I think the TV as such is mostly going to go away, at least the form with a tuner. Here in Norway the mean broadband connection is 33 Mbit/s, the median 24 Mbit/s and 90%+ have 4+ Mbit/s.
Here in the US, each individual "channel" can carry 19Mbps. That means your "mean broadband connection" can't even support TWO simultaneous channels at full quality. How many people are in each of those houses, sharing those broadband connections? And how terribly inefficient is it for everyone to unicast what could be broadcast one-time for all?
In the US there are currently 50 channels, for 950Mbps total, continuously. It'll be a while before everyone's internet connections get there. And that's just OTA. Cable services can broadcast many, many times as much data. I'd be inclined to say things could and should go the other way... with everyone getting a networked DVR, and popular YouTube/Netflix/Hulu videos pre-fetched when they are broadcast OTA.
Updating of OTA broadcast, I think, will find more people turning to it and away from shitty cable and satellite, which is already a trend.
People are dropping cable, and more are installing antennas, but TV viewership even on broadcast OTA networks is also falling, as people spend more time on mobile devices...
I expect OTA viewership will take-off, and cable will really die, when mobile devices like tablets start including built-in TV tuners and antennas... Plenty of people with time to waste are away from home, and would like some entertainment that doesn't eat up their astronomically expensive data plan.
It has already been done... But once Apple gets the idea, everybody else will copy them, and the press will gush about how incredibly innovative they are...
Streaming over the Internet, I think, is just another 'pay TV' trap like cable and satellite, and as a matter of fact if you think for a moment, how is it really any different than cable or satellite directly connected to your TV?
Simple... Internet-based services don't hold a geographic monopoly like cable companies do. Lots of competition, versus NO competition.
Changing technology matters, too. Cable couldn't help but be linear, non-interactive a few decades ago. Now they can do things smarter, but many of their declining number of customers demand they maintain the old model, and their contracts with networks are equally difficult to substantially change to allow a new service model.
Thanks for the link. It explicitly states that it's not just racehorses, that it's already expired, it was $500,000 on an asset above $2,000,000 value - and it's not just thoroughbreds. Thanks for playing, buh bye!
Oh, and still wondering about that whole "the rich pay less than 15% taxes" you claimed way back when to be either substantiated - or for you to admit your error...
One picture is worth 128K words.