Television Reloaded 241
theodp writes "The TV times, they are a-changing. Over at Newsweek, Steven Levy offers a serious tome on the future of television, including time-shifting ("people will follow schedules only for real-time events like sports and election night"), space-shifting ("Now that you've stored your show on a TiVo, it's only logical to take it with you on your laptop, hand-held viewer or PSP game player") and the move from broadcast TV to broadband TV. Meanwhile, Conan O'Brien lightens things up with his own vision of the TV future ("Toddlers' bowls will have a television at the bottom, and children will be encouraged to eat all of their mush so they can see Morley Safer.")."
Will they... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will they... (Score:3, Funny)
Super Grover where are you now?
When everything's gone wrong somehow,
The men of cookie dough, the men of flour,
Are losing control by the hour.
Re:Will they... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but in a slimmed-down, fitness-conscious version named Sri Swami Cookiemanda, who after a lengthy period of reflection and purification, came to renounce his sedentary lifestyle and wanton consumption of satvic foods.
The Future is Now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any home that has a 2Mbps+ connection is a prime candidate for this sort of service.
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting though that they can't offer that for standard TV-over-the-air. People could be doing the ironing, having sex or whatever. Yet the advertisers seem happy that x million homes were tuned into that channel, Doesn't matter if you weren't watching.
If we downloaded officially we'd spin the ads on anyway, just as we do with taped stuff/Tivo.
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:2)
Unless the format and player prevented that, of course.
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:2)
That's one of the advantages of TiVo. It's possible to detect when someone is fast forwarding (and therefore watching) the ads. However, it's worth noting that they do research on viewer stats in general. I.e. they know that a Nielsen estimate of twe
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:4, Insightful)
I loved it late last year when the Federal Court of Appeals judge strongly scolded a lawyer for using "harsh language" like "stealing" and "theft" when describing "copyright infringement". This was in the mp3 of the oral arguments in the Grokster case.
You can argue syntax and semantics all day, but reproducing a copyright work without permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. Whether copyright infringement is justified, or has actually occurred, or whether someone is liable for it, is a completely different argument than what it should be called. That was the court of appeals Judge's point.
Using loaded terms like "stealing" and "theft" are just attempts to add a sensational emotional charge. Using descriptive terms like "copyright infringement" does not somehow lessen what is happening. Perhaps we should revisit all of our technical vocabulary and substitute emotionally charged words/phrases?
Not convinced? Copyright is completely orthogonal to payment. A copyright work may be GPL licensed, but not require payment. Someone might infringe the copyright of the author by reproducing the work in contravention of the license (i.e. copyright infringement, not "theft"), even though the author made the work available without payment.
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got it backwards. "Copyright infringement" is not some recently contrived euphemism. It is a technical and legal term that has been around a long time. Theft is the recently invented euphemism.
You'
Re:The Future is Now. (Score:2)
Also see this [findlaw.com].
Hope that helps. Try Googling.
On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)
The best thing the industry could do would be to figure out a system where you select what you want to watch from a menu, give you a VCR commandset (play, pause, rewind, forward, stop), and offer a meaningful guarantee of retention or recordability. And figure out how to make money off of it without breaking the people who want to use it.
They're working so hard on figuring out how to make you watch commercials that they're missing the larger picture. If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any.
Buying music off TV (Score:1, Insightful)
They can also do this for TV shows
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody in the pay-per-view industry will tell you on-demand television works. Details such as whether you pay per watch, per episode, or per 'channel' of content are certainly up to the implementors, but if you don't believe this is coming soon you're not properly interpreting the signals. I don't have to sing its praises to the broadcast industry; they're simply waiting for the various pieces that make up the technology and legislation necessary for such a scheme to fall into place.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)
sure no one has heard of people recording video programs for later watching, thank you for your time and insight!
"iTunes is demonstrating the feasibility of delivering paid-for digital media over the Internet"
True. I'm not sure anyone has argued that it is technically possible for it to be done. However, you might be interested in the fact that ITMS has been explained by apple as being no better than break even. They are unable to make a profit with the service. As far as apple is concerned it exists solely to promote sales of their iPod hardware device. Content interests have repeatedly protested that ITMS sales perform poorly compared to retail sales. So literally there is no corporate interest in ITMS barring sales of the portable. Not really a great example for on demand television unless you sell a portable video player.
"Windows Media Center [...] offering DVR [...] released on DVD"
Some good examples of the PVR/DVR market. Let's explain why PVR works now while on demand may not.
98.2% of households own a TV (US 1990)
74.9% of households have some kind of Internet (US 2004)
45.2% of households have broadband (US 2004)
obviously broadband on demand delivery has a major hurdle to take care of before it could replace broadcast + PVR timeshifting
Even if broadband penetration was 98.2%, which could take decades, could current digital infrastructure support each television household consuming 2-6 hours of on demand 1mbps-6mbps video content? No. While it may work for you to download a show or two, it would all fall apart if all of your neighbors were doing the same thing. Infrastucture can't support it (yet)
"If you charge for access to a service like this nobody can 'steal' content by fast-forwarding through commercials because there won't be any."
Broadcast television revenues: US$54.4B (US 2004)
Premium television revenues: US$8.5B (worldwide 2002)
PPV television revenues: US$2.4B (worldwide 2002)
I'm not sure I'd like to explain to shareholders how the only answer to sustaining my business is to abandon a $54B market to chase a $2B-8B market (at best) with higher costs.
Also ratings would fall drastically:
highest rated show 5/9-5/15: CSI (CBS) 26.4M viewers
highest rated premium tv show 5/9-5/15: below public reporting threshold, below 3.1M viewers
So in summary:
* no example of profitable major on demand broadband video delivery
* infrastructure does not support it
* penetration is less than half of broadcast
* current market revenue is 5%-20% of broadcast
I dont think broadcast will be going away anytime soon.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
sure no one has heard of people recording video programs for later watching, thank you for your time and insight!
No, I meant the part about having a social schedule.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
gross cash value of CD sales doesn't account for the net after reproduction and distribution have been paid for.
It's possible that they "are" being honest in their depiction of the numbers.
but it would be the first time.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Comcast digital Platinum service is $100 a month with hundreds of channels. But at most you'll watch 30% of them.
The entire Internet is $40 a month via broadband. It's interactive, and offer infinite number of channels.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with that statement, though, is that when content becomes popular, the problem inherent to Internet popularity (melty server) usually forces the popular site to become pay-based just to afford the hosting.
If content on par with premium cable were to go online in any significant way, it would doubtless be as a pay service, probably piecemeal to each provider, which would either be full of
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
P2P efficiency disproves that theory.
"If content on par with premium cable were to go online in any significant way"
Content better than premium cable already is online in a significant way. The current failure of content providers to change their business model to fit doesnt change that.
Re:How About Something, ANYTHING, Worth Watching? (Score:2)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
www.hbo.com/hboondemand/ for more info on HBO's. The problem is they don't offer the good stuff.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Yet. Let them take their baby steps and feel things out.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's probably some truth to it, but I see an alternative. Base advertising on the show instead of the time slot. I mean, seriously, who in their right mind thinks Star Trek is a great time for a tampon or birth-control commercial? Television shows often develop a strong following. Unfortunately, musical time slots often kill well loved shows. (Futurama...) Dedicated viewer base, homeless. With DVRs, they could show new eps at 3am in the morning and they'd still generate revenue.
Unfortunately, this begs the ugly question of whether or not commercial skip should be allowed. Frankly, I think there's a compromise here. Get rid of commercial skip and add fast forward. I know this option won't go well with a lot of people. Sorry. But it's a sticky situation. If ads aren't being watched, the main source of revenue for these shows suddenly disappears.
Another alternative is something like iTunes for tv shows. A buck or two buys you an episode of your favorite show, ad free. Unfortunately, though, this could result in ridiculous monthly expenditures on TV. Conversely, lots of people are buying TV series DVDs. So... eh.
Frankly, I understand why this is contraversial on both sides. The solution isn't likely to make the customers or the television networks completely happy. Right now, I'm paying a pretty heft amount per month for digital cable. If I could funnel that money into an on-demand service instead, somebody could end up with a nifty sized subscription fee per month. Figure out how to make a profit on that, and they'll get my business.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that every time technology changes in a big way, the public should give up a little bit of freedom. What will be left in 100 years?
I watch TV a lot, but I'd rather see TV die than take away people's freedom in order to save
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
No. I didn't say that. I never said anything about giving up freedoms. What I did say is that we have to pay for TV. I don't know why you guys expect free ad-free TV when an episode of Star Trek, for example, costs over a million dollars to make.
"I watch TV a lot, but I'd rather see TV die than take away people's freedom in order to save it."
That's
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Marketing is an unproductive parasite on the economy, where consumers get to pay extra for the privilidge of supporting the production of something they'd have to be forced to watch, resulting in nothing but damage to the free market.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Yeah. Advertising has very little to do with informing the public, and is now basically about persuading or coercing the public. As a result, the capitalistic forces no longer encourage success of the best value/cost ratio, but the best advertisement_impression/cost ratio.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Don't be naive. You said:
The obvious way this would be done is by legislating/regulating feature out of existence, i.e. giving up freedom.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Eh. Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but the problem is that the freedom you describe potentially means people getting TV without 'paying' for it. (by paying for it, I mean watching commercials.) In other words, 'paying' for the TV is the step that's trying to be skipped. (Though not intentionally.) I see your point that it's 'giving up a freedom', but the alternative is 'no tv for
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Seriously, I am REALLY sick of hearing this crap on this thread.
Don't like TV? Don't partake then.
couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Uhm...giving up what freedom? What he said was that they should not offer commercial skip; they should offer fast forward. That's how TV + VCR works (and incidentally, how TiVo works) now.
In a way, commercial skip takes away freedom. Studies have shown that most people prefer commercials to paying for content. That's why most stations are free but have
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
The freedom to buy devices that do offer a commercial-skip feature. Or do you think manufacturers will all voluntarily leave out this feature forever without any influence from the regulatory bodies?
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:2)
Time slots don't make the ads valuable, the number of people watching makes them valuable.
If you have 15 million people watching ER at 10pm on Thursday, you may have a valuable timespots at 10:00, but if you move Entertainment Tonight to that time slot, the ads aren't going to be valuable just because its at 10:00.
If you let 25 million people watch ER any time they want, the ads you insert in there will be just as, if not more, valuable as the ads in that timeslot. Why? Beca
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the broadcast industry is fighting it every step of the way. But over the long-term the preferences of the content distributors have had very little sway on the ultimate delivery mechanisms for the content they distribute. We're always going to need some level of business apparatus surrounding the delivery of content, but the businesses themselves are basically just a means-to-an-end, with profits and success redistributed according to market need.
Think about it: the RIAA was dragged kicking and screaming into distribution models like iTunes Music Store, etc, which has ended up being a popular and heavily used option for a huge number of consumers. The MPAA originally opposed VHS and Betamax.
People are used to on-demand entertainment and television and radio are the only formats that don't widely support this consumption style. We like being able to pause our DVDs, skip past the songs we don't like in our CD/MP3 collections, browse what we want when we want to online, and so on. It's becoming part of our relationship with media. Any format that doesn't support this usage is going to have to evolve or die. It's simply the way things work, and it doesn't matter whether the broadcast industry doesn't like it, fights it, even wins a few legal battles in the short-term. Consumer demand will invariably be met by market forces.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:5, Interesting)
They have this on-demand feature built into their digital cable boxes. The selection's a little lacking, but in effect, you can play any TV show or movie they have any time you want, it just costs a few bucks. They even have a fair amount of free content (no doubt to get people using the service), and the selection's not too bad. It seems most HBO shows are on it, and a lot of major cable networks seem to be on board; Discovery, Comedy Central, the History Channel, and quite a few others.
I'm no big fan of Comcast, but I've got to say, they really nailed this one.
Re:On-demand is the future, today. (Score:3, Informative)
1) The interface sucks. You can't search for shows. You can't customize it. There's no easy way to see what is new and what is old.
2) You need a Comcast-provided box to use it. With an ATSC CableCard tuner, there's no way to watch on-demand. As more and more of these TVs become available wit
A better solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A better solution... (Score:2, Funny)
He said that constantly for 4 years? man i coulnd't have taken it for so long.
Re:A better solution... (Score:2)
Re:A better solution... (Score:2)
You and Elvis, that is. Yes, the King had a penchant for whipping out a revolver and shooting the television when he didn't like what was being shown.
shit TV (Score:3, Funny)
Why did I immediately think he meant toilet bowls? -- and that it had already happened?
Re:shit TV (Score:1, Interesting)
What about actual content? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about actual content? (Score:2)
We need a couple more HBO-like channels (Showtime seems pretty close, but I haven't seen too many promos for their shows that entice me too much), or else need HBO to grow in subscribers so they can expand their offerings and produce more originals.
It's really about the only TV channel I watch these days.
Future? How about Present. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It'll be a cosmic video jukebox where you can fire up old episodes of "Cop Rock," the fifth game of the 1993 World Series, a live high-school lacrosse game, a ranting video blogger and your own HD home-movie production of Junior's first karate tournament. While it's playing, you can engage in running voice commentary with your friends, while in a separate part of the screen you're slamming orcs in World of Warcraft. Then you can pay your bill on screen. And if you ever manage to leave your home theater, you can monitor the whole shebang in your car, at a laptop at Starbucks or via the laundry-ticket-size screen on your cell phone."
I can do that now. What's so "futuristic" about that? Each of my bed posts has a surround sound speaker mounted to it, and I have big screen tv precariously situated on top of my dresser (don't ask), so I can just wake up and commence brainrot without leaving bed. Video output from computer to tv and bam! Stick the feed tubes in me, I'm set to go!
Re:Future? How about Present. (Score:2, Insightful)
On a side note, you should try taking the television out of your bedroom. I did this and I find it is a much healthier lifestyle. You might
Re:Future? How about Present. (Score:1)
When-I-see-fit-TV (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet Apple will get into this market, the question is how, with As Seen on TV denying a video ipod like a MS server denying service. so probably with the Airport express AV. It just might work.
Nobody wants to watch programs on a fixed time if they can get it from the internet whenever they want, so the TV stations have to come up with something special. Nobody knows what's on ESPN 8 "The Ocho" with 500 channels to choose from..
Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:3, Interesting)
My brother works for a group that installs aftermarket items on cars, like A/C and Steros/DVD players, and in-dash DVD is a VERY popular modification. Not "back seat so the kids can watch Teletubbies" DVD players, dashboard. I'm not even sure it's explicitly illegal everywhere.
Brett
Re:Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:2)
Re:Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:2)
Brett
Re:Driving hard or hardly driving? (Score:2)
I've seen several aftermarket installations that ignore this requirement.
Here's [cadillacforums.com] a discussion on trying to disable that for an Escalade.
For instance, here [itsa.org] is California's requirement on this.
MythTV + PSP (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MythTV + PSP (Score:2, Insightful)
What will happen... (Score:1)
TV, what's that? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:TV, what's that? (Score:2)
I'm half way there, the future rules. (Score:4, Insightful)
But things will get better. Watching TV this way (and renting TV show DVDs from Netflix) have tought me one vital lesson that everyone will learn one day: Networks are meaningless.
Long ago, when the internet ran at 9600 BPS and computer literacy of the day made the current situation look like a paradise, you subscribed to a online service. You had AOL, or Compuserve, or Prodigy. That was your view of the world. But now everyting is on the internet. It doesn't matter how you get to the 'net, Slashdot looks the same.
TV will be the same way. It won't matter who airs CSI, your TiVo (or whatever) will download it off the 'net for you. All TV shows will be distributed that way. Once you aren't tied to a network schedule, it doesn't matter where you get the TV from, it's all the same.
Video on Demand for HBO and Showtime that you see advertised are basically the future (only things will be better than that). That is where we are going. It will be like podcasts, only with TV shows. And it will be great.
The sooner the TV exectives realize that, the better. In my opinion, half the reason shows like Futurama, Family Guy, and The Critic had problems was because they aired in a timeslot that was always getting pre-empted by football. How can people get into a show if it is almost never on for half a year? Well now it won't matter.
I can't wait. Things will be better.
Re:I'm half way there, the future rules. (Score:2)
Re:I'm half way there, the future rules. (Score:2)
It really does change how you watch television. Almost from the very first day. The biggest problems I have now are
We tried working with Television... (Score:1, Funny)
Once he'd got the machines up and running with TV we let the users try it out. It all seemed fine t
What future (Score:1)
License (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Sweden, anyone who owns a TV set (or, nowadays, a computer with a TV-reciever, or a television mobile phone), has to pay a TV-license of a couple of hundred kronors per year ($30-40). For this we get two channels with excellent quality content and no commercials. Most people add on to this with paying for cable channels that cost a lot more, and include commercials. But imagine a system where you could have just a large number of the public service channels for a proportionally higher price. There would be the traditional time-dependent broadcasts, without commercials but any old programming (that has already been aired) would also be available on-demand, perhaps by a bittorrent-type distribution network, that has proven very effective.
By the way, I've been wondering about the legality of downloading shows that I have payed for with my TV-license. A lot of american sitcoms, that are normally shown in America with commercials, for example, is shown on one of these channels. Would it be illegal for me to download an episode that has already be shown on Swedish television, since I have technically paid to see it, commercial free?
Re:License (Score:2)
Now, this analogy is distorted by the fact that it's considered fair use to record a TV show for later, personal, viewing, but the principle remains the same -- you (directly or through the public br
Re:License (Score:2)
Everyone with a computer should pay royalties to US members of the MPAA, because of their ability to "receive" bittorrents of US television episodes.
(slight whirring sound dies down and fades)
NORMALITY RESTORED.
Re:License (Score:2, Informative)
Conan O'Brien's vision (Score:4, Interesting)
I was frowning and becoming more depressed because frankly that's where our technology will take us. Wrap-around screens on our coffee cups, made so cheap that they're disposable playing commercials or coupons for other coffee related products, and yes, maybe even tvs in our bowls, but I personally do not think this is desireable as we'll end up being surrounded by television (we already are, TVs are in every room, on our phones, pda's, computers, psp's, other hand held games and so on.
Can't wait to watch those commercials while I'm sitting on the can in a bathroom stall.
Re:Conan O'Brien's vision (Score:2, Funny)
(in fifty-four part harmony in the appliance section) "I'm George Forman and this is my lean mean fat reducing grilling machine."
Wander over to the macaroni aisle and really cheese Italian accented pitchmen are waiting, vying for your attention, and thanks to the AI of the times, arguing with each
Zero Channels (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Zero Channels (Score:2)
From the Conan O'Brien article (Score:2)
I look forward to television in the future.
Re:From the Conan O'Brien article (Score:2)
I'm already doing it (Score:5, Informative)
For the odd thing that I do occasionally want to watch (Dr Who for example) I have a Mac G5 installed at work with EyeTV [elgato.com] (a PVR) set to record the things I want from the digital broadcast (MPEG2). From there I export it as MPEG4 to get the size down, then scp it to a share on the Linux server at home from where I watch it on my PowerBook.
Perfectly legal (as I'm not 'receiving broadcast services') and much more convenient for me - I'll watch things when *I* want to watch them thankyouverymuch.
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at the EyeTV product page it has got a tuner for broadcast reception, whether that is analogue or digital doesnt matter, and hence it's quite possible that the TV licensing people are right and you are still liable to pay.
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
I have a Mac G5 installed at work
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
I stand by referring to TV Licensing as Nazis, as I am sick to bloody death of the harrassment. Just so we are clear on this, I have no problem with the license as I don't watch TV - there is only the odd thing that I like to watch (and that's rare - Dr Who for example in the last 5 years) - if people want to pay for it, go right ahead - I won't stop you. What I do strongly disagree with is how we people who do not watch
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
And I don't know about you but treating innocent people like criminals with no legal standing whatsoever I'd call pretty authoritarian. It is actually illegal under Human Rights law to harass people into either buying something they don't want or attempt to compel them to belong to some club or society; it's also illegal for th
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm not 100% sure about the first part as there is a new act out this year that changes definitions to include PC's, I've not taken much time to look at it.
(Disclaimer: I get paid by the license fee)
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it.
However you are making the recording at a non-domestic place, so this clause doesnt apply to you.
Re:I'm already doing it (Score:2)
Secondly we are an educational establishment in the UK and are covered by the ERA license which means at work I can record absolutely anything I want and keep it indefinitely (apart from one exemption which is Open University [open.ac.uk] broadcasts for some strange reason).
Toddler Bowls (Score:3, Funny)
The future of television: World Peace. (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it. TV is the ultimate capitalism machine. It turns kids from developing countries into placid consumers instead of violent ideologues.
Those who grow up watching TV are aware that there is a much larger world around them, filled with attractive wealthy people who enjoy high standards of living. It has been statistically proven that kids living in conflict zones are much less likely to turn themselves into suicide bombers if they grew up watching MTV.
Wake me when they have language-shifting (Score:2, Interesting)
Too bad I'll probably be drawing my (ten cents on the dollar) Social Security when that happens.
Re:Wake me when they have language-shifting (Score:3, Informative)
Jayziz. You don't ask much, do you?
Subtitles might just be doable, if we can get a computer to watch a minute or so ahead with a decent voice recognition software, and then piped the output through babelfish. But dubbing? Even The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer used human voice actors. Realistic human voices are an absolute bu
Newsweek never makes mistakes (Score:2, Interesting)
who never make mistakes, will refund you the price of this issue."
Gotta wonder if this was a jab at Newsweek or coincidental?
Helping solve the paradox of choice (Score:2, Interesting)
Utilizing "Editors" or collectives to sift through the vast content available and mark their recommendations. Slashdot provides that for "news for nerds," which editors, other sites such as delicious popular [del.icio.us] provides community "voting" on what is interesting.
Using social networks we can subscribe to other peoples interests, and "mine" through the mountain of content.
If you have seen it, check out EPIC [robinsloan.com] for one possible f
On-Demand non-commerical TV would ruin networks (Score:3, Insightful)
With that point of view we wonder why networks don't start carrying quality TV and asking the viewers to pay for it.
The problem with this is that most people are stupid. I didn't realize this until I was about 25 even though I knew most people around me were stupid. I thought the world was full of reasonable people and I didn't understand why I kept getting surrounded by morons. The networks make money from the people who will veg out in front of the TV for 4 hours a night watching horrible programming because they think they are getting it for free. The advertisers specifically want those people. They might not be right, but they are certainly gullible and easier to win over with a 30 second commercial.
That being said, I still wish that we had more cable networks bringing up good television series that were worth paying for. I don't think it's necessarily the future, but I do believe it's the right thing.
Re:On-Demand non-commerical TV would ruin networks (Score:2, Interesting)
Broadband TV? (Score:2, Funny)
I predict that one day, we will be able to stream TV shows through our existing cable lines in real time. And when that day comes, just remember you heard it here first.
No time limits... (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, but what's the business case? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Newsweek, eh? (Score:2, Funny)