Online Video Begins To Threaten Television

eldavojohn writes, "The BBC has an article reporting that a survey of 2,070 Britons revealed that online viewing is on the rise against television. From the article: 'Some 43% of Britons who watch video from the internet or on a mobile device at least once a week said they watched less normal TV as a result.' The figures the BBC is reporting are up from last year when they ran the same survey. It seems the digital world has disintermediated Magazines, Music, & Newspapers but somehow never really tapped books. Will the internet also take on the role as the family television?"

Isolation on the rise too

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

For many watching online is more of a shared experience. How many families really sit down and watch programs together and when they do, how many actually communicate during them. Many of the media sites offering video content have chatrooms, forums, and other collaborative places that are the online equivalent of talking around the water cooler. So yep gone are the days of dad yelling at Jr. to shut up because the fishing show is on, now dad can watch outdoor sportsman and talk to others that like the same thing.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the back of your computer? See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the side of your new TV? Got any bright ideas? ;)

Re:Isolation on the rise too

since starting to watch online content I've found that my friends and I talk far more about video content then we ever did about tv. Links to cool new things get bandied about, and there's a constant hunt to find the next cool thing to share.

Redvsblue is my current favorite for quality comedy online.This was found not through brainless channel surfing, but via a conversation with a friend.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience

Instead, I'd say that as online TV becomes more popular, people will timeshift their viewing more and more. This does not eliminate a shared experience altogether, but it does stretch it thinner. But to the point of isolation? Naw. A good series remains a good series, and word will travel.

In fact, I find it refreshing that, at our watercooler, co-workers introduce each other to new shows, as well as help filter out the crud. Instead of a dozen people investing 12 man-hours to all learn that the Such-and-Such show blows ... the investment was perhaps one or two.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

no, it's more like sharing a meal. We don't watch much TV, but when we do, we do it together. We usually watch DVD, talk while watching, hit rewind if we manage to miss something, etc. It's not exactly educational talk, but fun talk, our own commentary, etc. It's frequently more interesting than the "How was your day?" stuff at the table. Kids talk more when they have something interesting to talk about.

Is it online video or internet in general?

I see it as more people having "something" to do with their time than specifically crappy videos.

Perhaps the survey questions weren't correct.

Most people who spend time online have a community - some have slash others have flickr, theres some on youtube and loads in numerous other communities.

TV cannot give the level of participation the web does.

And what is the big deal?

My flatscreen has a pc input...
Just a different source for video feeds...
current content providers will adapt...

News at 11

Disintermediated

You've just been looking for an excuse to use that word in an article, haven't you?

Re:Disintermediated

Disintermediated

It's a pretty scary word, too. If we break it down, we see that it is a compound word derived from disinter- (to dig up a corpse) and -mediate (to intercede). Therefore, it's obvious that the digital world is a broker of graverobbing services, not a supplier of porn as commonly assumed.

Is this a surprise?

I would imagine that if they looked they would find that Internet Users on a whole watch less TV. Why just sit there when you can do something interactive. I watch video's online but usually they are shoved up in the corner of the screen while im doing something else more productive. I dont really see this as a bad thing, the major US networks are already catching on and are offering much of their programming online.

Isn't this exactly what has to happen for the mythical media/computer convergence to happen that everyone has harped on for the past 15 years? Its survival of the fittest, adapt or die, all media companies have to come to that reality whether is music, movies television, radio, newspapers or even books.

Yes....

...and here is why: Freedom of choice, competition, and expression. If someone cobbles together a good story, and a budget, I don't see why is isn't possible to launch an internet-based "cable television network" that reaches across borders, and is safely tucked away from the likes of broadcast networks (clearchannel and company), the Bush regime, and the FCC. It could be cheaper, and shows that die on Fox (Ahem! Serenity!) would live forever

This is surprising?

We live in a world that is no longer as 9 to 5 as it once was (more like 24/7 in three shifts), and people are surprised that television viewers would rather decouple their viewing from "Prime Time Weeknights"? I'm not surprised at all. DVDs laid the groundwork for viewers watching the television they want when they want. Then shows like 24 and Lost further laid the groundwork for story arcs that take advantage of that medium. (i.e. Can't keep with Jack every week? Keep up with him on DVD!)

Now the Internet is threatening to combine the convenience and timeliness of broadcast TV with the time shifting and long-term storage capabilities of DVDs. The result can only be a positive change in the way we view entertainment.

Problem or Opportunity?

Anyone want to lay odds regarding whether the TV networks will view this as a problem or an opportunity? Of course, they'll see it as a problem that must be "solved," rather than an opportunity to be seized. There is so much money to be made here for innovative and visionary content providers, so much cross-promotion and integration they could take advantage of, and yet you just know the "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo, even as their marketshare/revenues decline over the upcoming years.

It's sad, really. I would have hoped that the "younger" networks like MTV and Spike would have jumped aboard and shown the path, but the only network I can think of who has even remotely embraced the dual-delivery model of TV and online media is the Comedy Network/Comedy Central.

Logical step

This is a logical step really. people will move to online viewing because it offers them the choice of what to watch and when to watch it that fits around their schedual. I think if networks put up their shows for people to watch at any time on the internet with commercials people would watch it with commercials just to be able to watch their favorite shows when they want to not when the network scheduals it.

It's obvious

Why do we prefer online video over television? Doy! No advertisements!

Magazines and newspapers have non-obtrusive ads that can just be flipped immediately. TV ads must be watched or channel-flipped with the risk of missing content. Most internet video has ads on the site, not in the video.

I can't wait until TV networks get smart enough to put a Pepsi ad in the corner of the screen and allow "TV pirates" to spread the show on the internet. The network is off the hook for the piracy because it's out of their hands, Pepsi gets advertised all over the world, and the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

Re:It's obvious

the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

Not an interruption?

Do you also believe [ How much ladies will love your new ROCK hard action!! [icos.com] Advertisement] that onscreen ads on the internet aren't intrusive? I'd be willing to [ Approve you for best mortgage at prime minus 4%!! Pay nothing! [federalreserve.gov] Advertisement] bet that most people don't share that view. Certainly, I can live without [ hottest mover & shaker stocks - investors shouldn't miss out [nyse.com] Advertisement] them, and sometimes they're not terribly intrusive, but they are still interruptions.

I always liked the way that ZDF in Germany did it. They had a block of time each night were only ads were shown and the ads were interrupted by short 5- to 15-second animated shorts to get the kids to watch. As they wanted people to actually tune in, most of the ads were of Super Bowl ingenuity: actually fun to watch. I believe some of the American HD networks do something like this currently.

The problem with Digital Books...

I haven't read a paper book in nearly 3 years. Nearly everything I've wanted to read is available in digital form somehow. The problem with ebooks is a lack of really good hardware. I use a Palm to read ebooks, but traditional PDAs are rapidly declining as we know. The iPod doesn't have a big enough screen to read comfortably, and most phones have the same problem. Nobody wants to buy a dedicated ebook reader either because that is too great an expense for too limited a function. I'm gonna continue to stick with it though and hopefully someone will come up with a mass-appeal solution in the near future.

Sure it is.

My PC plays DVDs, downloads from torrents and Usenet (shh!) and legit online streams (bless you Adult Swim!) [adultswim.com] My PC plays all the PC games and classic console ROMs I need it to. When I have a video card with the proper inputs, the PC displays my real game consoles as well. My last actual television died about four years ago, and I really never found a reason to replace it.

To be fair I'm not much of a fan of modern mainstream television, and the only two series (not counting Adult Swim) I really follow are British ones I can only torrent in until the DVDs make it here to the States, but with mainstream stuff like NBC's "Heroes" following the legit streaming model I can see standard televsions becoming an endangered species fairly soon.

Many areas currently plan to ditch plain old analog broadcasts in favor of digital, and I imagine that signal is really easy to plug into an Internet server rather than a cable company. I'd love to see a cost comparison of what it costs the networks to stream online versus broadcasting on the dwindling airwaves.

Not a family thing

A family cannot really huddle around the PC to watch stuff on YouTube, but I think individuals are definitely spending more time on the internet in general (not just TV, also forums etc.) and therefore less time in front of the TV. That's a good thing - the web is so much more interactive.

Obvious goal

There's a good reason the BBC would be interested in this, they would love another way to charge everyone a tax on something silly like they do with TV.

If you own a computer then it's assumed you will consume Internet BBC content, therefore you must pay your computer BBC tax. Socialism works!

No surprise considering shitty programs

that are running among in all channels. Why watch crap, whereas on internet you can choose what you view on what hour ?

To Bittorrent

I watch tv online for 2 reasons: 1. its on now! Why should the USA get series of popular tv shows months before the uk.. 2. i can watch when i want! im a busy person, and i dont always have time to sit and watch a show when tv decides to schedule. Put ads on the downloads if u like, but im still gonna do it. why doesnt the industry embrace this side of broadcasting, which has done all the marketing and distribution itself

Doesn't matter...

Television is when my Dad comes over to switch the video input from DVD to TV and watch re-runs of COPS before he dozes off. I'm not missing much.

Sony and Panasonic are to blame

The trouble with this whole situation is the TV broadcasters are all willing to go web only. It's been known for a long time they have the capacity to go with this sort of system. Overall it'd be cheaper and better for this sort of setup. The only problem with that IS the TV broadcasters have their nuts in the vice by the big TV makers. Sony and Panasonic are forcing the broadcasters to stick to the regular conventions so they can sell their expensive and unnecessary TV. Most people when asked said they are perfectly content with watching a little 7" tv screen just so long as there's something good on. For years we've been brainwashed to think that crystal clear picture and surround sound on a 90" TV screen is the best way to enjoy our favorite shows. Now that the internet has come along and is offering people a cheap alternative viewing experience they're getting scared. Web based TV is also affecting the big couch makers, but not as bad since most of those companies also make some sort of desk chairs. Mind you they'd still be at a significant loss if web TV took over.

The simple reason behind this is...

There isn't enough free porn on TV.

I don't get it.

It's all video. It's just a different delivery method. People are still watching television programs, just more often now via a different device than a television set. I don't see the big deal...

Not so fast!

To me, all this online video hype is just that - hype! What I have found on flash video sites including Google's Youtube is the inability to have any form of video controls. I mean, I have not been able to increase/decrease the following:

• brightness,

• contrast,

• hue level,

• saturation and

• gamma.

Yet some of these videos are really dark and need some work to be viewable in my opinion.

The day this will be possible is the day I "might" even consider taking these videos serious. On the sound front, bass/treble are also missing!

Not there yet

I have a PC connected to the TV that I use as a PVR. I time shift a lot (my family mostly watches TV on weekend evenings). Occasionally we'll look at Google video, YouTube, or some other on-line video. But it's usually just for a few minutes. The content of on-line video still can't compare to best commercial offerings like '24', and 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Modern Marvels', 'Extreme Engineering', etc. It CAN compare with most of the other stuff on TV. Which, along with lack of time, tends to limit our TV viewing.

Fear not...

IP TV [wikipedia.org] will solve the problems.

What exactly are they watching?

A lot of people go to Youtube just to watch content ripped from TV shows. Suppose that was reliably eliminated- would the site's appeal still be as high? If not, then it doesn't really represent a new paradigm, just a parasite on the old.

It's been at least five years...

...since I've watched "normal" television. Ever since I started digitally recording TV shows on my computers, I haven't been at the mercy of ANY of the limitations of standard television. The VCR didn't even do a good job of that as you didn't have random access to your recordings. If you were watching something and fell asleep, you have to spend a good deal of time rewinding/fast forwarding to find the place where you nodded off. This was enough of a time sink that in many cases you either wound up watching from someplace close to where you left off, or just decided to skip it altogether. Especially if you didn't have much blank tape and needed to record something that very day or even minute. Too much time reqinding and fast forwarding or trying to keep track of where the "blank spots" were on your tape in terms of shows you could safely erase. But, in digital form, you just flip back and forth to any point on the timeline and you can easily resume any show in seconds. DVDs were a slight improvement but they didn't help out with recording shows until recently. I suspect this is why books still rule. They are EASIER to use than the technology that is trying to replace them. That same is true of MP3/Ogg Vorbis files for music vs. CD, Vinyl and tape. Also for MPEG, AVI files vs. video tape and DVDs. If there is a way that someone can make something easier to use than a book for reading text, they will have the key to sublimating the book.

Why is this a problem ?

Why is this a problem for TV companies ? Why not just stream your output on the internet, in addition to broadcasting over radio/cable ?

It's been threatening TV for 10 years

And it'll keep threatening TV for another 100 years. Problem is, it never quite wins. In Europe where TV is still mainly low definition, the blurry 320x240 quality of internet video probably has an edge. In UKnowWhere where all prime time is HD, there's still a big difference. They've also been saying internet video would catch up to TV quality someday. It's still blurry 320x240.

Threat or Opportunity?

The increase of online viewing is only a threat to those stupid enough not to provide easy means of viewing shows online!

And by show, I mean any media!

Advertisers seem threatened by online media. Yet how many years ago was it that AdCritic had to start charging because they got too popular? Why is there no modern AdCritic that is free and supported by millions of companies that have ads they want consumers to watch?

The networks have started to air shows online but when will they stop treating online viewers as second class citizens and let the people download a show the moment it airs?

I canceled my cable a year or two ago and have not looked back, because downloading (even by purchase) media is just such an improved way to watch TV, better even than TiVO (which was always merely an intermediate step to true random access of, and within, media).

1980s: Console games threaten arcades

I put this in the "captain obvious" file.

The TV industry will find a way to keep making money, even if they have to quit being the TV industry as we know it.

www.watchtvonline.ws ??

Most of the video content freely available online is usually of lower quality or illegal. Makes me wonder how these guys do it:

http://www.watchtvonline.ws/tv/simpsons.html [watchtvonline.ws]

Seriously, i am downloading episodes at almost 1 MB/sec. I am not uploading anything, so it does not seem to be a p2p thing.

Anybody care to explain how this is possible physically/legally?

I hope they take this site down soon, because i have a job and not enough time at hand to go through 18 seasons of Simpsons!

Will the internet also take on the role ...

Of COURSE it will!!

Only those who grew up with (or prior to) TV and are hopelessly clinging the past would ever doubt it.

I saw the future of television

A couple of days ago, I watched 'Lost' online from ABC's website, and was impressed.
It had a nice interface, acceptable quality (i'm no videophile), and was simply convenient. What i found most impressing, though, were the commercials: there were 3 blocks of interactive, flash-based commercials, that you had to watch for at least 20 seconds (or so). After the counter came down to 0 seconds, you could continue with what you where watching, even if the commercial wasn't over yet. I dislike ads as much as the next slashdotter, but the networks have to make some money somehow, so i accept them as a necessary evil. The nice thing about these ads was that some (Toyota Yaris) were very interactive and well-made, using the new medium as it should be - I even caught myself spending MORE than the the required minimum amount of time playing around with these commercials. On the other hand, some ads (Advil) were 'old school', i.e.: just a normal little video-sequence, and I immediately clicked on 'continue' as soon as i could.
So, my point is: This really worked for me (video-on-demand, nice interface, hassle-free) and for ABC (I actually remember the products they advertised during the show, because they were 'immersive'), so i am convinced that this is the future of television - it's a win-win situation.

oh really

Did you also know that a growing number of people masturbate too!? And they also buy books and cds and music online! GASP!

Goodby network tv schedule idiocy. Streaming sucks

The only live air I watch anymore is small market non commercial channel (TVO), or local news.

Everything else I get from torrents. Being set free from idiot network TV programmer/scheduling was a breath of fresh Air. I started because I lost cable and had to decide wether to pick it up again. Discovered TV-Torrents and was quickly hooked.

I was now enjoying shows that I had given up on. Stargate SG1 was one that I liked but it was in syndication hell, on 5 different channels, only one of which had new episodes that mixed in old episodes so I could never get a flow of what the heck was going on. Started getting torrents and I was now always only getting new episodes in proper sequence. It was great. Not to mention all the positive attributes of PVR like experience.

Firefly was another I tried to watch when it was on. I could never get into it; they showed them in the wrong order, moved them around, skipped weeks. Killed it for me. Later I downloaded them all and watched it in order. Hey this was actually a good show.

How screwed up does you delivery have to be that I would actually stop watching a show that I liked (SG-SG1) even before I discovered an alternative delivery. I think it also effectively killed firefly before it had a chance.

Streaming sucks though. I have a decent connections(1.8Mbs), but I have experienced nothing but frustration with current streaming tech. Bleh.

I will torrent my TV until the put a stop to it. If there is a lesson, it is to not mess your product up so bad that people don't want it even when free and there is no alternative, once an alternative appears(even if it isn't moral/legal), you are screwed. This is the danger any tired lazy incumbent faces.

The torrenting result is so much better that I will never go back now. If they ever manage to crack down hard on this, I will go to renting the series on DVD.

I imagine we will see more TV downloading crackdowns to come, but I don't think the RIAA is having much positive impact, so I don't think a TV downloading crackdown will stop this either.

I think the end result is that the end result of so much downloading of everything is going end with a highly regulated internet. Probably this will happen on two similar fronts.

1: Death of net neutrality: First they will succeed in charging for "superior" bandwidth, to offer better streaming video and streaming sound, VOIP etc. Next they will start racheting down anyone who doesn't pay for the extra bandwidth. Torrent sites slow to a crawl.

2: The global block list: This is starting now in UK,Denmark, Canada. A mandated blocking list for child porn, except in Denmark they have already added allofmp3.com. It is easy to see that Torrent sites will be soon after.

I figure in 5 to 10 years the wild west open nature of the net will largely be over. Enjoy it while it is here.

...never really tapped books.

Heinous profiteering. It's not just the publishers, but the device manufacturers and electronic distributers. DRM and other forced proprietarianism used to artificially inflate prices to maximize profit at the cost of the medium. Quite sad, hopefully wont last long. I bought an ebook reader not too long ago (an eBookwise 1150 [ebookwise.com], partly due to other mentionings on slashdot), and it's a great turd. The price is a bit high for the device itself. It only displays one proprietary format, for which there is a converter, but the converter runs only under windows (not even in wine). It only really imports text and even then most of the formatting is lost. The screen is black and white (tho contrast is good). The firmware is fixed, with no chance for extending. The device only wants to talk to its hardwired content provisioner, who have the gall to ask new paperback prices for digital editions. Such an insult to efficiency! No cost for harvesting, material, transportation, production, printing, distribution, vending... only writing, layout and proofing and digital distribution. Digitial distribution costs are negligible, with the majority of the work in writing and a small amount in layout and proofing. So, of the cost of these ebooks, the majority is artificial and going right into the pockets of the less deserving. No wonder ebooks have not taken off. It's hard to get a rock to roll uphill. If this is state of the art after millenia of written history, then we should be ashamed. All this being said, there is nothing wrong with the form factor, reading a book on the device is pleasant and the battery life is excellent. What's holding back the slim geode/xscale (or similar) paperback sized wireless colour expandible linux running pdf displaying cheap ebook reader? I'm guessing it's because the many writeoff ebooks due to the current state of affairs (or lack thereof). There's no shortage of ebooks out there... if you can circumvent the crap that actually prevents them from being useful.

Obviously

TV is basically a one way pipe to a dumb terminal, a relic of the last century. Online viewing has the potential to be much more.

But right now we need a lot more bandwidth to make online viewing a more convenient experience. Here's where conflict of interest comes in. In the US some big cable companies are also ISPs. Don't expect them to give you more Internet bandwidth so you can spend more time on the net and eventually cancel your cable subscription. Expect Net Neut to come up again and again as the net begins to compete with TV.

Google / Youtube deny wanting to cannabalise TV

As reported here [abc.net.au]

all in all...

It seems most readers of / prefer controlling there own media rather then the brainwashing emanating from the tube.
i could rant for days on how TV does in fact rot the brain... but it seems most here do not need to here that ;)

bottom line: TV/networks need to adapt (voting for your favorite game-show ass face is not what i mean. {rather something along the lines of what they used to do with Lost. get fans involved by making them search the net for clues pertaining to the show, and also steal the best ideas from the fan base & incorporate them into the show. -all the while being targeted with ads of course })
the only constant is change.. On the same hand.. I don't really want the TV tainting the interweb more than it already is.. but thats asking for to much.

Opportunity knocks for the BBC

Online Video/TV is a win win situation for the BBC and it's viewers. Their Revenue comes largely from the License Fees, thus no Ads, so online BBC programs are NOT a loss leader, like they would be for say ITV. Indeed the BBC could even start a new source of Revenue. Instead of restricting their present trials of online programming, to UK residents only, they could open this up worldwide. Such new viewers could pay say %50.00 per annum and receive the BBC programming online. This would satisy those of us starved of good UK BBC programming and create new sources of revenue for the BBC. So Auntie BBC get with it and offer it outside of the UK ASAP. Forget those lousy deals re BBCAmerica etc. First I can't get that channel and if I could they mainly show 30 year old offerings that I already have on DVD. I can sign up now on Cable for dozens of international channels from all over the world, with the exception of the UK. So does us and yourself a favor, open up online BBC programming NOW to those of us o/s the UK.

People find solutions.

This is simple human nature. Television has gotten increasingly shitty with reality shows over and over again on every channel, dozens of dumbed down and frequently WRONG documentaries, badly edited movies that sucked BEFORE being censored, and more commercials than any reasonable human could handle, even if they were in a coma. So naturally people are looking for other things to watch. Enter Bit Torrent and YouTube.

Television did not learn the mistakes that the music industry has STILL not learned. Movies are definitely starting to happen the same way as well.

Love it or Hate it, Loose Change would have been a block buster smash at the box office, but nobody funded it. Even so, millions have watched it over the Internet.

The corporations that run all of our media: TV, movies, music, and print, have tried for years to FORMULATE what people are going to like, and make it a simple numbers game. It's a stupid move. People ARE NOT STATISTICS. People like everything from tofu to greasy burgers. What's "hip" or "in" is a marker that is almost ALWAYS on the move, and never possible to peg with any kind of numbers game or statistic. Making money on trends, which is what most of our industry seems based on, is a foolish game that the house will always win, and in this case "the house" is the ever-changing real-time instant-here instant-gone fads that generally are impossible to capitalize on anyway.

If these corporations were really interested in making money, and not solely in making profit OFF OF NOTHING, they would fund real shows, real movies, real bands, real products, and real foods that are edible and healthy while tasting great. Their constant drive to spend less, rip off consumers, employees, governments, and as often as not shareholders is a game that can only prove profitable in the very short term, even DESPITE their monopolies!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

If someone offered a bad-ass little cell phone that doubled as ipod and camera, cost $100 and had a USB recharging interface on the computer and NO DRM, that someone would put MS, SONY, SAMSUNG, and every other shitty electronics corporation out of business.

At this point though, all those corporations have too high a vested interest in the MPAA, RIAA, and other bullshit political lobbies, and consequently make it impossible for themselves to make:

Decent movies,
decent music,
decent hardware,
decent magazines,
decent television,
decent food.

You get what you pay for. These corporations are not paying enough for what they are trying to sell, so naturally, their shit isn't selling.

Crying about it is just stupid. If you really want to make money, offer a decent product for a decent price, and STFU already.

There is still room for corporations to make money, but they better start making solid products that people want, and fast, because manufacturing prices will continue to go down, till everyone can manufacture whatever device they want without buying it from anyone, which has already happened in the software industry with FOSS (well, Firefox, and maybe Open Office, anyway...).

Playing the current game, with their refusal to innovate, or raise build quality, and eliminate DRM, ALL THESE CORPORATIONS are going to drive themselves out of business. Some frustrated consumer (like me!) is just going to design something decent for themselves, and give away the plans for free. Manufacturing is not going to suddenly become MORE expensive, so the writing is on the wall as to where this is going to lead:

The only way to make money will be in the service industry. People will still need to learn how to use things, and still need things fixed or built that they cannot make themselves. Beyond that, everything will probably end up open source, unless these companies really start innovating and offering valuable services and products.

Personally, my experience with FF and other "products" has been so great that I'm not crying one little

There's no free TV there...

Remember, in London it's illegal to operate a TV set without a license to do so. The sole reason for that license is to generate revenue for the BBC.

So there's a rational case for throwing out your TV and watching everything over a computer monitor... no tax!

Re:What?

Could be that the UK folks are tired of paying the Television License in the UK [wikipedia.org].

As for not wanting to watch commercials, broadcasters using the Internet to deliver content will still show you ads for most content I would guess. I know ABC does this for the shows they allow you to view online.

Jim