Why TV Lost 576
theodp writes "Over the past 20 years, there's been much speculation about what the convergence of computers and TV would ultimately look like. Paul Graham says that we now know the answer: computers. 'Convergence' is turning out to essentially be 'replacement.' Why did TV lose? Graham identifies four forces: 1. The Internet's open platform fosters innovation at hacker speeds instead of big company speeds. 2. Moore's Law worked its magic on Internet bandwidth. 3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen. 4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers — in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV."
Neither "won" (Score:3, Insightful)
Both computers and TV are still "alive".
TV's are becoming more computer-like though. With digital guides, PVR's and whatnot. Eventually it'll all be a hybrid. Do computer stuff on your TV, do TV stuff on your computer.
VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
It was obvious 10 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Even 10 years ago, it was pretty evident that it was only a matter of time before TV became obsolete. Once you could inexpensively publish online, and once a PC could do full motion video, it was only a matter of time.
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
Exagerrated (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like saying that verbal storytelling lost to books, or that books lost to radio, or radio lost to movies.
The internet, by virtue of interactivity, is far better for certain kinds of entertainment, sure, it has a competitive advantage. But sometimes you just want to sit down and receive and not interact, and that functionality will always be there, even if it's now the computer that will produce it in the future.
And there will always be demand for that sort of one way entertainment.
Facebook?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I'll take any odds that the saturation of the PC market graphed against the rise of Facebook (in, what, 2004?) shows absolutely no support for this absurd statement. I strongly suspect that PC sales more or less level off before Facebook even gains any real traction; to support this statement (that Facebook "made everybody... want computers"), you'd need to show exactly the opposite. Seriously, this is just a silly claim.
Re:Facebook?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, reasons 3 & 4 really miss the mark.
3. Piracy taught a new generation of users it's more convenient to watch shows on a computer screen.
How is it more convenient to watch video on a computer screen, than in a living room designed specifically around a television set with a large screen? This is why I own a DivX DVD player with a USB port, and why things like MythTV and Media PCs exist - so people can watch video in the optimum environment, which is not a computer or laptop sitting on a desk.
4. Social applications made everybody from grandmas to 14-year-old girls want computers â" in a three-word-nutshell, Facebook killed TV.
I don't know of a single person that bought a computer or got internet connectivity because of Facebook - or any single site for that matter. Claiming that the internet is popular because of Facebook is patently absurd. Not even Google can make such a claim.
Re:Facebook?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook is a symptom, not a cause.
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time.
I think it is stupid now, and I grew up watching TV.
Computers + TV (Score:5, Insightful)
I also realize that it will probably become easier to integrate our computers with our entertainment centers, nothing, at least at this point, makes me want to sit in front of the TV on my leather couch to surf/write emails/program/etc.
I really don't care how nicely the 2 will end up playing together. In the end, it's two seperate things that I use. Sometimes I want to sit upright in an office chair and get some work done, some playing done, or just some random stuff done. Other times I want to throw a blanket on my lap with a drink and veg to a movie.
I just don't see them mixing perfectly. I can't see them replacing either one. We will just simply have the need for both.
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years from now, people will think how stupid it was that you had to wait for your favorite TV show to come on at a specific time, rather than watching it whenever you wanted.
Also very strange, people considered it normal for their show to be interrupted periodically by attempts to sell you crap. After watching shows downloaded, going back to regular television is strange and depressing. Ads can spoil the best of programs. Yet I grew up with television and ads and it all seemed perfectly normal for years and years. Interesting how little time it takes viewing stuff without ads for it to become completely unacceptable.
"Piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Piracy" really does deliver the best convenience money can't buy.
Here is a list of crap that I won't put up with:
Unskippable DVD menus.
Region locks.
Content that expires before I'm ready to let it go.
Waiting a week longer than American audiences (BBC iplayer)
Commercials.
Ghetto satellite dish on my house.
Somebody else's schedule.
Inability to pause.
Driving to rent/buy physical media.
The redundant TV screen itself.
Yep, TV lost.
Same reason blogs lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps TV has lost for the same reason blogs have lost. Nobody wants to read/watch inane crap that somebody just pulled out of his ass in order to attract advertising attention.
What, people actually read this tripe? Nevermind; I recant. TV has a bright future.
The day "computers" are good for an evening of video entertainment with a significant other, the word will be spelled "television".
Re:Facebook?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
Re:mythtv killed TV (Score:4, Insightful)
A bigger impact is the people (like me and my friends) that don't buy or consume any TV at all, and hasn't for years.
Its hard to analyse because we are all changing, getting older and losing our spare time. TV may well be undergoing a race to the bottom as their best customers go to other media, they lose advertisers, pay less for content and lose more customers.
Some of it (kids TV) seems exactly the same now, but my son gets that on youtube as well. The repetition may be getting to us. Most of the content is rehashed year after year. Maybe TV has been done.
Not piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now yes, from a strict legal point of view, I've no doubt that still counts of piracy.
IANAL, but I believe that unless it happens on the high seas and involves forcefully robbing or commandeering a vessel, from a strict legal point of view it is not piracy.
Re:One word - ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, I can deal with the commercials; they've been there as long as I can remember.
But these days, while you're watching the show there's stuff swooping across the bottom or top third of the screen- sometimes both! Or my personal favorite- they shove the show to one side of the screen to make room for the ads. If they don't respect their own programming, why should I watch it?
Thanks but no thanks.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital broadcast TV is a huge disappointment in my book. With analog TV, bad reception results in some snow on the screen. Programs are still perfectly viewable because there are no frame dropouts, and the audio is still there. Digital TV's failure mode is generally catastrophic, with no audio, shredding of the image akin to a half-received jpeg file; it's basically unwatchable with even the slightest bad reception where you would barely notice a problem with analog.
If the degradation in quality of practical viewing had been accompanied by an increase in the quality of television programs offered, then it would be tolerable. However, the programs still suck, so I tend to spend my viewing time surfing youtube rather than surfing channels that keep cutting out.
Not right in soooo many ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers have not won...yet. And their eventual triumph is doubtful. "Convergence" hasn't really happened yet, although it is unfolding; its future configuration will be shaped by how long and how widespread the economic downturn becomes. Much of the computer hardware we are used to is finding its way into TVs; HDTV needs processing power and graphics rendering of high orders. OTOH, computer CPU power is not increasing at is old-time rate.
But more important is that the article ignores the insights of Marshall McLuhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message [wikipedia.org] . TV was a 'cool' medium, meaning we had to put its picture together in our heads. To prove that point, look at any paper Newsweek or Time cover picture of an event on a TV screen. Why does their picture look so much poorer than our TV at home? The answer is from McLuhan through psychology: the electrons (of a CRT) go through the glass and into our bodies.
His theories predicted the popularity of the Simpsons, North Beach, adult swim and countless other animated shows and series. It predicted tribalism, and TV, being real-time, is tribal by its very scheduled nature: you can watch TV with your friends at precisely the same time even if you are not together.
Computers are a very different medium. They have the potential to be very, very hot: good audio, great video; but they are not. A truly hot medium is immediate. It does not have to boot for a minute or two. It does not wait fifteen seconds for a show to load. Hot is IN YOUR FACE rightnowmutherflicker! Computers have not yet achieved that level of hotness. But random-access helps. That we can watch whenever we like a youtube video we missed and everyone else saw is much hotter than having missed a network TV show that can't be seen again until the series goes into reruns.
No, I doubt TV has lost. It has gone HD and over cable. The cable providers will be using computer-like interfaces and our home computers will gain HDTV tuners. The media they create/disseminate will be the true convergence.
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh my! How clever and powerful, three words that explain the death of TV! BRILLIANT! /sarcasm Well I have three words in return: "You are wrong."
I'll agree with this when I can only get my favorite shows through Facebook, and when if I want to sit down and casually surf the channels I have to do more than press a single button.
Nothing compares to being able to flop onto the couch, press the "On" button on a television remote, and immediately have my regularly scheduled prime time show on the screen.
Show me any computer setup that can have my show on the screen in the time it takes for me to get home tired from work, toss my shoes off, plop on the couch and just press "on" one time to be where I want to be.
Some of you resourceful nerds out there probably have such a setup, but I will offer two things preemptively to respond to that:
1) You are not nearly the norm, most people don't want the hassle of setting something like that up, and,
2) Even if they did, what does this have to do with Facebook again?
Please excuse my french, but seriously, the statement "Facebook killed TV" is just fucking stupid.
Re:Poor reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more convenient to watch them on your computer screen when you only spend a small fraction (45 minutes a day typically) watching videos. Keep in mind the living room has been designed around the TV only for the last 50 years or so. If he only watches an hour a day of video his viewpoints are going to be drastically different from someone who spends the majority of their leisure time watching ad-funded TV on the sofa.
For example I only have a TV so that my friends don't think it's odd, or so they have something to watch while eating.
Re:VOD (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
You Got Your Blinders On (Score:5, Insightful)
TV will hang on for a while yet, as will newspapers, and as will the odd brick and mortar game or music store, but the end is nigh for all of these things.
The problem here is that we are the technical elete, and many of us have blinders on that prevent us from seeing the significant number of people who do not have these types of computer based solutions, nor want them. As long as they exist and keep sending money to Jesus and buying things as seen on TV, TV the way we know it now will continue to exist. Too much money in it.
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
If the article literally means that we're all going to be crowded around computer screens to watch entertainment instead of sitting comfortably on our couches in the living room, then yeah, it's wrong. My wife and I probably spend way too much time on our computers (we're WoW addicts). But when we want to watch a "TV show" (usually a DVD of a TV show) we go into the living room. It's just way more pleasant and better set up.
If you're talking about the delivery mechanism, then yeah, it may work out that broadcasting the same signal to everyone is going away. Although even that I question. I'm wondering if the Internet infrastructure really has the bandwidth to support everyone (not just a minority of people) all doing real time streaming. I'm thinking we're at least one generation of the Internet away from such capacity.
Re:One word - ads (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Piracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
But I pay £140 a year
Ok in all honesty where in your mind does £140 even begin to cover the literally thousands of hours of production? Do you think that covers even a SINGLE employee for a SINGLE episode? THIS people is the problem with the whole "I'm a noble pirate" bs that flies around on Slashdot. The mechanisms are in no way economically sustainable.
Re:You Got Your Blinders On (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have said the same thing about the web in 1995 - I was 'technical elite'; my parents saw no point whatsoever in paying for modem dialup for that interweb thing. 10 years later, my parents see always-on broadband as a basic essential of life just as I do.
Right now, I'm (allegedly) the 'technical elite' in that I watch what little TV programming I watch online without ads and can't remember the last time I bought a physical music CD; my parents don't see the point of internet-delivered TV and still feel the need to 'own' a physical CD when they buy music. In ten years..
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's nothing like that. That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever read. Even on /.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the Internet ... except shit!
I work in media. The future of television is YouTube or similar. We know this. It'll take a few years before the Internet is a better television than television, i.e. when your connection is a better delivery mechanism than DVB-T over the air. OTOH, convenience beats quality every time.
facebook killed TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with the idea that piracy did a lot more to kill TV but it's also people's lack of care about quality. I think both digital audio and video has been a bit of a step backwards in quality (for the most part) and that's a shame.
I'm sure companies like that because they can offer the same music in a better bit-rate later and people will buy the music again and not realise the quality may still be inferior to the CD they could have bought instead and they could have created their own DRM free mp3s. The same goes for video.
Re:Piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
> The mechanisms are in no way economically sustainable.
Yes, and that's why the industry must change (not the other way around): people is not willing to pay more because Angelina Jolie "needs" to win 10 millions per film; directors must look for lower price digital production; F/X people already works with Linux clusters, etc... Like musicians that can win a lot in concerts (with the exception of Pink Floyd, but that's another story), there is a lot to be made in theaters, merchandise, etc. and yes, some good download services at a truly competitive price like the ipods'...
Re:Piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
But I pay £140 a year
Ok in all honesty where in your mind does £140 even begin to cover the literally thousands of hours of production? Do you think that covers even a SINGLE employee for a SINGLE episode? THIS people is the problem with the whole "I'm a noble pirate" bs that flies around on Slashdot. The mechanisms are in no way economically sustainable.
Apparently it does, since that's the price that was set by industry. I'm pretty sure the difference is made up by the fact that there are many more people paying that price than there are employees.
Re:Piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh brother. If his £140 not covering the salary of one person who worked on the production of the show doesn't entitle him to watch it, then why is that the price they choose to charge him to watch it?
Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I didn't get that. You're aware of course that they make their money not from the subscription fees of a single individual, but from producing a product that they sell to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, right?
I can't quite accept, "You paid for it, but you will watch it when we say you can watch it, unless you recorded it when we said you could watch it, then you can watch it later - but not if you didn't record it when we said you can watch it but instead got the same thing from somewhere else, then watched it later, that's just unacceptable."
He paid for it. Time shifting is legal. Time shifting does not dictate what mechanism is used to shift. Get over it.
Re:Piracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Erm ... if the £140 didn't sustain the BBC, then how would they stay in business? Because that's the same amount that everyone else is paying - if it's not enough, then that's there own stupid fault for not charging enough.
I'm confused as to your point. I'm not watching anymore than I used to, I'm just getting the same material via the Internet rather than TV. I'm not paying any less than I would if I just watched TV the usual way. How much do you pay per year for TV? I don't think you understand basic economics at all - sure, £140 may not cover a single employee, but each episode can be sold to millions of people.
It would be like moaning for someone who pays £10 for a CD, claiming "Do you think it only cost £10 to produce that CD?" Aside from being illogical, because the variable costs are far less than the fixed costs, it is also clearly false, because £10 is the value that the record companies themselves have set. Similarly here, the figures here are not amounts that I thought were enough, they are the figures set by the BBC and the cable company.
And if being funded by a mandatory tax of £140 per year, that must be paid by TV owners whether they watch the BBC or not, isn't "economically sustainable", then I'm not sure what is!
Re:VOD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:5, Insightful)
When the PC boots up in 3 seconds, has a monitor at least 24" or more across, is placed in the most comfortable room in the house (after the bedroom), has no associations with work, requires ZERO brain effort, switches channels at the touch of one button and can be operated with one hand via a small remote control while the other hand holds a beer or fishes in a packet of Salt'n'Vinegar crisps for the last crumbs...
Then the PC will win. Don't see it happening though.
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of thumb: The Internet never has enough bandwidth for everybody to do what the power users are currently doing.
Correlary: It will by the time everybody bothers to try.
Infrastructure improves. When pace of growth of Infrastructure outpaces paces of growth in requirements, new requirements are created. When requirements outpace infrastructure, it simply spurs investment in infrastructure. The worst case scenario if everybody tries something currently considered bandwidth intensive is simply that they find it annoying slow and don't bother to do it again soon. Usage patterns are thus self correcting and make use of the available capacity.
There was a time when the idea that everybody with a Network connection would send a 320x240 GIF to somebody every single week would have implied an "Internet Meltdown." Things change. They stay the same.
Re:I'm not dead yet (Score:3, Insightful)
What, exactly, is stopping you from plugging a computer into your nice big TV surrounded by couches? Other than a complete and utter lack of imagination?
For the price of a decent 5.1 sound system you can buy a nice computer to plug into that TV and do all your streaming in the "correct" room. Plus with another $50 you can add in a HDTV antenna and have a complete solution. Vista even comes with the software, Media Center, that takes care of most of it for you for free.
That would be why computers won. I have no idea how you got modded up, except apparently at least 4 moderators are also unaware that you can plug TVs into computers.
Re:Same reason blogs lost? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Internet calls television inane and tripe. :D
Call me a luddite, I really want to keep computing divorced from television viewing. TV is passive spectator sport. I shouldn't be encouraged to click around. I rue the day when popup interstitials during the actual show aren't the most annoying thing in my TV viewing, but on-screen hyperlinks, encouraging me to press a button on my remote to immediately pause the show and launch a browser window so that I can instantly buy an item worn by my show's protagonist.
I'm still hoping that the convergence of the Internet, computing, and television will lead to a scenario where I can finally virtualize and aggregate television markets. Like many people in this generation, I live in multiple TV markets. I care about local news and local perspectives in Chicago and in Los Angeles and in Phoenix. I want local news from all three markets, as well as local programming. Traditional broadcast laws prevent me from being able to have the ABC affiliate broadcast through my TV while I'm in Phoenix (it creates competition with the Phoenix affiliate). And streaming "clips" online just doesn't cut it for me.
It convergence eventually does favor the consumer, I should be able to watch WGN Chicago, and not WGN Superstation when I'm not there; not to mention PBS Chicago. PBS Phoenix doesn't interest me.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
TV still has an important advantage over the PC. It is not generally related to work at all, can be restricted to a pure entertainment level, requires no brain effort, has a remote control and is generally placed just in front of the most comfortable armchairs and sofas in the house...although more and more of these TVs have desktops, laptops, iPods, Tivos, Wiis, Xboxes, PS3s or other computer-like devices connected to them most of the time.
This isn't a case of either/or. It's a case of TV having lost a long time ago.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't make sense?
Re:facebook killed TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, why is Television still a better delivery mechanism? I don't have to go out and spend extra thousands to watch HD content on my computer screen...
Re:VOD (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiting a year is fine if you live in a vacuum. However, when your friends are all talking about the last episode of Lost or Dr Who that aired the night before, don't you feel a little left out?
Re:You Got Your Blinders On (Score:1, Insightful)
I consider myself "technical elite" but I still would rather have a physical product in some circumstances.
For instance, DVD's. I'd rather buy DVD's than download video files. Why? Because I have a typical slow-ass American "broadband" connection. It's faster than the average, but it's still slow. Downloading video is insanely slow. Worse yet, it's notorious for being tied down to some corporate overlord. You can avoid the corporate overlord by downloading from a torrent, but you take the risk of running afoul of the morality police at the ISP.
I don't feel the same about music, as music files are much smaller and more manageable than video over a DSL connection.
As shitty American ISP's get their shit together and sell better connections, these needs for physical product will fade.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
At least real TV is, for the time being, DRM-free.
Yes, CableCARD has a bunch of BS DRM, but you can get a component video capture card and hook up a cable box to it with an IR blaster and record anything you want, probably even PPV.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
>>I suspect digital broadcast TV is going to swing the pendulum back a bit.
No way! The summary says that "Facebook killed TV", and I have to agree.
Sitting there staring at my screen for hours waiting for my friends to update is a hundred times more preferable to watching Sister, Sister or 90210.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who grew up with analog TV knows better.
You lost sound.
You lost horizontal and vertical sync. You had snow and you had ghosts. Color introduced you to whole new levels of pain.
The solution to bad reception was a good antenna.
Dad brought out the forty foot ladder to mount a big Winegard on the roof. You watched him drive a ground stake in with a sledge until his face turned purple.
Your neighbor who clung to his rabbit ears as "good enough" was full of it then - and he is full of it now.
However, the programs still suck
The Boston Symphony in live performance New Year's Eve does not suck. The Leafs and Sabres in overtime - also broadcast in 1080i - does not suck.
This is the experience YouTube can't deliver.
Oh, come on..... (Score:3, Insightful)
We have reached new heights of ridiculous, premature geek hyperbole. TV is nowhere near dead. Go to any random neighborhood, of any income level, and poll the residents. How many of the households use their computers for their primary (an important distinction) means of receiving and watching video content versus how many are getting it on a dedicated receiver via cable, satellite, or OTA? TV as a distinct medium is alive and well, and isn't going away anytime soon. TV programming delivered online is certainly becoming another choice, among many, to get our daily dose of information and escapism. But it has hardly become anywhere near the conventional, common, default option. Come talk to me in about 20 years and maybe we will be having a different conversation.
This is so typical of the demographic that tends to be attracted to sites like Slashdot. Younger, better educated, technically savvy, etc. A small subset of the citizenry that tends to be automatically and passionately enamored of anything new, different, and "cool." Hardly descriptive of the U.S. population as a whole. Networks and cable channels are still viable business entities, advertisers and content providers still make money hand over fist, and TV sets are still flying off store shelves every day. Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in the minority here -- you are the unconventional freaks and not in any way representative of the typical American.
Right now, this is not about obsolescence or a wholesale quantum shift in the way we do things -- it is about having different options for achieving the same goal, and about expanding choices, not locking everybody into some new paradigm. TV via the Web is just another available option, among many. It is an excellent choice for people who spend much of their lives in front of their computers anyway. Most people -- most normal people don't use their computers as a 24/7 umbilical cord. Sure, they surf the Web, and maybe even watch some videos there (especially unusual, quirky, or amateur content that is not available through conventional TV). They also watch TV, listen to the radio, listen to ipods, read books, go to the theater (cinema or stage), attend live concerts, take long walks, play with their kids, indulge in a hobby, screw their significant others, and have pleasant conversations with their friends and loved ones (whether by phone or -- horror -- face to face), and more. All of these activities are still regarded as rather distinct entities, all are important to a well-rounded life, and they do not have to be all combined, integrated, and streamlined into a single delivery source in one magic box.
This thread reminds me of that guy a few weeks back who was beside himself figuring out how to set up a computer to provide live, streaming video of the Inauguration to his students via the Web, when the simplest, most practical and effective solution was to simply drag a TV into the classroom and turn it on. Folks, everything doesn't have to be accomplished in some new, flashy, and high tech manner -- sometimes, perhaps most of the time, the tried and true solutions still work best for most of us.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to agree. I'd be more inclined to predict that a convergence of mobile phone and TV will replace 'computers' although the definition of a computer is quite fuzzy (by a lot of metrics, a modern TV and a mobile phone both count). A modern phone has a 600MHz+ CPU, a DSP and a GPU that can handle H.264. Drop it in a docking station connected to a big screen, and you've got everything most people need for a computer, including Internet access. Add a bluetooth keyboard and you can do everything you would with a computer.
That's not to say I expect broadcast TV to be around for very much longer. The only TV programs I watch these days are streamed from iPlayer or rented on DVD. The concept of watching something at a broadcast time already seems horribly anachronistic to me. Some airwaves may be reserved for broadcasting popular shows, but these will end up being recorded automatically and watched on-demand, and the broadcast element is likely to go away as a user interface model.
Re:Digital broadcast (Score:3, Insightful)
1080 looks drop-dead gorgeous even on your refurbished 37" Sam's Club Vizio.
Is this a cruel joke? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article, "The second is Moore's Law, which has worked its usual magic on Internet bandwidth. "
From where I sit, that sounds like a cruel joke, particularly when juxtaposed with news stories about how far behind the USA is in broadband penetration.
I've been on Wi-Fi for I forget how many years now (a decade at least?), during which time my computer has gone through a couple of replacement cycles and is now several times as fast. During that same time my internet bandwidth has increased not at all. (I tried DSL at one point, but it was no better.) So where is Moore's Law for bandwidth? I don't see it here.
I can't even watch a YouTube video without having to pause for buffering every once in a while. Is this supposed to be the replacement for my satellite TV? I have Dish Network with a tivo-like recorder and HD now, so it has arguably improved more during the last decade than anything on my computer.
Nor is there any immediate prospect for improvement on the computer side. I talked to my ISP about this. A couple of years ago the CEO was talking about going to Wi-Max, but wanted to wait until the technology was more standardized and proven. Now he's saying it's unaffordable, and it wouldn't help anyhow because the real bottleneck is his connection to the next regional hub.
The other thing to remember. . . For what it does -- distributing the same information to a large number of people -- broadcasting is several orders of magnitude more efficient than the internet can be, by the very nature of its design. It may have a smaller role, but broadcasting isn't going to disappear anytime soon.