.

“This is a great way for Pac-12 Networks to kick off the 2016 football season,” said Pac-12 Networks’ president, Lydia Murphy-Stephans. “Our six regional networks, featuring 800 live sporting events and all-access original programming, will now be available over-the-top on Sling TV for Pac-12 fans across the country. Sling’s innovative delivery model and great interface makes it incredibly easy for our fans to stay connected with their favorite Pac-12 school, team and sports.” 

“Students, alumni and Pac-12 fans can now enjoy conference games without regional restrictions,” said Roger Lynch, CEO of Sling TV. “With Sling TV, Pac-12 Networks games have never been more affordable and accessible. As a Pac-12 fan, I can’t wait to watch the ‘Conference of Champions,’ on Sling TV – the premier destination for college sports fans.”

Naturally I had to jump on this.

I'd rather have the Pac-12 Networks be part of my DirecTV package, but I'm so damn irritated at DirecTV for not being able to work out a deal with the Pac-12 Networks for five freaking years, I'm pleased to pay $25 a month to get Sling Orange ($20/mo) with the Sports Extra add-on ($5/mo) just to figuratively poke DirecTV in its corporate eye with a silent scream of Take this, you jerks -- Sling TV is getting my Pac-12 Networks money rather than you!

It was a breeze to sign up for a 7-day trial with Sling TV. (Which is owned by Dish Networks, so that's an extra poke in the eye of DirecTV.)

After signing up, I fired up my Apple TV, downloaded the Sling TV app, put in my Sling TV password, and voila!, I was watching an OSU/Oregon volleyball game on the Pac-12 Networks -- which conveniently had a scroll at the bottom of the screen announcing the deal with "its newest TV provider, Sling TV."

I can't tell you how satisfying it was to take the photo above of the volleyball game on our big screen TV.

I've been watching Pac-12 Networks games for so long on my 13" MacBook Pro laptop via technically illegal streaming sites, the pleasure of finally getting the Pac-12 Networks on our television was well worth the $25 a month that I'll have to fork out to Sling TV if I keep subscribing after the 7-day trial ends.

Which I almost certainly will. 

Anyway, I'm glad to take credit (again, in my own mind) for writing the blog post that provided the karmic impetus for getting the Sling TV deal done with the Pac-12 Networks. I'll quote myself from my September 3 blog post: 

This is the freaking fifth year I've complained about DirecTV not carrying the Pac-12 Networks. Count 'em: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. 

...I hope both DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks realize they're acting like idiots. Their five year pissing match over broadcast rights/fees has passed the point of ridiculousness into Asinine Abject Absurdity. 

...here we are, a year later, with me and many other unhappy DirecTV customers ferreting out unauthorized streams of Pac-12 Network games, because there is no legal way to watch them without subscribing to a cable or satellite service that offers the Pac-12 Network. Which is stupid, since other leagues offer stand-alone streaming.

...Depressing.

But ever the optimist, this story gives me some reason to hope: "Pac-12 Networks hires cable executive to solve distribution problems."

...Well, Ms. Budill looks like an attractive, charming, competent woman. If she is able to break the corporate logjam that is preventing DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks from working out a deal, I'll nominate Budill for a Satellite TV Peace Prize.

The Sling TV deal is a good start, Ms. Budill. Now, work out a deal with DirecTV to carry the Pac-12 Networks so I can stop paying $25 a month to Sling TV. Then you'll really be entitled to your Satellite TV Peace Prize.

Follow FiveThirtyEight and PredictWise to stay presidential-poll sane

For political junkies like me, it's easy to go a little (or a lot) crazy during the excruciatingly long presidential campaign season -- becoming joyful when a chosen candidate (Clinton, in my case) is ascendent in the polls, and despondent when a downturn happens.

Here's my advice about how to handle this:

Follow the best poll analyzer around, FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver's operation. After he left the New York Times, Silver and Co. branched out into analyzing sports and other areas.

But politics, not surprisingly, is his emphasis at the moment. I follow FiveThirtyEight on Twitter and enjoy his highly competent take on what's happening in the Clinton-Trump battle.

He regularly reminds people that single polls aren't meaningful, like the recent CNN poll that showed Trump with a 2-point lead nationally. Looking at averages of many polls over time is the way to go.

Currently FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 67% chance of winning, almost exactly the same as in early June. There have been ups and downs for the candidates, but no overall movement in the past three months. 

I'm also a fan of prediction markets, where people lay bets on political and other sorts of contests. I don't follow prediction markets very closely, so had to do some Googling to find a good example to share. 

PredictWise popped up. This is the web site's pitch:

PredictWise reflects David Rothschild’s academic, peer-reviewed, research into prediction markets, along with polling and online/social media data. The backbone of predictions on this site are market-based, generated from real-money markets that trade contracts on upcoming events. While we have great respect for: polls and online/social media data, the topline predictions reflect data that are more accurate, flexible, and update in real-time.

Below is the current presidential chart.

It shows Clinton with a 75% chance of winning, and Trump 25%. Which isn't far off from FiveThirtyEight's 67% chance of a Clinton victory.

You can see that the prediction markets are more stable than the FiveThirtyEight model. FiveThirtyEight had the race tied in late July, while at that time PredictWise had it 70-30 in favor of Clinton.

At any rate, there's two months left before the November election.

Quite a few ups and downs likely remain for both presidential candidates. Like I said, it's easy to get overwrought about temporary blips in the long term trend. The time to worry is when your favored candidate is on a steady downward trend close to election day.

Once the presidential debates begin, I suspect we'll see some significant bumps for the candidates. The debates will give people a chance to see Clinton and Trump on the same stage, talking about the same issues. I'm predicting Clinton will benefit from the debates.

But I'm not betting on it. I'll be watching PredictWise as a detached observer.

Will 2016 be the year DirecTV carries Pac-12 Networks?

This is the freaking fifth year I've complained about DirecTV not carrying the Pac-12 Networks. Count 'em: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. 

(See here and here for links to my previous blog post rants.)

Today, once again, I had to scramble to watch the Oregon Ducks football opener against UC Davis. Yes, after some Googling I found a free online stream of the Pac-12 Networks broadcast. But I'd much prefer to watch the game on my big screen television than on my 13" MacBook Pro.

I hope both DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks realize they're acting like idiots. Their five year pissing match over broadcast rights/fees has passed the point of ridiculousness into Asinine Abject Absurdity. 

I like DirecTV. But whenever someone in our rural neighborhood asks me for advice about DISH vs. DirecTV, I always start off by saying, "DirecTV works well for us, but not having the Pac-12 Networks is a big downside if you enjoy college sports."

Plus, I will never, ever consider switching our cell phones back to AT&T from Verizon, because I'm so irritated at AT&T for not being able to work out a deal with the Pac-12 Networks after acquiring DirecTV last year. There was a lot of hope in  2015 this would happen, spurred by an encouraging statement from the Pac-12 Networks. 

Yet here we are, a year later, with me and many other unhappy DirecTV customers ferreting out unauthorized streams of Pac-12 Network games, because there is no legal way to watch them without subscribing to a cable or satellite service that offers the Pac-12 Network.

Which is stupid, since other leagues offer stand-alone streaming. (I added the boldfacing.)

Are you a frugal college football fan and/or a hip Millennial? Chances are, you’re one of many American TV consumers who’ve cut the cord!

But now that it’s college football season, you might feel obligated to buy back into the morass of high-dollar cable and satellite providers, just to enjoy the fabulous myriad of games across multiple networks each week.

Don’t do that, friend! (Unless you’re a Pac-12 fan.) We’ve assembled a quick guide on how to watch almost every college football game via non-traditional digital and streaming platforms.

...If your game is on the CBS Sports Network (most notably certain C-USA and American Athletic Conference games) or Pac-12 Networks in 2016, you’ll need a cable or satellite subscription. Both of those are unavailable on Sling or Vue and can’t be accessed via apps without first logging in through a cable provider.

The Pac-12 Networks' absence is probably the most impactful. Of the games currently scheduled to air on P12N, most are conference teams vs. FCS opponents, but decent matchups like Rutgers vs. Washington are unavailable unless you’ve got a cable provider that carries P12N.

Depressing.

But ever the optimist, this story gives me some reason to hope: "Pac-12 Networks hires cable executive to solve distribution problems."

Pac-12 Networks hired a longtime cable industry veteran to try to solve its distribution problems.

Alden Mitchell Budill will be head of distribution, overseeing the network’s affiliate sales and marketing department. She replaces Art Marquez, senior vice president of affiliate relations, who left the network in March.

One of the first items on Budill’s to-do list will be to set up a meeting with DirecTV, the satellite operator that has not carried any of the Pac-12 Networks channels since their 2012 launch.

Well, Ms. Budill looks like an attractive, charming, competent woman. If she is able to break the corporate logjam that is preventing DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks from working out a deal, I'll nominate Budill for a Satellite TV Peace Prize.

On the negative side, this story says there is very little chance that a deal will be worked out soon. (RSN means regional sports network.)

The Pac-12 Network is kicking off its fifth year without a carriage agreement with DirecTV, and prospects for a resolution appear further away than ever.

Indeed, after apparently getting close to a deal at this time last year, going into the regional sports network’s fifth fall of highly rated college football coverage, analysts and pundits don’t think a deal is even close this time. 

The standoff between the RSN, launched in August 2012, and the satellite operator remains one of the most protracted and frustrating impasses in the pay-TV ecosystem. 

Through his “Hotline” column, the San Jose Mercury News’ Josh Wilner has been perhaps the closest observer of the dispute. 

“In past years, the Hotline advised Pac-12 fans to be cautiously optimistic when the season approached and negotiations with DirecTV heated up,” Wilner said this week. “That was, in part, because some of my best sources on such matters were either 1) expecting a carriage deal or 2) felt it was a reasonable possibility. Not this year. The sentiment has shifted: Nobody expects a deal and many don’t even consider it a reasonable possibility.”

Great. 

Probably I'll be complaining next year at this time about not being able to watch the Oregon Duck's opening game on DirecTV. Here's a link to Wilner's non-positive column about a deal being worked out between DirecTV and the Pac-12 Networks. 

The time for a deal was last August/September, when the AT&T takeover of DTV was fresh … and it didn’t happen.

Now we’re one year removed from that potential collaboration point, one year closer to the end of AT&T’s contract with the Pac-12 and four years removed from DTV’s initial rejection of Pac12Nets carriage.

The dynamics for a deal have ebbed, it seems.

*** Of course, I have not spoken to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, Pac12Nets boss Lydia Murphy-Stephans or the AT&T brass in charge of negotiations.

All of this is just reasonably-informed speculation; please take it for nothing more.

Could a deal happen this week or next? Absolutely.

But at the moment, it sure seems unlikely.