But the part of the story that almost totally sold me was this:

In addition to Hulu content, the Orb TV will play video available on YouTube, ESPN3, Comedy Central and Netflix.

ESPN3 on your television.  There may be other devices out there that do this, but I am very intrigued by the Orb Caster’s ability to put sports that usually stream on my computer onto my TV (and by “usually stream on my computer” I mean “do not stream on my computer because Cablevision does not allow its customers to access EPSN3″).  This could be huge.  I realize there are a plethora of cords that allow me to use my television as a computer monitor, but my MacBook Pro does not have an HDMI output and therefore I find the picture very grainy when I do connect it.

I am thinking of cutting my cable cord one day.  This may help.

I received the email shown below this morning telling me of the wonderful news that I can now watch ESPN live on my computer.  As they say in the email, “finally, the internet has reached its full potential!”

Except it hasn’t reached it for me because I don’t have Time Warner Cable.  I’d like to, but I don’t live in an area that allows me to do so, which means I do not have the ability to watch ESPN online.  And because I have Optimum Online from Cablevision, I can’t watch ESPN3 either.

So much for that potential.

Before I go any further, I must state that I am a Cablevision customer.  I’ve tried a number of times to switch to a phone company offering (my only option is AT&T’s UVerse) but because of a lack of certain sports channels and the higher cost, I’ve stuck with Cablevision.  I’ve been a subscriber for almost three years and have had a difficult time finding good things to say about the company.

I used to get cable television (with DVR) and high-speed internet for $143.50 per month.  I don’t have access to my bills back that far, so unfortunately I can’t break down the specific costs.  However, I received a phone call one day to try to sell me their Triple Play package (I would simply have to add phone service) and my bill would be cut dramatically.  With no need for a phone line, I was hesitant, but if it lowered my bill why wouldn’t I do it?  So I did.  And how much did I save per month?  $11.64.  That’s almost $140 per year of savings, so I was pretty happy.  I won’t get into the fact that the phone number they assigned me was already assigned to a massage and nail salon close to where I live and now I get calls all the time to set up appointments…

What really bothers me about the entire Cablevision anti-FiOS campaign is how much they slam them for having “up to $20 in taxes and fees on top of it.”

Here is how my monthly bill breaks down:

So let’s see here. $39.95 for cable + $9.95 for DVR + $29.95 for internet access + $29.95 for phone service = $109.80. That leaves me with $22.06 in taxes and fees, even though they seem to list only $6.66 for that figure, as if “Additional Outlet” and charging me for my cable boxes and remotes are not fees.  So looking at this, I should be saving a few dollars in taxes and fees if I switch to the phone company.

Cablevision has me locked in because they are cheaper than the phone company and they have one channel that AT&T UVerse cannot offer me where I live; but enough with the implications that they are fee and tax free.

There it is, right next to the ESPN3.com logo: You have access to ESPN3.com.

My first thought: great!  There have actually been some instances in the past where ESPN360 had something that I wanted to watch and couldn’t because I didn’t have access.  So I click through to see what I can now view and what do I get?  Reality.

You can see, Cablevision is not listed as one of the cable providers that allows access to ESPN3.com.  So why is ESPN.com telling me I now have access?  Not cool, ESPN, not cool.

Nevertheless, this could be huge for the future of sports viewership.  I have tried to get into professional surfing as of late, but the biggest difficulty in following the sport is that it is not televised anywhere in the U.S.  The events on the ASP World Tour, the main professional surfing tour, schedule are shown online through each tournament’s website (such as the Billabong Pro at Santa Catarina that I watched last week), with highlights available in multiple places on the Internet.  The reason why these can’t be shown live on television is because the events are scheduled over the course of ten days, though only five days are required for surfing.  The biggest problem: no waves, no surfing.  If a network wanted to showcase the final day of an event, but there are no waves, how does it fill the time?  Or, what does it do if it has something else scheduled and then the final starts?

It’s a big problem and the only real solution is to continue to show these events online.  And I may be crazy, but wouldn’t a partnership with YouTube make the ASP infinitely more valuable and desirable to watch?  If people knew they just had to go to youtube.com to watch live surfing, wouldn’t they be more likely to watch it than to go through ASPWorldTour.com and try to find the live feed elsewhere?  Or, if you were bored and just randomly checking out YouTube and saw that Kelly Slater was coming up live from Hawaii, isn’t that something you might click on?

While the ASP and YouTube don’t necessarily need each other, wouldn’t it be great if they hooked up so we could all watch more surfing?  I certainly think so.

Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye by David Ritz

Lush Life by Richard Price

A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood’s Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports by Brad Snyder

Mint Condition: How Baseball Cards Became an American Obsession by David Jamieson

The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons

I haven’t started any of these (will probably start tomorrow on one), but would love a few suggestions if you have any.  I prefer to read non-fiction, but I read a fictional story every now and then (hence Price’s book above).

Thanks in advance.

- Kim Yu-Na, the world-record holding Korean figure skater from the 2010 Winter Olympics

- Phil Mickelson, winner of the most recent Masters

- Didier Drogba, the Chelsea striker and captain of the Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) World Cup team

- Sechin Tendulkar, one of the most prolific Indian Cricket players in history

- Serena Williams, American tennis player and line judge intimidator

(I should mention that Floyd Landis, the American cyclist who has been striped of his Tour de France victory because of doping allegations made the 2010 Least Influential List with the byline: “Every other cyclist in the last 20 years has gotten away with doping except for you.”)

And that’s it.  Five athletes, two Americans, of which none are from the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball or the National Hockey League.  No LeBron James, no Peyton Manning, no Derek Jeter nor [fill in an NHL player here].  Please understand that I am not bringing this up to argue that these players should be included on the list.  LeBron may be immensely popular here in the United States, but his popularity is dwarfed by others, such as Kobe Bryant and Yao Ming, outside of the country.

The NHL has more international players in the League than any other major sport in the U.S., but Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin (see, I know some of them!) are hardly influential “heroes” outside of Canada and Russia, respectively.

But we could even take this a step further and bring up those names that appear to be influential in sports that aren’t athletes.  How about NBA commissioner David Stern, who has made the NBA the most popular American sports league internationally?  NBC Sports head Dick Ebersol, who is responsible for a great portion of the International Olympic Committee’s funding?  There is always Phil Knight, founder of Nike, who continues to dominate the sports apparel business (though less so abroad).  Or maybe the most important person in the United States for sports, George Bodenheimer, current head of ESPN, who has brought the English Premier League to America on a regular basis and will be showing the 2010 World Cup from South Africa.

While these lists are always subjective, with members going in and out every year (except for Oprah, of course), it’s interesting to see how 5% of the people on the list are athletes and yet none are from the dominating sports in this country.  It’s just another reminder of the huge global reach that sports have and not just through the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL.

Looking back at the previous two years, there are other international stars, but none from our major sports.  The only athletes listed in 2009 (listed under “Heroes and Icons”) were Spain’s tennis phenom Rafael Nadal, American golfer Tiger Woods (shocking that he didn’t make the 2010 list), and boxing champion Manny Pacquiao of the Philippines.  2008 had the same kind of stars (listed under “Heroes and Pioneers”), with American tennis star Andre Agassi, cyclist and philanthropic champion Lance Armstrong, Brazilian soccer player Kaká, and Mexican golfer Lorena Ochoa (who recently retired from the LPGA at age 28 despite being the #1 player in the world for three years in a row).  George Mitchell, most commonly known in the United States as the man who tried to take on steroids in Major League Baseball, also made the list.

While 2010 saw the most number of athletes in three years on the Time 100 list, it also gave us a firm reminder that while the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB are big in the United States, sports on a global scale are far far greater.

Many fans and pundits have argued that ESPN will do a better job of covering the event because of its multitude of channels and talent that can cover all of the action, all of the time.  But no one seems to be recognizing what we will lose if this happens.  Below, I’ve counted down the four biggest things we will lose if March Madness moves to the ESPN family of networks.

4. Less Dickie V and Bobby Knight – Yes, we don’t have to hear from these two for most of March Madness because the games are televised on CBS and ESPN simply uses them for reaction.  But what happens when every game is on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or ESPN Classic?  That’s right, more Dickie V yelling at us about why teams that score more points usually win and Bobby Knight looking incredibly frustrated when asked the question as to why a certain team is beating the other.

3. March Madness On Demand – Did you watch any part of the NCAA Tournament online at work this year or any of the past three? Well, you can say goodbye to that unless you can watch ESPN360 (soon to be rebranded ESPN3) at work. Here is a picture of my desk at work from just a few weeks ago:

Not only could I not get ESPN360 at work, I can’t even get it at home.  ESPN’s solution?  Change your internet provider, which would cost me an additional $15 per month.  In this economy, thanks, but no thanks.

2. Gus Johnson – So many people tune into tournament games with the hope that Gus Johnson is calling it and it’s a close game.  In fact, I won’t even go further with this except to show three videos:

1. One Shining Moment – Do you think CBS will give up the song to ESPN for future tournaments?  I don’t think so.  Granted, 2010′s version featuring Jennifer Hudson was downright dreadful (yes, I believe it was one of the worst in years, if not ever), but that hardly means that future ones will be as bad (just bring back the Teddy Pendergrass version, please).  One Shining Moment is the perfect way to end the college basketball season; how long will it take us to adjust to a new version on ESPN featuring the Kings of Leon or whatever pop rock group that the kids are listening to these days?  Will we ever adjust?

Just something to think about before we start rolling out the red carpet for ESPN’s March Madness coverage.