Broadband Usage Up, TV Usage Down

jZnat writes "BBC Tech News reports that the increased usage of broadband internet in Europe is cutting into the viewing of television. This is mainly due to the decreased price of broadband in Europe and the usefulness of the internet. Is it possible that the usefulness of TV has decreased with the internet so expansive these days?"

Comments

Re:Not surprising

[jpaz]

I don't even watch news on TV anymore. With so many news sites on the net, which I can view at my leisure, there's no real reason to wait until the 6 o'clock news.

Re:well as for me

[Vicsun]

Same here. As a matter of fact, I don't even have a TV due to the taxes I need to pay for having it + the space it takes in my already limited living space.
I do have a tuner in my computer, but I still rarely watch TV. Movies found on the 'net are better than ones shown on TV *cough* and google news provides a greater variety of news than CNN.

Re:End of the force-feeding, or ignorance==strengt

[fajaboard]

whether people are mostly visiting the major media companies' sites or are seeing more independent stuff

I agree with this statement, and would speculate that it is more the latter, at least with the Slashdot crowd.

However, even going to something like msnbc.com online is better than watching msnbc on tv for most people because you can read the stories you want when you want without sitting through all the garbage.

Even the "Science" channels suck now

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharks and Motorcycles, 24/7. Who watches this trash? How many stupid motorcycles will these gorillas build before folks get bored and move on?

Re:Internet Red Shift

[Doc Ruby]

I'm smoking out media terrorists across the dial. If the "Dan Rather" episode you're talking about is his Bush TXANG memo screwup this summer, you're illustrating my point exactly. Rather bought the Rove disinformation perfectly, finally killing the story of Bush's avoidance of even his cushy stateside Vietnam assignment. By killing the messenger, when the story itself is true, and compelling: those copies of the memos were apparently fake, as confirmed by the dead author's secretary who confirmed the truth of the facts in the simulated memos. The TV delivery of "the story" is now "Dan Rather faked the memos", not "Bush was AWOL". When you can cross-reference the soundbytes with the Internet, you at least get doubt of "official stories" like the misdirection of that one. Which means their propaganda effect, never strong enough to counter the facts of the story itself, is diffused enough that the facts have a fighting chance.

It's long been documented how "Hollywood" produces fiction that supports "progressive" values, like sharing, getting along despite differences, talking about problems critically, giving people a chance, etc, much more than they're supported in the rest of the culture. So what? If it actually affected anything, those values would be supported more in the culture as a result. It gives the media corporations room to sanitize their news and other information consistent with their corporate values of sucking as much profit as possible from productive American workers and the environment.

Where do I come up with this stuff? I dunno, after flipping through the dozen or so cable "news" analysis programs this morning, their fake journalists flapped their way through their required, toothless "criticism" so well that I won't be surprised to see Baghdad Bob opposite Oliver North sometime soon. As noted a "sharp critic" as Tim Russert can interview the "president" of Iraq, asking him how they can possibly have elections in two months, without mentioning that the war is getting ever more catastrophic every day. The American colonial governor (er, President) can burble that "sure, some are reluctant to join the process", and Russert can move on to the next question. It draws off the pressure, because "the questions are being asked", without truth or accuracy entering the picture.

Forget Fox News... all that broadcast crap is astroturf for the corporations running the show. Not that they're not pumping their pap into the Net, but the point is that their entire game is off when people can communicate more directly with each other. When their independent experiences filter the talking points, the dissonance shakes the lies apart. Fake corporate "news" depends on uniformity and consistency to move fluidly through the national consciousness. Alternatives make it much more difficult for spokesmodels to pretend they actually know what they're talking about.

Re:well as for me

[Queer Boy]

I have a friend who works for Time-Warner here in Cincinnati and he says that the HBO/Shotime/etc. on demand stations are used on their system much more than movies on demand, and the movies on demand are accessed more than pay-per-view (they're considering eliminating pay-per-view stations).

I think people would prefer a subscription to a station over piecemeal payments.