Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Is the matrix just one channel?
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
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.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
500 Channels and there's nothing on!
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
People still watch television? I thought it was just for watching dvds...
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.
In the future there'll be 10,000 channels and still nothing on.
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.
that you can't decide whats on them.
or 1 'channel' that _you_ decide what's on it.
which one is going to be the better choice? I'd go with the "insanely big medialibrary at home that gets updated over the net constantly and you can watch whatever you please whenever you plase" solution('resourceful' people can have it today already..).
excuse me I'll go back to laughin my ass off at some monty python episodes..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
I thought that the idea was that eventually we'd select the content that we wanted which would then be delivered via broadband technology to each user at the time that we wanted to see it. No more of this lousey, "what's on at 8:00?" stuff and if you wanted to see episode 34 of some show you'd just call it up.
Honestly, there's so little on TV that I want to watch anymore. I get my news via Internet so I can select which stories I am interested in and I can get a lot more detail than the 30 second spot news items that seems so prevalent nowadays. For movies, I go to the theater or rent/buy a DVD. The latter allow me to watch when I want and even pause if I need a break for an incoming phone call or to go to the toilet or refrigerator.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Who is trying to get directv, dishnet, C band, and FTA Kuband setup, already has basic cable (and is busy hacking digital cable), not to mention that I've getting things ready for broadcast (finally putting out a decent antenna)... let me say that this is just stupid BS.
Then again, since I'm not paying for any of the above (cable maybe, I do have cable internet), this won't do anything to alleviate the concerns of media marketdroids. Oh well.
This wasn't interesting enough for the slash editors to publish. Go figure. My opinion, as a internet TV operator is that all TV will move to the internet, just as rabbit ear television moved to cable. Nuff said.
I wonder if, when the net broadcast and broadband technologies grow some more popular, people will start 'en masse' their own homebrew TV channels. Say, a team of 10 ppl team up, and every sunday and thursday from 1PM till midnight broadcast their own TV over the net.
:)
1PM-2:30 - Jam Session - our band. Good non-commercial rock
2:30-3:00 - Gamer's Box. Something about cool games we've played recently.
3:00-3:30 - Best of Demos - our best games of the week recorded. Also tricks and tutorials.
3:30 - 4:00 - Website Picks. Some of our favourite newly-found.
4:00 - 5:00 - The Board! - Skateboarding on the backyard. New tricks.
5:00 - 6:00 - Random Weirdness. (interesting stuff caught on camera by one of the guys who walks around the town with the camera a lot)
6:00 - 6:30 - Theatre of Madness. (a show)
6:30 - 7:00 - 20 questions. Talk show.
7:00 - 7:30 - By Kids For Kids.
7:30 - 8:00 - News.
8:00 - 9:30 - Best Picks Of Old Movies (abandonware style)
9:30 - 11:00 - More Rock
11:00 - 12:00 - Adult Talk And More. (say, a dare to the best sluts of the school to show their stuff on TV
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It seems that bundling actually reduces choices, and therefore reduces competition. Reminds me of MS.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
In the future I wouldn't be suprised to see vast number of channels as costs for having a station decrease. Right now most channels just show reruns and cheap talk shows and they do alight. The real question is going to be if the "big" channels try to push for legislation to make it more expensive for people to compete at creating a new station. Right now most of hte major stations are "family oriented" and remove anything that might be scary or objectionable from daytime lineup. The cable tv channels are much smaller and generally cater to a specific subset of the audience. Because of the internet I can see channels like these being able to target their specific subgroup much more efficiently and thus become more successful. I wouldn't be suprosed to see 500+ channels in the next 20 years.
Given that there are a finite number of viewers - and the market is pretty much saturated, who would be the extra eyeballs to expand the market?
Whether TV is paid for by advertising or by subscription: that finite number of people fixes the total amount of cash that's available for making programs.
If there are more channels - then there must either be vastly more reruns - or vastly lower production costs for new shows. Neither of those are very acceptable to either viewership or advertisers - both of whom want new, high quality shows.
I don't understand how anyone ever thought this would be a sustainable model.
www.sjbaker.org
Yeah, it stands to reason that a central server and place the box and recording stuff back somewhere else. Then rather than channels there will be giant lists of every episode of certain shows. Such as what if I want to watch the old show "Freaks and Geeks". From an econimic standpoint there is a demand for this show, but, not enough to dedicate a channel to it.
In the future, I'll be able to just request this show. And only a few things will be real-time. Also, filler crud will be worthless. No sence ramping up to bogus stuff. If I order a movie from pay per view (commercial free), I'll have access to it as long as I have my sat service.
There won't be commercials. I'll just pay like 5-10 cents to order up an episode of an old show. $1 dollar for a crappy old movie. $3 dollars for a crappy newer movie. But, once I order it I'll get access to it whenever. Or order entire seasons of shows for like $2 or so.
I could just tell it I want to watch every episode of Babylon 5, and just veg out for a few days.
As a side note, if you know where to go to download stuff, it's kinda like this now. I don't actually have TV but I watch all the shows I want, when I want. Just save me the bandwidth of bothering and charge me a dime.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
While we will probably be able to see anything we want at any time in the not too distant future, the compelling reason to even plant one's butt in the chair is often missing.
Content! If there is no appealing content, there is no reason to watch. Even some that is appealing is only marginally so.
Even some of the 'educational' programs that I like suffer from the same issues as the local news.
1) They tell me what they are going to tell me.
2) Tell me.
3) Tell me what they've told me.
Really, you only need to tell me once. In my opinion, what is limiting 500 channels is that there really aren't 500 channels worth of content.
Don't even get me started on Fox's decision on Firefly.
Unless the major media find some way of controlling the Internet, television will become obsolete. Nobody trusts the networks to deliver objective news; 99.9% of the stuff on television is crap.
The Internet gives people the ability to get what they want when they want, kind of like Tivo, but as innovative as Tivo is, it's still at the mercy of the cable companies who continue to wrestle for control over what the viewer should have access to.
As soon as the technology makes video-on-demand more practical and homogenous, TV will die, as will the major networks.
Then we'll employ sophisticated content distribution schemes, similar in nature to RSS allowing users to create their own "channel" of content they are interested in. By the time corporate america realizes that this is a formidible force, it will be too late, but then the fearmongering will begin: regulation, control, jockeying for manipulation of the backbones and NAPs, but still end users will (hopefully) fight for their right to publish and get whatever content they want online.
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.
More channels?
I'm still waiting for a brightness knob that actually works. The vast majority of shows and channels in general are garbage.
And have you noticed that a lot of the ads are resembling on line spam more and more? How about a version of spamassassin for the tv?
Personally I believe there will be a fundamental change in tv in the next 10 years. Digital recorders will make it easier to capture just the shows you are interested in (hopefully with a nice feature to automatically eleminate any ads). As such the idea of a "channel" may start to disappear. Rarely are there two shows back to back that are worth watching. And for movies I usually wait for them to come out on DVD and buy that instead of going to the movies or waiting for it to come out on HBO or one of the other pay channels. This allows me to watch the movie when and where I want.
So with DVR's allowing us to record and view broadcast episodic shows at will and DVD's providing a better movie experience the standard broadcast TV stations will have to learn new tricks.
I can only hope that this will lead to actual higher quality shows (possibly with out ads) which enough people will be willing to pay for on a per episode basis. Almost like waiting to buy the DVD of your favorite TV show such as Stargate SG-1.
However, pay-per-channel would case some of the crammed-on spinoff networks such as NickToons, Cartoon Network's Boomerang, and ESPNews to falter. There just wouldn't be enough demand for those to continue.
Sure, some new niche networks would form based on demand, but others that nobody asked for would be checking out.
With team of, say, 20 people it would be possible.
There are already multiple webcast radios like that. For now the technology is the worst barrier for moving from sound to video, but it seems like the most obvious next step. Work? Sure. Start lower profile, 3-4h once a week, gain some fans, more people will join in, extend it, get sponsors, maybe grow into a real station...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
'Oh, a tv. Can we watch a while!'
'No, dear, we better just leave quietly. I hear that it makes you fat.'
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
But here's what it has to be in order for me to pay money for satellite/cable:
1. Channels are sold "a la carte". If I want only Discovery and Food Network I should be able to purchase just them.
2. Paid (i.e. non-free) channels DO NOT air commercials. You can't have it both ways, folks. Either make the programming free or don't air commercials.
3. Pay per view stuff is a BUCK per movie, not 4.95. Set the price at whatever you want for events (sports, etc.), but movies can be rented locally on DVD for a buck a night. Therefore $4.95 is an unreasonable price.
What will die along with this will be the 30-second stand-alone commercial. Instead product placement will probably become dynamic like the virtual billboards now shown in stadiums (ie the soda can in the hand of the star will appear to be whatever beverage bid highest for that slot in that market.) Or more tie-ins: "Click *here* to buy the soundtrack to this episode!", "Click *here* to buy the outfits" & "Click *here* to book a vacation here!"...
Another obvious revenue source will be more subscription services. However instead of buying blocks of programming in the form of channels the market will probably move on down to the program level. Want to watch the first run of "Star Trek: The Series XXIII"? That'll be a buck on your bill. Tomorrow it'll be half that and next week will be the freebie broadcast.
An advantage of this will be the ability of really niche programming to become a la carte.
For instance I've had my TiVo waiting a few years for a rebroadcast of Gerry & Sylvia Anderson's 70's British TV show "UFO" (the series bridging "Thunderbirds" & "Space 1999"). However hopefully in tomorrow's TV universe I'll be able to get it distributed when I want for a few bucks, or cheaper if I'm willing to be put on a wait list and get it once a critical mass of subscribers have signed up.
That sort of fan-base marketing could become very important. Small time productions that used to never get beyond their own community will slowly become available to more folks. Want to watch the local access programming in the Madeleine Islands? Sure, that'll be $5, they'll make back $1. "Wayne's World" will be open to everyone.
But "channels"? That'll be so old-school, like "long distance calls" and "analog media".
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
If there's one.
What the hell IS a "channel"? Just another metaphor for a file folder?
Oh, yeah, I can dig having a "Sci-Fi Channel", a "Playboy Channel", a whatever, to some degree. At least I know the overall genre it refers to. But a CBS? An ABC? An NBC? A TNN? What the hell is that? A conglomeration of crap mixed in with one or two (if we're lucky) useful media.
Someone once told me while window browsing, "I'm always amazed at how much stuff I DON'T want to buy." The same is true of the media. Obviously someone wants to buy it because it gets made and sold. But then most humans are morons, so this is no surprise.
It's a database issue. I want to find the stuff I like and ignore the stuff I don't. Give me a database with appropriate metadata, a good - REALLY good - search function, and links. Screw channels.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I don't know about other people, but I view channels simply as a feeder system. I have a long list of shows that I've programmed into my VCR to tape and I watch what I want when I have the time. For people with PVRs and the ability to record programs the system might think you're interested in, it must be an even better way of watching television.
I honestly believe that quality of the best programs has risen further than anything we had in the past but that the average quality has gone down because of all the channels that have to be filled up, obviously creating a situation where a lot of dreck is being produced. Under that paradigm, there is no reason to even bother with the notion of 'channels'.
If you watch TV as I and PVR owners do, then there are obviously a lot of channels you have no need for. Women's TV? Spanish/Italian/French etc channels? E!? Sorry, don't need them, don't want 'em. I could ditch half the channels I have and wouldn't even notice.
I probably haven't explained myself clearly but I think that's one reason why the number of channels people are subscribing to are shrinking.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Which is kind of unfortunate. One can subscribe to C-band satellite, there is actually a standardized scrambling system, and you can chose your suppliers. Sure, you pay more up front, but I added up the costs for all the channels I wanted, and I think it was the 20 channels I wanted for $15 a month. You can pick and chose which satellite to pull in from too since the system redirects the dish if you pick a channel that's carried by a different satellite. So you have dozens of available satellites in the visible portion of the Clarke belt with up to a couple dozen channels each.
It's too bad that C-band is heavily regulated against by housing associations and zoning boards.
Seriously, how long before channels like "Fox" and "CBS" cease to exist, to be replaced by channels named after entire TV franchises? Hell, TNT *is* the Law & Order channel!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
On a panel at a Jupiter conference in 1994, my business partner, Ellen White, hit the nail on the head. She commented: "I don't want 500 channels. I want one channel that's all mine." The point was -- and still is -- that the "channel" concept sucks. There's enough CPU cycles floating around that my "entertainment box", whatever that is, should be smart enough to show me Red Sox games and NOT show me tampon ads.
Here is what I see in the next decade:
#1 1000 Channels to subscribe to, different SAP channels for different languages so it can go global.
#2 On demand video, this will mean that a media provider will have each show or movie stored digitally and can serve the show or movie on demand at any time the viewer wants to see it. An additional fee will be charged for this service.
#3 Digital Video Recorders will replace VHS Tapes and DVD disks. Instead of disks, memory sticks or memory cubes will be used which can store gigabytes of information on them. Your Computer or Digital Video Recorder can read these sticks or cubes. There will be a new form of copy protection added to the media format used to store these shows and movies on the cubes and sticks.
#4 Movie Theaters will change from the movie film format to the digital movie format. Using sticks and cubes, the movies will be in a much better quality. This will also allow a much faster time to be released on home video than DVD or VHS tapes would be converted. This will be done to foil the Internet Video Pirates by releasing the movie in a quicker time and a better quality. A video screen format will be used to reflect light off the screen in such a way that digital cam corders cannot record it, but the human eye can see it.
#5 We will see partnerships of movie companies to cable and satelite companies.
#6 Cable and Satelite will find they are competing with Wireless media companies. As the WIFI and Cell phone technology gets cheaper, companies will be providing the same programming via Wireless means in various neighborhoods. Soon the technology will be so cheap and so fast than normal shows and movies can be transmitted over it. Also the wireless service can be used for cell phones, broadband Internet conections, security systems, and Voice over IP home and business phones.
#7 Media companies will provide shopping, something so revolutionary that you can pause a movie or show and click on any object on the screen and bring up more information on it to buy it or find out more about it. This will give new meaning to commercials, were the whole movie is one big commercial and anything in the movie can be ordered or gotten more information on.
#8 Once wireless and satelite compete with cable, there will be a big price war. The Federal Government might have to step in to regulate things.
#9 Wireless media means you can take your receiver with you anywhere there is service for it. Not as messy as adjusting a dish or getting cable hooked up again. It will revolutionizethe media business.
#10 The cost of having your own cable/satelite/wireless channel will go down, more organizations and people will start to offer more of them, giving the viewers more of a choice. If Howard Stern gets banned from one channel, he can simply start his own channel, for example. There also will be music channels for bands that want to have their music listened to without going through a recording company.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Channels are brands, and brands equate to specific styles or types of content. The way of presenting content to now, via broadcast TV, has been temporally linear.
When we figure out an awesome way of delivering content to the masses that doesn't rely on waiting for a specific time and date on which to receive that content, the concept of a "channel" *may* disappear in favor of something similar to iTunes for your TV set.
But the channels, as brands, will survive. NBC will continue to make sitcoms. People (slashdotters at least) will say "Oh, a new show from Sci-Fi. I'm gonna check that one out."
And there'll be previews of each show available, and if you *want* to, you'll be able to stream all the content from a particular brand, so you can sit there all day and not have to move-- just like now. There will probably be a whole menu full of streams, that will make the "on-demand" act just like TV acts today.
So no, I think the channel isn't going anywhere. It'll just change a bit in synch with technology.
When TV first came on the scene, it was predicted that radio would go away. When the VCR was invented some thought that cinemas would vanish. Neither has happened. Even oldfashioned books, magazines and newspapers are still very much alive.
Just because a new way of distributing information and entertainment appears, doesn't mean the total demise of the previous technologies.
You have a point. However, I think the significance of your point is questionable. I would argue that television DID kill radio. Radio as a focal point of news and entertainment as it was prior to the proliferation of television is no more. It has been replaced by television. Radio still exists not because it hasn't been encroached by television, but because there are a few "convenience issues" that make television impractical where radio works -- the most obvious of this is in vehicles. What do people do when they come home? Do they turn on the TV or the radio? The vast majority turn on the television. Radio is dead as a mainstream means of communicating, informing and entertaining the populace at large. The last few nails in the coffin were laid down by companies like Clear Channel that have sought to make the medium even more soulless.
Television is heading the same route, primarily due to it's ironic ability to oversaturate itself and its own value as a productive source of information and quality entertainment.
Anyone who has had the pleasure to own a Tivo unit recognizes that such technology has the capability to "save television" but because of the outdated desire of media companies wishing to control the content their listeners have access to (or more importantly, the terms and limitations of how that content should be accessed), they're going to kill the expansion of Tivo and the last hope for the medium.
The Internet is definitely NOT like radio or television - there will always be a place for radio and tv, but when I say it's "obsolute", I don't mean people won't listen or watch, but the value of the medium to the people will be greatly diminished in lieu of newer technologies that give consumers more choices. More channels of CRAP however, are not more choices.
There is a fundamental paradigm shift now occuring in television that earlier occurred in radio, that isn't as prominent on the Internet. That's the homogonization of content. Radio became too formulaic and narrow in the demographic market it sought to attract; the same thing has happened to television, leaving a larger-yet-more-widely-demographically-dispersed group of people feeling disenfranchised that are now turning to the Internet as their new source of information and entertainment. And this trend is increasing, which to me, indicates tv is obsolete.
That's easy! Exactly four.
Here's the list:
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Yeah except most C-Band dish's are 5-10' across, significantly larger than the 1m exemption that the FCC gives. In fact the only C-Band dish I am aware of under 1m is the phased array type used for RV's. The exemption was basically written for the DISH Network/DirectTV type applications.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
No more recording Gomer Pyle while watching the football game, but they'll be screaming "Surprise, surprise, surprise" when the TV industry tanks on the 'broadcast bit'.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
RIAA: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!
MPAA: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!
Cable TV: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!
These are people who just got run over by the cluetrain. It came, it tried to deliver, but the station was empty because the receivers were sitting on the tracks having their lunch break. It's really a shame, because if they were paying attention they would know that their customers have been complaining to them for years about how they're not getting what they want, what it is they want, and how it should be delivered.
And now they want the government to save them. Puhleeze.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
If programme distributors, such as Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB operation in the UK, were forced to sell their wears on a channel by channel basis they would hike their charges hugely.
What most people don't realise is that the distributing companies get paid by the channel operators to transmit thier content. Less channels == less income for BSkyB.
Not only this, but by bundling the costs of the charging infrastructure are greatly reduced. It doesn't matter if the viewers don't want 200 knitting channels which spend 18 hours of the day as shopping or text a scantilly clad woman programmes as the advertising blurb can tell the punters that there are n channels available to them (where n is a large number). They can make the excuse for their high subscription charges as "Well, you are getting hundreds of channels for that money."
It's not in anyone in the media's interest, other than the old, higher quality channels, to restrict this "growth."
In the end the growth will be curtailed once the advertising revenue is spread so thinly and evenly that no more money is available to run any new services. It will also mean that over the x00 stations there will be nothing worth watching unless you're into cheap shows displaying the base values of the lowest common denominator. No-one will be able to afford to make any good programmes anymore, well, unless they're a premium channel only the rich can afford.
Thankfully, in the UK we do have the BBC which, although it has gone more for ratings than for quality over the last 15 or so years, is at least keeping the base quality level for the "main" channels higher. I'm sure that without it there would be far more programmes such as "The World's Greatest Dog Poo" on the other channels.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
Too many channels on tv are repeating movies and programs that have been seen a dozen times on their own channel and you turn to their sister network a few weeks later and it is premiering again.
Their are too many shows locked in the vaults and someone is controlling what goes out. Ever notice that different channels many times have the same actor for the entire month, in different movies. It happens way to many times to be a coincidence. Oh yeah they just happen to be out in a new movie in the theatre, HMMM!
Like we really need 3 more golf channels, and 6 football channels, and a dozen more shopping channels.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The channels that have value are the "theme" channels: stuff like Discovery, the Sci-Fi channel, Comedy Central, HGTV, TechTV, etc. If I am bored, want a good laugh, but don't know any of the shows currently on, then chances are Comedy Central has something funny. If I am bored mid-day and want something interesting, then TechTV or Discovery would be a good choice. Theme channels are where you can go to learn what shows you like to watch, so that you can TiVo them later. Conversely, I see the networks being less and less important as PVRs get more and more popular. I can see all the major shows going into syndication based models, with product placements.
- Pause, fast forward, rewind, check
- Still ads, but you can fast foward through them or use 30-second skip
- Can't really help you there, all I can say is don't watch the crap you don't want to watch.
- Same as above
- Check. If you just thumbs-up and thumbs-down shows you like and dislike, it'll get pretty good at recording suggestions for you. If you want more control you can do some really nice things with wishlists.
Seriously, the TiVo is exactly what you're begging for. It lets you watch exactly what you want on your schedule, instead of when some executive somewhere thinks would get the best ratings.Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.