How Many TV Channels Will There Be In The Future?

The Importance of writes "MediaPost reports that, for the first time since it has been tracked, the average number of receivable television channels per household has stopped increasing and even decreased a bit. Perhaps we're not going to hit that 500 channel future people used to talk about. TV executives are, of course, worried about this and want answers. Is this just a temporary plateau or the beginning of a long-term trend? Will DVRs reverse this slide or are they part of the problem? Are we heading into a channel-free future or do channels still have value?"

Comments

This may be because

[Kethinov]

This may be because TV is becoming less popular as a whole. Much of the younger generation spends its time on the internet now, and many just download their favorite TV shows. Losing a sizable percentage of viewers would easily facilitate a drop in available channels.

Re:This may be because

[ScoLgo]

"Much of the younger generation spends its time on the internet now, and many just download their favorite TV shows."

Spot on. Another reason for the decline of television viewing is games. Personally, I'd much rather plug in something interactive instead of passively sitting in front of the tube.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

probably not all TV execs are worried...

[jdallien]

The TV execs who were busy inventing new specialty channels are likely worried, but folks over at the traditional major networks might not feel so bad about a decrese in channel numbers. More choices pull audiences away from the mainstream primetime shows where the major networks want as many viewers as possible (just like everyone else does).

As channel numbers grow advertising dollars must be getting fragmented as well. Harder to sell ads on new channels when advertisers are already trying to cover as many markets as they can.

Re:probably not all TV execs are worried...

[0racle]

No one would have to worry if they stopped worrying about raw viewership and worried about actually putting some decent programming on. Specialty channels are a great idea, except they only have 4-6 hours a day of unique programming which is repeated 4-6 times a day. If you saw Star Trek at noon, you don't watch it again at 4 then at 11 or whatever, because you already saw that episode.

There Won't Be Any Channels

[Anonymous Coward]

TV Programming as we know it will be obsolete. All video will eventually become streaming to individual televisions so that humans don't have to modify their schedules for shows. The only real time people will watch real-time broadcasted shows are for the new episode of a sitcom, a sports event, or a special/awards show.

Don't we have enough?

[Mister Transistor]

Isn't 7 HBO's and 5 Showtimes and 100 PPV's enough?

They don't seem have enough programming to fill the channels that are existing. Try surfing around 2:00 AM - Do we really need 200 more Infomercial channels?

I guess they could make do with a few more p0rn channels, though :)

Re:I'll tell you why.

[w42w42]

Congress has talked about doing away with bundling, letting subscribers pick and choose channels. If that happens, watch the crud channels die away as no one subscribes to them - accentuating this apparent trend of fewer channels.

The ironic part is that those channels that may not get the audience now may in the future under a law like this thrive, driving other channels out.

Something else that I find ironic is such a scheme would promote a free market in cable channels - quality would matter again. If Congress doesn't pass this law though I suspect it will only be because of contributions from 'free market' capitalists heading these cable companies.