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... --
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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!"
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.