Broadband Usage Up, TV Usage Down 299
jZnat writes "BBC Tech News reports that the increased usage of broadband internet in Europe is cutting into the viewing of television. This is mainly due to the decreased price of broadband in Europe and the usefulness of the internet. Is it possible that the usefulness of TV has decreased with the internet so expansive these days?"
well as for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well as for me (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet allows me to have what I want and when I want it and at a very reasonable price. I don't see TV as being able to provide as much. They really are different forms of entertainment these days. TV is mind-numbing and thus good for when you just want to relax and be lazy. Problem is when you don't want to take time for that but once every six months.
Re:well as for me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:well as for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well as for me (Score:3, Informative)
I think people would prefer a subscription to a station over piecemeal payments.
Re:well as for me (Score:2)
Re:well as for me (Score:2, Informative)
I do have a tuner in my computer, but I still rarely watch TV. Movies found on the 'net are better than ones shown on TV *cough* and google news provides a greater variety of news than CNN.
Re:well as for me (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad the media is losing its foothold. They've had their power long enough, and failed to do their job. The internet has empowered users to bypass the reporter, and get a direct source from somebody who publishes their story online. Democracy at its finest.
Re:well as for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Print media is much better than television
Also, from a technical standpoint, the great thing about print is that you can pause, rewind and fast-forward whenever you want. With a thick black sharpie, you can even ad-block.
~jeff
Re:well as for me (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that is such a great thing. Yes, occasionally you may get a great first-hand report from someone who actually went through the experience in question, but more often you simply have to wade through thousands of self-proclaimed experts spouting off about what's currently in the news.
The reporters are generally not the problem. I look forward to listening to what the NPR reporters have researched and put together because they are v
Re:well as for me (Score:4, Insightful)
News and documentaries in Europe are much more intellectually challenging than in the US. Here, journalistic integrity is key, not flashy graphics and keeping sponsors happy. American media/documentaries (are there any American documentaries made for TV?)
It might sound a bit harsh, but I've seen lots of US news. It's nasty. Emotive, unobjective, cheap. Always the human angle played up, irregardless of its importance. I.E. one story about a boy's hurt puppy will get more airtime than a flood in some far-off place. In fact, ANYTHING will get more playtime than something from another nation.
Take the BBC News, for example. They have a service where you press the red button on your remote control, and a side-bar pops up on your TV. It contains background information on entities/people mentioned in the current news story. Kind of like pop-up video meets wikipedia. You can read about the people, places, countries, industries, conflicts, etc. mentioned.
I'm of the belief that American media is destroyed, that journalistic integrity under the sponsors grip is impossible, and that it's going to get a LOT worse before it improves.
go go gadget flame-retardant codpiece!
End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strength? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reaction to this depends on whether people are mostly visiting the major media companies' sites or are seeing more independent stuff. If the latter, then people are apparently tired of being force-fed by Big Media. If the former, then I guess people are glad to be slaves.
Re:End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strengt (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with this statement, and would speculate that it is more the latter, at least with the Slashdot crowd.
However, even going to something like msnbc.com online is better than watching msnbc on tv for most people because you can read the stories you want when you want without sitting through all the garbage.
Re:End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strengt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is partly responsible for what seems like the rapidly evaporating ability for people to respect each other's political views. Nobody has differences of opinion any more -- one person is 100% right and the other one is a moron, a dupe, a tool, a shill. That trend has been deliberately helped along by many in the media, but I think the unintentional echo-chamber effect of highly specialized news and discussion sites bears some of the blame too.
Re:End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strengt (Score:3)
While I agree with you to an extent, I think the overabundance of political views which can be summed up with, "I just put my hand into your pocket like so, and then ..." (The ellipsis being whatever variety of social program, new laws/regulations, etc.)
If more political views were about empowering, about adding rights rather than removing them, then I think more
Re:End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strengt (Score:2)
Though that's been admitted... I'd guess that I've got a long ways to go before I can stop looking at people with views opposite mine as anything other than "moro
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Interactivity. You can talk to and interact with people as much or as little as you like, whereas television is entirely passive. You can also easily add to the content (like I'm doing right now) and have your content added to.
b) Control. As I mentioned before, television is entirely passive, and you're limited to viewing the broadcaster's programming on the broadcaster's schedule. On the Internet, you can view whatever you want, whenever you want, and there are a nigh-unlimited number of "channels" available to suit whatever taste you're looking for.
c) Adaptability. The Internet is anything you want it to be. While television is just video and sound, the Internet is a book, a video, music, or anything else you can imagine.
Not to mention that TV shows are available in the Internet to view whenever the hell you want without commercials, but that should go without saying
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't get why the two have to compete... I've got a digital cable, a cable modem, and a DVR. I watch programs when I want to watch them, without commercials. I can rewatch old series, catch th
Sometimes passive entertainment wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
The qualities you mention could be summarized as active vs. passive entertainment. While the 'active participation' is one of *the* strengths of the 'net, it can also be a downside. It challenges people intellectually, and while I enjoy that, it can also be tiresome.
When you have infinate choices to make, you need to think about what to choose, continuously. If there's only 20 channels to zap between, just hitting "next" on your remote requires 0 mental effort. Add the low content-vs.-crap ratio of TV, compared with interesting feed-your-brain stuff found on the net. Recently, internet connection to my home was out of order for over a week, and that made it extra noticable how hard it is to find quality content on TV these days.
But sometimes, people just *want* to be passive, and soak in the experience without providing any input. That's why we have cinema's, and why TV still serves a purpose. Choosing between the two, I think I could easily do without TV, but would be very reluctant to give up internet access.
Recent Submissions:
Ask Slashdot: Do you still need a TV? - Rejected
Since when was TV useful? (Score:4, Interesting)
When I bother with movies these days, I watch them on my workstation. I could care less about comfort level- for me, the ability to critique and O_o and OMFG
Unfortunately, my roommate recently renewed his relationship with the NTSC teat, and now the house is filled with the shit audio quality of a TV. At least he has the decency to keep it in his room, where the malevolent eye of the gorgon-cyclops can't stab into my soul.
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:5, Funny)
You'll understand when you get older, son.
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:2)
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're missing the big draw of TV, and the reason that it is still hanging in there in spite of the fact that most of what is on TV is crap: TV is a passive medium. Unless you're watching a very creatively done show, or one that is trying to teach you something, it is a passive experience.
Many people sit at their computers all day for work, and the last thing they want to do is sit in front of them for entertainment. I think Steve Jobs is right when he says that when you want to create something, you use your computer, and when you want to passively absorb something, you use the TV.
Physical comfort is not important to you, but my guess is you're not yet old enough that daily aches and pains matter. I'm not ready for the Barcalounger just yet, but there are definitely times when I want to sit down on a sofa and watch something that I know will not be mentally taxing.
Thankfully TiVO allows me to watch what I want, rather than simply whatever happens to be on at a given time.
Do I *prefer* TV to the computer? Absolutely not. In a choice between the two, the Internet wins every time. But not everyone watches TV for six hours a day, and sometimes TV is the most convenient vehicle for relaxation.
Critiquing a movie on IRC while doing other things and somehow watching a movie at the same time is indeed getting more done, but it doesn't seem very relaxing to me. I'm not sure that passively watching a movie (at home on the TV or at the theater) is an evil experience, just because it's not interactive.
I'd say TV is ruinous primarily because some people do watch it for hours on end and do nothing else, and because 95% of what's on is total crap. I'm not sure that the medium itself is inherently evil, though.
Re:Since when was TV useful? (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, I never see anyone get anything useful done on Slashdot forums or IRC either, yet we willingly spend quite a good deal of time here. Your definition of "useful" is too slim. Watching the evening news is useful. Watching an educational program is useful. Heck, watching your favorite entertainment program is useful. Just because it's not inter
Less TV more bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't say I am surprized. The internet has 2^32 channels, mostly garbage but you the user can decide and change channels to any other site in a second. And with so many channels there is something for everyone.
Where as with cable you get to watch what someone else wants you to watch and when to watch it. Not only that, they make you pay for channels you never will watch.
The internet will really pick up once Internet TV breaks through the legal barriers they now face from a monopolistic industry. Yor next TV migth be a computer.
Re:Less TV more bandwidth (Score:3, Funny)
Until we fix the bandwidth problem plagueing the U.S, I don't think we'll ever really have Internet TV.
Usefulness of TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Usefulness of TV (Score:3, Interesting)
TV has to run ve
Myth(of)TV (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the top rated shows [usatoday.com] and you will find only a sliver of those "reality" shows everyone loves (when they're alone in front of the tv) to hate (the next day around the water cooler). What is there in spades, however, is the cookie cutter crime shows - allegedly "intelligent" content apparently all written by the same crack team of hackneyed high school chemistry dropouts.
Now go back thirty years [fiftiesweb.com] to 1974 and note the top rated shows. Sanford and Son might be classics now, but no matter how much I loved Redd Foxx I sure wouldn't call it "intelligent." Six Million Dollar man? Fun when I was 12, but in the end only slightly less demeaning in its scientific take than CSI-name-your-favorite-city. It's Charlie's Angels for the geriatric.
Then there was MASH and Bob Newhart and Maude; now there's West Wing and Will and Grace and Family Guy.
Now let's move into the eighties. I'm not even going to bother looking for a link - I can name them off the top of my head: intelligent fare like Three's Company and Dukes of fucking Hazzard and Wonder Woman intermingled with the monthly installments of Battle of the Network T's and A's.
Great shows like those produced by Rod Serling - the MASHs and the West Wings have always been rare on TV. By and large it has always sucked, all that's changing is your own awareness of just how badly. What you're forgetting is it's been that bad all along... you just had no other choice.
Yeah, but in the 70s TV was FREE! (Score:2)
Re:Myth(of)TV (Score:2)
TV Torrented (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:TV Torrented (Score:2)
Here's how internet is more useful than TV: (Score:3, Funny)
The reason is obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
What isn't obvious is this: (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't improve their content, so can they eliminate the internet surfer's ability to get what they want when they want it?
If so, how so?
How will they (further) ruin the internet? How are they going to turn it into a passive means of consumption?
This is what's important to know.
Re:The reason is obvious... (Score:2)
Yeah - free pr0n!
Re:The reason is obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)
DVD's as well (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yeah.. (Score:2)
TV degrading (Score:3, Interesting)
No wonder I'm not listening to TV anymore. Google News all the way. When I want, What I want. Yeah.
Re:TV degrading (Score:2)
At least for us swedes ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
- 34 % watch less TV.
- 32 % spends less time reading magazines.
- 31 % doesn't talk as often in telephone
- 23 % spends less time reading books.
- 19 % listens less to radio.
Television? Useful? (Score:2)
> decreased...
I suppose that it may have gone even more negative.
TV usage is down? (Score:2)
Cable Costs Going Up Up Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Cable companies raising their rates at double the rate of inflation, and broadband access dropping in price to less than a mid-level cable package.
Broadband versus TV is more subtle. (Score:2, Funny)
2. Must get money's worth out of broadband, I will download a linux iso!
3. Crikey, this distro isn't quite what I want, I will download another!
4. Blimey, no time for telly with all this ftping, configuring and general nerdiness.
Television is failing (Score:4, Interesting)
Its failing to entertain me because:
1) The good sitcoms (or at least ones which appeal to me) like Seinfeld seem to be gone.
2) There is too much "focus" on reality television and game shows.
3) Advertising is driving me crazy
4) The news is too skewed and their opinions are a discredit to my education (I actually watch the Daily Show instead of CNN to catch up on international news).
5) I'd rather read, exercise, go out or watch a movie than watch TV.
Some TV executive is going to have to come up with a spectacular new show to get me to watch.
Re:Television is failing (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, just make sure the Daily Show isn't your only news source.
You need to read Fark regularly as well.
It's an interesting comparison. (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadband internet has become so integral to so many of us (by us, I mean slasdot readers) that trying to find information any other way seems absolutely ludicrous. I find directions with my broadband, phone numbers, coupons, movie listings, contractors, and even medical information. The ability to reach experts in any field with just an email away and the ability to find information so quickly are such selling factors in broadband that I honestly can never go back to any other form of communication, unless it's necessary (i.e. a phone call, or face to face meeting).
Back when I was in college, the internet was in its infancy. My profs had email, but we never had forums, bulletin boards, or listmails (at least we didn't use them). Imagine higher education nowadays without the web, and without email?
Where TV has the advantage (Score:4, Insightful)
TV has decreased period... (Score:2)
Re:TV has decreased period... (Score:2)
I've known this for years. It's too popular now (Score:2)
Since 35% of Internet taffic is Bittorrent, I shudder to think the price of Internet connections once Cable companies realize this and jack up Broadband prices to compensate for their lost TV subscribers.
TV downloaders will be victims of their own success. Stop ruin
Well DUH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse they are putting crap programs of the exact same nature back to back or even on both channels at the same time. ARGH. I already hate "home improvement" programs but can probably survive the best of them for half an hour. 2 for a full hour however is to much and I switch the TV off.
This is I think the biggest shift. It is not that tv has become worse. I used to have the tv on in the background and just do other stuff while waiting for something watchable to appear.
But nowadays the non-watchable stuff is so bad that even muted it insults me. There are also to many bad programs behind each other so I just turn the TV off and remind myself to switch on at XX:XX. Except I forget because I am to deep into something else. End result? Even the programs I find worth watching I don't watch anymore. TV really needs to start to worry when I prefer not waking the cat over getting up for the remote.
This is something that is being regonized although more on radio. The Netherlands has only recently gone commercial on radio and instead of getting a lot of different stations aiming at their own group we get all of them aiming at the same group. Result? More and more people switcing to MP3 players and the radio stations unable to get the advertising they need.
More and more tv tries to appeal to everyone and ends up appealing to noone. There is nothing wrong with the occasional survivor, those of us who don't like it just don't watch that night, but when every night has its own mindless show you get a large group of people who switch off the tv and don't switch it on again.
Remember this, TV got big when it was basically on all the time. When people start switching off you lost them. TV is not a drug, there are no withdrawal symptoms. All people got to do to get rid of their addiction is say "no thanks".
Only 1 program of every kind per night.
Re:Well DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called the "Least Common Denominator Effect" or LCD-E and you've described the phenom perfectly. It's what happens when marketing people are allowed to design product, the result of which is usually a very short period of success followed by a long period of failure.
Letting marketing folks do product design is like letting children do meal design: What they do is immediately self-serving but isn't good for them or anyone else around them.
Famous marketing-driven disasters of late:
- Intel with the Pentium 4 fiasco where speed is placed over performance;
- Microsoft with their ignoring of security concerns until way too late;
- Fast food providers in general, MacDonalds in particular;
- Radio/Television/Movie/Music industries;
There are many more examples, but the point is made: Focus on the largest possible market at the design stage results in a "grey goo" product which only idiots will find appealing: I suppose it's fair to say that corporations and companies which do this think their product market is comprised of idiots.
The solution is to not use their products. Look for and use alternatives whilst these corporate clowns figure out that the bottom line consists of more than just the bottom line.
Cheers and ciao.
Re:Well DUH! (Score:2)
Re:Well DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say their fo
TV isnt dead. but some of it deserves to be... (Score:2)
internet). Given how awful most commercial tv outfits are they deserve to die, but the BBC is different and always has been. Part of that is down to Sir David Attenborough who set the tone for BBC 2 (science, fringe programs) in the 60's when he was the first director general of the 2nd channel there...
Even now the bbc's web site is so loaded with science and other programs that you could spend half a lifetime just trying to keep up.
I don't miss the tv at
tv - expensive forced packages (Score:2)
For me.... (Score:2)
However, I have horrible antenna reception, I can't put up a satellite dish (living in an apartment facing the wrong direction), and Time Warner wants the ridiculous price of something like $50-60 per month for a basic channel package when i'm already paying $44.95 for Roadrunner.
So, until I move or TW decides to stop trying to rape my wallet, the
Re:For me.... (Score:2)
I hear you. I have satellite, but saw TW in Austin go from $45/mo for standard channels to $55/mo. Satellite (DirecTV) is about $45/mo for the same channels, but I expect them to follow TW soon.
All of this, of course, is for he 'new' content they are adding (shopping/religious/crap). There are about five channels with some worth, but at $55/mo *and* 1/3 commercial to
Broadband about to pass cable TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, most of the broadband connections don't have enough bandwidth for good NTSC video, let alone HDTV.
quick little tidbit (Score:2)
It is my sincere hope that out of the other 80% are watching something like C-Span and staying away from the devil that is the fox news channel. Stations like that are just more the reason we need to get away from TV. Don't get me wrong - I grew up on Married w/ and The Simpsons, but i'm not going to listen to them scream at me that "THE U.N. SUCKS!!"
TV lacks content (Score:2)
correlation != causality (Score:4, Interesting)
If European television is anything like American television, TV's problem may not be so much that the internet is good, but that TV is bad. The number of commercials per hour has increased over the years, and the quality of the programming has often decreased, at least on the networks. It may be that we're reaching a point where viewers are no longer willing to put up with all the commercials and crappy programming, and they're looking for alternatives. HBO and other cable channels have been providing alternatives for some time now, and broadband internet connections may be just one more.
not possible (Score:2)
No, that's not possible. Rather, the "usefulness of TV" just never was very high.
The internet is obviously.... (Score:3, Interesting)
But the internet is vastly more useful in terms of information.
Take the local news for instance. They tantalize you with a tidbit, whatever it may be like "find out how garlic can save your life", and drag you along for the entire show, commercials and all, to learn about that one bit of information.
Most other morning shows, etcetera have their own form of this. The internet, OTOH, has immediate gratification in many cases. Who's the winner gonna be?
I never watch TV anymore...I just download it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet has become my TiVo (Score:5, Interesting)
There is good stuff on television, about 0.2% of it. But people on the internet are aware of this tiny sliver of quality, and make it very easy to get. Then I can watch it whenever I want, and without commercials.
The best stuff on television has these elaborate story arcs, making it almost necessary to watch the episodes in the correct order. There are three alternatives for doing this. One is to become a TV slave, dropping whatever you're doing every week at a specific time to catch the airing of the episode. Otherwise, you can wait for the DVD release, which might take years. Or, you can rely on the generosity of the people on the internet and download the episodes from them in the proper order. The last option is by far the most convenient. With BitTorrent and eMule, you just declare what you want, and the shows download much faster than any reasonable person is able to watch them. Can anything compare to this sort of convenience? Well, TV people had better figure something out. In my life, TV programming has become irrelevant, and I have a feeling that more and more people will feel the same way.
Ironically, I feel like this year, I'm in much better touch with what's going on in TV-land. I'm catching up with Six Feet Under, the new Battlestar Galactica, Drawn Together and the Daily Show, all stuff I wasn't watching last year. Funny thing is, last year I had cable. This year, I got rid of it and just hooked up my living room television to my bedroom computer, and set up a pretty slick way to control my computer from my living room with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Now the TV gets watched a whole lot more. How long will it be before many people have this sort of setup? Not long...
more likely explanation (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:2)
The PC's had been in non-stop use through the entire month of February. The TV hadn't been turned on, even once.
A 20 year old college male with zero hours of TV watching in an entire month has been a non-existent demographic for almost forty years. That's w
Other Reasons? (Score:2)
So while im sure it is true that TV viewing figures are dropping. Broadband
Raise Taxes (Score:2)
TV delays (Score:2, Interesting)
My analysis of 30 minutes of CNN Europe (Score:4, Insightful)
Actual real news is in bold. Running total of real news is in italics
1300-1301: Brief summary of headlines 1 minute
1301-1303 : Israel/Palestine/Iraq - new Palestinian PM speaking - he gets 15 seconds on air. 3 minutes
1303-1307 - Commentary/opinion by reporter in Israel. That's 4 minutes solid, compared to the Palestinian PMs 15 seconds. Opinion is NOT news.
1307 - 1307 30 seconds - Ariel Sharon coming back from trip abroad 3 minutes 30 secs
1307 30 secs - 1309 - Iraq. Attack on U.S. soldiers 5 minutes
1309 - Commentary/opinion from reporter in Iraq
1310 for 30 seconds - Blair in parliament justifying himself for not finding WMDs. Old news from archives. NOT news.
1310. 30secs - 1313 - Indonesia, Bali bomber trial. 7 minutes 30 seconds
1313 Adverts , infomercials
1315-1319 "911 the legacy" - reporter commentary, documentary. Not news.
1319 Adverts, informericals
1321-1324 Weather report
1324-1326 Stock markets
1326-1327 WTO Summit , Cancun 8 minutes 30 secs
1327 RIAA sueing 12 year old 9 minutes 30 secs
1328: Teller, creator of H Bomb dies 40 secs 10 minutes 10 secs
1328 40 secs to 1330 Adverts informericals
So, in my half hour snapshot, I estimated that out of 30 minutes broadcast, only 10 minutes 10 seconds was devoted to actual reporting of hard news - my definition of "hard" news is just that - whats going on in a certain place. Weather forecasts and stock market roundups are not included in that definition (for the purposes of this experiment)
Note the amount of reporting on the WTO Summit. This summit had far reaching consequences for the entire planet, yet it gets a meagre 1 minute, and that is tucked right at the end of the 1/2 hour broadcast. (It was THAT WTO summit that Brazil and others walked out on)
Note also, the complete lack of coverage of anything in Europe , despite the fact that I was watching "CNN Europe".
No wonder folks are switching off the TV. If you did the same analysis for Fox, ABC and any of the other big TV stations, you'll probably get similar results. In the UK the one big exception is Channel 4 News.
TV is a dying, withered husk. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then consider that most television is widely accepted to be garbage. I think the term "vast wasteland" was bandied about for a while. Everything on TV that isn't informational or a movie is generally crap, and almost everyone you will ever talk to will tell you this is patently obvious to them, has always been patently obvious...
Finally consider that if we want to watch movies, we can rent them on DVD, so we don't even need television for THAT anymore. And the rise of videogames as a form of entertainment which is INFINITELY more interesting and engaging than the boring, predictable, passive entertainment TV has been killing us with for years. And the fact that TV is infested with annoying, incredibly stupid advertising that takes turns insulting and condescending to us.
The question isn't why people are watching LESS TV. It's why they still watch TV at ALL.
CorpGovMedia pulls a Rendell to stop broadband? (Score:2)
The whole corporate power structure and a lot of their profits are based on maintaining ideological hegemony here in America. The main way they
It'sAll About Active Participation . . . (Score:2)
I strongly feel that this can be an indication
of the desire for us to have more participation
in what we see and do for our entertainment.
In short, it's about power, companionship,
choices, and being in community.
I can relate to my own experiences the drive me
to this conclusion.
I find that sitting in front of a TV, being fed
stuff totaly at someone else's control, to be
very powerless and alone. I can't say anything
back (being non-interactive). The only thing
that I can do is to turn it off
Where are the lawsuits? (Score:2)
So far the TV indus
Technologywise TV is rotting stinking meat (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this is the television. If someone came up with the idea of TV today, he'd have a hard time trying to find anyone crazy enough to invest in it.
TV is a lowcost AV content distribution system. When compared to internet and P2P (why yes, I'm talking about BitTorrent) distribution, the inadequacies of the current broadcasting scheme become apparent. It is only the huge inertia of the entertainment world money that keeps the system afloat.
Based on publicly available data about TV series budgets and ratings I've calculated the average episode cost per household. For the more popular shows this is around 20 cents, with the 'fringe' shows like Stargate and Enterprise edging slightly higher. None of the shows, however, cost more than a dollar per viewer household per episode.
(This data is based on only US ratings. Imagine how low the cost will sink when we factor in the whole world!)
I'd really like to see a decentralized Internet TV, where the consumers could buy their favourite shows directly from the production houses. New episodes would be delivered as soon as they appear. (Remember to think globally.)
I think you can all immediatly see the benefits. This would put the consumers in control as shows would be produced for them, and not for the broadcasters. All new shows would be available globally instantly. (Existing subtitling and dubbing companies would need to change their operation somewhat.)
The technology should of course be time-shifting. This would free you from having to set your daily schedule to fit the TV schedule. And oh yes: since you'd pay for what you watch, there'd be no ads. (There could be, if you wanted to spare a dime. Even in that case the ads could be tailored to fit you: no more lipstick commercials for single bachelors.)
(The downsides? The broadcasting companies would have to change their business models radically. Cry me a friggin' river, but that's the way it is in the modern world that sees huge technological advances every decade.)
The best thing is that the technologies required for this are already here. BitTorrent, MPEG4 and ADSL (or other broadband technology).
I've tried really hard to find some problems in the scheme. IP and viewership rights are probably the biggest ones. I'd love to see a scheme that would allow me to pay for the episodes only once and then allow me to watch the episode an unlimited number of times. This does have an impact on the DVD sales, but then again, adapt or die.
If anyone of you
I like TV (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9/11, the internet collapsed, and no real news was available. Only TV provided reliable coverage, showing the footage, keeping us up to date with what was happening.
A few years ago I was working at home and happened to have the TV news on, and watched live as the Waco compound was stormed by cops, caught on fire and burned to the ground. Nothing afterwards, no tape or reporting, can compare to the impact of watching these events live in real time.
For entertainment, for all the talk about lowest common denominator, I have a genius level IQ and yet I enjoy the same shows that most other Americans do. I like Desperate Housewives and Lost. I like 24 and Alias. I like CSI and Law and Order. I also like science fiction: Enterprise, Tru Calling, Firefly. I enjoy some shows that are at the bottom of the ratings too: Jack and Bobby, Veronica Mars. I even like the reality series. Survivor never disappoints. I've been watching the Biggest Loser and the Branson shows too this season, and I'm waiting for American Idol.
So what does this mean? Well, there's no accounting for taste, but I can't help detecting a tinge of elitism in the many comments from people who don't like TV. I don't see why people are proud to say that the like movies but embarrassed to say that they like TV. A lot of the same people work in both fields. I don't see the quality of movies in general being any higher than those of television shows.
I do understand the objections about commercials, but I've got TiVo. I never watch a commercial I don't want to. And I watch my shows whenever I feel like it, not when they're programmed. TiVo takes an already great medium, TV, and makes it even better. With TiVo, television is the most reliable and least expensive form of entertainment available. I feel very lucky to have it.
I pretty much gave up TV in the dialup days (Score:3, Insightful)
When I moved to the States, I gave up tv almost altogether due to the quantity and intrusiveness of the ads. No, it's not a superiority thing. No, I don't think tv is "bad" as such. I just don't find an awful lot of value in it.
Now I've moved back home from the US, the only passive medium I use regularly is radio. The reason that radio will still be going once tv falls out of fashion is that despite radio being a passive medium too, you can do other things like drive a car, make the dinner, do some programming, do the laundry etc. whilst listening to the radio. The radio doesn't need your complete attention like something with moving images does. These days I typically listen to BBC Radio 6 for music and BBC Radio 4 for everything else.
Now about radio dramas - they aren't entirely passive. Like a book, they require some imagination. Your imagination can do far better special effects during a radio drama than the wealthiest movie studio can manage. Some people don't see the point in radio drama - but those people generally haven't listened to any.
Reality TV get that s$%^ of my TV... (Score:3, Interesting)
2 main reasons for me, is the total lack of integrity in current affairs, what ever happened to having your own point of view. And secondly the absolute trivia that gets passed of as programming, especially reality TV shows, I especially feel for Americian
Re:Who needs a "TV" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think turning your computer into a TV still counts towards television usage.
Re:Who needs a "TV" (Score:3, Funny)
Better question: Who needs a tv when you have multiple monitors and suprnova?
Re:Internet, TV aren't for entertainment (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new to the internet (Score:2)
Real life vs Internet [gprime.net]
Re:Downloading TV shows is not OK (Score:2)
The advertisers are paying for the show regardless of when you watch it and how you acquire it. So don't worry: The rich execs you feel so sorry for will still be able to buy their next $3mil yachts.
Re:Downloading TV shows is not OK (Score:2)
Re:Downloading TV shows is not OK (Score:5, Insightful)
A fine troll. I'll be happy to feed you.
when you watch a show on TV you do so under the agreement to tolerate advertisements which is your form of payment for said product
I'm sorry, where can I view this agreement? My form of payment is my satellite bill. Originally, cable TV was created with NO advertisements. That was the whole point of paying for it. You could have your free TV with your antenna, and commercials... or you could pay for cable and have none. Many people today don't realize this, because they allowed ads to take over cable TV as well, without much resistance.
Think about it. Advertising used to be a way to support content that was either being given out for free (like radio, pre-cable TV), or sold very cheap (like a newspaper). Nowadays, people ignore this and allow advertising to penetrate everything in sight, even with things that are already quite expensive. This overcommercialization of everything is a big problem, but that's another debate entirely.
Now, tell me this. If I'm PAYING for cable/satellite, what exactly is unethical about downloading any shows I want online? Shows that I have legal access to normally anyway? You're actually saying that because I don't view the ads, that I'm somehow "stealing" the programming? This is ridiculous. I could just as easily mute the commercials and ignore them when watching a live broadcast. I could also TIVO the shows and skip the commercials... is that unethical too? Again, I made NO agreement to watch them. I'm paying for a content delivery service, not the production of these shows.
By your reasoning, it's unethical to read a magazine or newspaper and not read every single ad in the publication. This is laughable.
Now, if people are NOT paying for TV in any form, and are still going on the net and downloading shows, maybe you could have an argument then. I still don't think so, though, because TV forces you to buy a large package consisting of many channels you don't want and will never watch, just to get the few channels and programs you DO want. THAT'S unethical. But that's big media as usual...
I, too, find it worrying that people torrent shows (Score:2)
downloaders need to get some priorities!!!
Re:no changes (Score:2)
Re:Internet Red Shift (Score:2)
I'd lay money on the former (hours spent), but the latter is touchier.
Of course, the primary reason has nothing to do with intelligence or any reason to be self-congratulatory about being in the Blue. The primary reason is the Red correlates with Rural which extremely strongly correlates with poor connectivity.
My father, who isn
Re:Internet Red Shift (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Internet Red Shift (Score:3, Insightful)