Online Video Begins To Threatens Television

eldavojohn writes, "The BBC has an article reporting that a survey of 2,070 Britons revealed that online viewing is on the rise against television. From the article: 'Some 43% of Britons who watch video from the internet or on a mobile device at least once a week said they watched less normal TV as a result.' The figures the BBC is reporting are up from last year when they ran the same survey. It seems the digital world has disintermediated Magazines, Music, & Newspapers but somehow never really tapped books. Will the internet also take on the role as the family television?"

Comments

Isolation on the rise too

[suso]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[grapeape]

For many watching online is more of a shared experience. How many families really sit down and watch programs together and when they do, how many actually communicate during them. Many of the media sites offering video content have chatrooms, forums, and other collaborative places that are the online equivalent of talking around the water cooler. So yep gone are the days of dad yelling at Jr. to shut up because the fishing show is on, now dad can watch outdoor sportsman and talk to others that like the same thing.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[CarlJagt]

as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience

Instead, I'd say that as online TV becomes more popular, people will timeshift their viewing more and more. This does not eliminate a shared experience altogether, but it does stretch it thinner. But to the point of isolation? Naw. A good series remains a good series, and word will travel.

In fact, I find it refreshing that, at our watercooler, co-workers introduce each other to new shows, as well as help filter out the crud. Instead of a dozen people investing 12 man-hours to all learn that the Such-and-Such show blows ... the investment was perhaps one or two.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.


WTF???

Broadcast/cable television represents a "shared experience" that is threatened by online TV? I didn't realize that I was feeding my "polarized view of things" when I gave "Surviver XXI: Even Stupider" a pass.

If you want to make an argument that sitting at home and being fed pap from a tube (TV or computer) is isolating, I'd buy that. But to suggest that somehow IPTV is worse than what we have now is absurd.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Nos.]

I was going to post something similar, but one other thing that is beneficial when visiting an online forum, is that you get a broader view of things. Depending on the subject it could even be a more worldly view than you could ever get, even watching the show in a public place like a bar. So, in some ways, yes it is less social, but at the same time, it can expand your view more than has been happening before.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Lostconfused]

But that was the entire point of the parent. The person isolates oneself from outside views or opinions, well its not that drastic but the opinions are very likely to be similar in those chat rooms and forums, if they aren't people would most likely move to some other place thats more agreeable to them. So yeah people are still isolated from different opinions and different points of view

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[drinkypoo]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience.

But what is the value of a shared TV viewing experience? A whole family sitting in one room, staring at the same box, that's a shared experience? Sure, in much the same way that sleeping in the same house is a shared experience.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[icecow]

I disagree.

People are polarized because TV chooses the issues and topics; people take sides on the topics and are polarized on a national level.

Media on the internet is decentralized. People will revolve more around the issues and topics that are important to them and less so about abortion and other TV injected issues.

So there will be many people talking about many subjects. If someone is talking about a issue you aren't interested in it will be easier to simply ignore the issue instead of taking an agreeable or opposing view.

I don't think your use if 'isolated' fits here because people will be able to associate with who they want.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[cayenne8]

Trouble is, when I think of viewing tv online, the first picture in my head, is someone huddled at a desk, near a 17" or smaller monitor.

Why would you want to do that with a comfy living room/bedroom, which a much larger screen? I don't really care to watch anything on a size smaller than 30-60".

Now, in my case...I do watch most of my stuff from a computer, but, it is a MythTV box...and it is going through a projector that due to temporary apt. sized limitations (on the run since Katrina), I have about an 84" picture.

But in the case of most of these type of articles..I get the image of people at a desk with a desktop or laptop screen in front of them....or even a cell phone, and that just isn't comfortable IMHO. Until they start making it easy for Joe Average to pipe Internet based content to the big LCD or Plasma they're been fighting for on black friday for Xmas...I don't see internet streamed content displacing regular, cable or satellite tv.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[AKAImBatman]

See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the back of your computer? See that DVI, HDMI, or SVideo port on the side of your new TV? Got any bright ideas? ;)

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[avasol]

I think this is an absolutely ludicrous idea you're proposing, especially coming from a /.er.
Look around you. And if you think Slashdot polarizes these people, you're right. In a _positive_ way. Becoming more opinionated is good for you, I promise. To choose wisely based upon a wider perspective, is also right.

In fact. What the hell are you saying?

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[mcrbids]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.

I've seen the reverse trend.

Videos online or on our DVR can be paused or rewinded - even when watching something that's not pre-recorded! So if somebody speaks up during the show, it's no big deal to pause it, talk about it, and then continue, or even rewind to pick up a detail that was missed.

This makes watching videos a la YouTube or DVR much more social than ever before.

It *can* be much less social, but that's been the case since VHS vs Betamax was a big deal, and people haven't become significantly less social that I can tell.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[siriuskase]

no, it's more like sharing a meal. We don't watch much TV, but when we do, we do it together. We usually watch DVD, talk while watching, hit rewind if we manage to miss something, etc. It's not exactly educational talk, but fun talk, our own commentary, etc. It's frequently more interesting than the "How was your day?" stuff at the table. Kids talk more when they have something interesting to talk about.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[indian_rediff]

I can only speak for myself. I do timeshift TV programmes. However most of them are PBS style programmes (NOVA, Nature, American Experience etc.) And when it comes to viewing the saved programmes, I use by Dishnetwork DVR and wath it with my kids. Sometimes my wife joins in. The great thing about the timeshifting via DVR is that I get to pause the programme to insert interesting comments, or pause it to answer questions from my kids. All in all, a great time is had by all! And the best thing is, I don't have to wait for the programme. I can watch it whenever all of us have spare time.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Mad Dog Manley]

For many watching online is more of a shared experience.

Not only is it shared because of online forums, chatrooms, etc, but how many times have a friend or relative sent you a video clip from Youtube or some other site, something funny or interesting or a good TV show that interested both of you? The comments and thoughts and shared experience is real - albeit a very 21st century experience - and will probably only grow in the future, as video allows more thoughts to be expressed without words.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Anonymous Coward]

Maaan, I really wish for the good-ol days, where there was mass media, and mass brainwashing for all.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[drinkypoo]

no, it's more like sharing a meal. We don't watch much TV, but when we do, we do it together. We usually watch DVD, talk while watching, hit rewind if we manage to miss something, etc.

But that was my whole point. You can do that with a PVR, or a movie on disc, but outside of having additional equipment, broadcast TV doesn't allow you to do that. It's a purely push-technology model and you need to be there while the information comes in.

If you DO have additional equipment, like a PVR, you would be better served by having a nice fat IP connection, and a box that downloads what you want to watch as network traffic allows, and you can watch it later. Well, you'd be better served in a world in which someone would provide you content that way. I mean, besides our good friends who run bittorrent trackers.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[MrCrassic]

I think it will take a while for internet to replace TV, but when it does I do not think that there will be much difference in the amount of isolation that will occur.

Think about it: if families current sit down around the TV to watch their favorite program, will replacing the TV with a Media Center and a LCD screen do anything different to this experience? If it does, how could it hamper it? Why would replacing the medium change the way that the content is viewed and perceived?

Furthermore, do you think that mobile phones are a viable way of viewing your favorite program around your house? Or would increasing the size of the screen of a mobile phone or device make it impractical for mobile situations?

I think that regardless of the way television and digital media evolves, the "quality" time that is shared through the experience is not dependent on the medium in which that is delivered. But as I said earlier, computers would have to be a lot more reliable and convenient before this happens. Windows Vista was supposed to help this by decreasing the boot/resume time to those comparable with CRT TVs, but as far I can see, this has not happened.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[deathy_epl ccs]

the opinions are very likely to be similar in those chat rooms and forums, if they aren't people would most likely move to some other place thats more agreeable to them. So yeah people are still isolated from different opinions and different points of view

heh. Yeah, 'cause we've never seen a flamewar errupt on a forum before. heheheheh.

To the outside world, the Slashdot users appear to have very similar opinions too.

1. Make inflammatory remark.
2. Take part in erruping flamewar.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[timeOday]

I think the point was about nationally shared experience, not family relations. It used to be that everybody (mild overstatement) watched the networks' evening news. That determined whatever the big story was at any given point in time. Of course, that could just as easily be put in a negative light, since hardly anybody else but the big boys had a voice at all. Either way, it will be interesting to see whether fragmentation of the media has a noticeable effect.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[timeOday]

Until they start making it easy for Joe Average to pipe Internet based content to the big LCD or Plasma they're been fighting for on black friday for Xmas...I don't see internet streamed content displacing regular, cable or satellite tv.

Coming Soon via Your TiVo: Internet Video on Television. And you can bet the Internet/Cable TV companies like Comcast won't be far behind.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[rucs_hack]

since starting to watch online content I've found that my friends and I talk far more about video content then we ever did about tv. Links to cool new things get bandied about, and there's a constant hunt to find the next cool thing to share.

Redvsblue is my current favorite for quality comedy online.This was found not through brainless channel surfing, but via a conversation with a friend.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Aladrin]

You're making me feel like I have a VERY weird family. We get together (even though we live in 3 seperate houses) and watch Survivor each week. With each new event, we discuss, berate, belittle, etc. We get more out of the show from watching it together than we do when we each watch it seperately. (I was sick last Thurs, and we didn't get together. I ended up fast-forwarding through most of the talk.)

My Mom was coming over or 1 Vs 100, also, before it went off-air. (I hope they bring it back.) We used to watch Deal or No Deal (Dad and I) and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (all of us), too.

Some shows are just a lot more enjoyable with a group.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[drinkypoo]

It depends on the group but a lot of people - myself included - want people to STFU during the show. You can talk during commercials. I've never owned a PVR, which would help a lot... but these days my solution is that I really don't watch broadcast anything. I download, I rent. I avoid commercials and I can pause whenever I like. If I want to watch it somewhere else I can take it there. Life is good. PVRs are the only thing that make broadcast TV tolerable, because I am not willing to subordinate myself to the idiot box.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

So... Does anyone make a small USB powered Watercooler?

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Captain Splendid]

Mod parent up. The real danger to old school tv channels isn't where you can get content, but when. I'm currently using Bittorrent a shedload simply to be able to watch the 5 or 6 tv shows I'm interested in without having to contort my life around somebody else's schedule. Once the general perception shifts from "gotta get home, Lost is on soon", to "I'll download it this weekend/I'll wait for the DVD", TV networks as we know them are dead.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Aladrin]

Absolutely. I only recently subscribed to cable again because they offered HD DVR for $5 more than the regular package. It saves me a TON of hassle trying to track and find the latest shows each week. I no longer have to remember when they are on, or wait 3 days to download them.

It's all about convenience.

And yes, some shows, I'd scream at anyone who talks through them. Now I don't have to. (Pause button rocks, PC and DVR both.) Even the shows we watch together, if we miss something, we just hit that back-10-seconds button. Like magic.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[evilviper]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.

Terrible! Just think what will come next...

They'll have students, from grades 7 up, stop spending all day in a single class of 30 people. Gasp! People might actually be able to learn at a different rate in different subjects than their peers!

Then, the next step is surely people will stop taking mass transit, and insist on driving their cars where and when they want...

It won't be long until NOTHING is lowest-common-denominator anymore. What a hell-hole this world will become then...

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Plutonite]

How many families really sit down and watch programs togetherand when they do, how many actually communicate during them

As a fellow geek I would love to join this parade, but you are wrong. Families do get together over T.V, even if it's just for the news or the odd movie. Television is a culture, to the extent that some people cannot initiate conversation without having something flashing on the tube. The online streaming thing is an entirely different world: you are connected to many people who may share your interests but who you interact with through playback controls. They are not real. I mean of course they are, but they are real only in the microcosm of existence that is your online experience.

If you do not have a family, there can be little difference (most of my comp.sci mates watch their shows from their PC/laptop) but if you are in a household where everybody is shut off in their room staring into their monitors and the static buzzing from their headphones, then you know something is not right.

Sometimes it's good to fight over the channels. And remember, this is coming from a Computer Science grad student, not your aunt.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[CommunistHamster]

Very good point, examples can be found at pretty much anywhere which purports to be a forum for discussing conspiracies.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[donglekey]

I have hung out with friends lots of times watching videos. Instead of watching TV or a movie, there is a break after every video, and the video can be played again, so we end up talking lots more. I have also sat down with friends to watch TV or movies on my computer screen, because I have a couch in front of it. A lot of it depends on interface. TV's have couches in front of them and computers don't, or people don't have computers hooked up to their TV's, but these things are changing.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[kabocox]

For many watching online is more of a shared experience. How many families really sit down and watch programs together and when they do, how many actually communicate during them. Many of the media sites offering video content have chatrooms, forums, and other collaborative places that are the online equivalent of talking around the water cooler. So yep gone are the days of dad yelling at Jr. to shut up because the fishing show is on, now dad can watch outdoor sportsman and talk to others that like the same thing.

Why is communicating via online viewed as "isolation" even on slashdot of all places? I remembered how great I felt in college and had ready access to people that like anime and manga. My wife doesn't like it, and the kids are abit young for most of the plot lines. If I actually wanted to converse with anyone about anime or manga, I'd have to go online or bore someone senseless with my tastes. We need a new term that means those that are into something can else find others that are into the same topic online and chat about it. Isolation isn't the term that I'd use.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[archen]

I agree about the shared experience. I mean what's one of those things people talk about around the water cooler? Probably what was on TV. Either that or a movie they saw. I've actually run into weird instances where someone tries to strike up a conversation with me along the lines of "what shows do you watch?". My response is that I don't watch TV. It's not like I'm trying to be rude, but it's sort of awkward because what do you talk about at that point?

However I'm seriously wondering if we're actually losing anything from the current "shared experience". I mean sharing the experience of crap like Survivor or Fear Factor? If that's all I got to have in common with people, I'll seriously become a hermit because there's no hope for society. But besides that how does modern TV keep us from becoming polarized. Most people I know don't watch the news, and I don't see how your average sitcom is going to make much of a difference in terms of polarization.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[LunaticTippy]

I bought a low-end 3d graphics card for $40 just for the TV-out ability. I figured not wasting time and dvd blanks would pay for itself in a matter of weeks.

Oddly, I'm running 50' of coax and using the plain ol' composite video signal and it looks good!

Not every PC has built-in tv-readable outputs you know.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[bhiestand]

Coming Soon via Your TiVo: Internet Video on Television. And you can bet the Internet/Cable TV companies like Comcast won't be far behind.

Actually, you can bet they will be far behind, but they will likely use bandwidth throttling, port blocking, and legislation to force their competition out of their markets.

Tell me you don't see a problem with another company providing "Television" in an area already legally monopolized by a different company.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[ViaD]

Could views be even more polarized? I'm sure you disagree with that you are wrong?

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Technician]

In the USA, with the pending end of analog over the air TV and a bunch of TV monitors, but very few TV sets that can recieve over the air digital broadcasts has been disturbing.

Got any bright ideas?

Yea, lets download and stream content that I can no longer recieve free over the air. Who didn't see this a mile away. One home theatre system simply does not meet the diverse needs of a modern family. Mom wants the soap or gardening show, dad wants the big game or evening news, and the tweens want the latest sitcom such as friends or reality TV. In the end everyone finds their nitch online and the big set is religated to being a monitor for the cable box or game console. The lack of smaller sets with a tuner able to pick up over the air broadcasts and the ability to find good stuff online has made an end run over real time commercial laden over the air TV.

I moved last January. We don't have Cable or Satelite TV. We also have not bothered to put up an antenna. We have a broadband internet connection instead.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[StikyPad]

Not every PC has built-in tv-readable outputs you know.

Sure they do.. just not every TV has VGA inputs. ;)

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[StikyPad]

Once the general perception shifts from "gotta get home, Lost is on soon", to "I'll download it this weekend/I'll wait for the DVD", TV networks as we know them are dead.

Except that if nobody watches TV, there will be no "Lost" to download this weekend/wait for the DVD. (Although I'd venture a guess that exponentially more people use a VCR/PVR to record shows anyway.) TV won't "die" until there's both a viable distribution method to replace it, and an unmarketable remaining audience -- something which will take decades, if ever, to achieve. A substantially larger number of people still watch TV than even have internet access, let alone those with access but lacking the savvy to download and play videos. That your extremely limited sample (friends/peers) of people is gravitating toward a particular method of content aquisition says nothing for the millions of grandmas, soccer moms, laborers, etc. Further, by your logic, radio would already be dead. People don't always know what they want, and sometimes they just want to browse (channel surf) until they find something they like.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Monkeys!!!]

Once a week a group of friends and I get together to watch the latest downloaded episodes of Heroes and Torchwood.

I would say I socialise more with other people while watching shows now that I download them.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[From A Far Away Land]

I think online communities like YouTube and Slashdot will end up brining people together. And if you disagree with me I'll wig out and get all polarized ;-)

Ban TV - Perhaps you'd like to join the Teleban, and join my crusade to bring an end to old style entertainment that keeps people isolated?

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

Funny you should say this because many of my friends get together on a weekly basis to play Dungeons and Dragons, tell stories and jokes, and if someone just happens to get on the computer and finds something of intrest (usually some hilarious bit on youtube or an outlandish comment on a web forum) then everyone is huddled around watching. Same goes for when we all watch animé episodes on the net through similar services.

It may not be as comfortable, but it sure is just as fun as watching TV and now that I think about it we actually watch less TV since we've started watching it online thanks to the lack of commercials which is a good thing.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[redcane]

I find we don't fight over channels, we all decide on something we would all like to watch and sit in the lounge, fire up mythtv. It's usually more a matter of prioritising what order to watch stuff in. Of course if one person really has to watch a particular show no-one else wants to, or one person really doesn't want to watch the show they can take a laptop/desktop and watch what they want on that. This is definitely a rare case, just simply because people like doing stuff together. In fact now in our house people tend to do other stuff while the shows are actually airing, preferring to watch the shows at a time everyone can watch together.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[redcane]

"TV won't "die" until there's both a viable distribution method to replace it, and an unmarketable remaining audience" There is probably always going to be a marketable remaining audience, but the viable distribution methods to replace TV are here. Internet downloads, DVD sales. I saw a thourough study on it, and it was found that it would cost advertisers less to send a DVD of a prime time show to every household in Australia (with their advertising added of course) than it costs them to buy a 30 second ad slot now. If nobody watches TV, there will still be "lost" (perhaps not lost itself, but similar shows). People will pay to download it episode at a time. Or advertisers will "sponsor" it. Or some enterprising company will send DVDs out to every household with plenty of product placement. There may be a lot more people watching TV than having internet access, but most of them have DVD players. You can do a dual distribution, both online and via DVD mail out. People generally just channel surf until they find a channel they can put up with. This bad habit will eventually go away.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[symbolic]

Not only that, but if you key into certain personalities on a site like youtube, you can start to see some interesting interaction - people vlogging back and forth about this and that...some of it confrontational, some of it humorous, and some just plain interesting. It's almost like a new version of reality TV, except that the events are unfolding in real-time, and are completely unscripted. The kicker is that the entire audience has an opportunity to participate.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? The internet, a multidirectional medium where everybody can comment, discuss and post their own content, is less "shared" than TV?
If what you miss is "one channel fits all", well I must say I'm happy the days of the Volksempfänger are gone. (I'm German.)

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[LunaticTippy]

My PC is CGA you insensitive clod!

I actually thought about simply defining a monitor as my TV, but I still have some VHS tapes and OTA broadcasts that don't play nice with PCs. I have a capture card, but it seems stupid to fire all that up just so I can catch the odd simpsons. Oh, my TV is 29" and I can't afford a monitor that big.

Re:Isolation on the rise too

[oc255]

That's a great point about "talking through them". I didn't even *think* of that as a time-shifting feature. You made me realize that DVRs eliminate the immediacy of media. Hmm.

Is it online video or internet in general?

[LiquidCoooled]

I see it as more people having "something" to do with their time than specifically crappy videos.

Perhaps the survey questions weren't correct.

Most people who spend time online have a community - some have slash others have flickr, theres some on youtube and loads in numerous other communities.

TV cannot give the level of participation the web does.

Re:Is it online video or internet in general?

[kfg]

I see it as more people having "something" to do with their time

A lovely young lady of my acquaintence is one hell of a little piano player.

She grew up in one of those little dying dipshit towns out in the boonies with two diners; and one of them is boarded up.

She told me that she learned to play the piano just to have "something" to do with her time. It's now her life and her career.

Think about it.

KFG

Re:Is it online video or internet in general?

[Anonymous Coward]

It might just be novelty.

Back in the 1970s I am sure amongst 'the kids' bicycle use went down as skateboard use went up. Places built big skateboard parks. Then the next craze was BMX bicycles and they had to adapt the skate parks for bicycles.

I'd give it a while to see if users decide that they want high quality content again when the novelty has worn off and/or the copyrighted material has been removed.

As far as the internet as a delivery mechanism for content in general is concerned that's another matter - that, and other forms of time shifting of media viewing that can be done with little preplanning will improve.

This might have some impacts on the way people view society. In the past you had to wait for a big event (the last episode of MASH or whatever) and watching it together was a cultural bonding excercise. Was this form of bonding something valuable that we will miss, or are other forms of more adhoc and immediate bonding better, or just different?

And what is the big deal?

[zappepcs]

My flatscreen has a pc input...
Just a different source for video feeds...
current content providers will adapt...

News at 11

Disintermediated

[Tx]

You've just been looking for an excuse to use that word in an article, haven't you?

Re:Disintermediated

[kfg]

No! Noooo! Aaaugh! No! I'll get you the damned shrubbery, just make it stop!

KFG

Re:Disintermediated

[Red Flayer]

Disintermediated

It's a pretty scary word, too. If we break it down, we see that it is a compound word derived from disinter- (to dig up a corpse) and -mediate (to intercede). Therefore, it's obvious that the digital world is a broker of graverobbing services, not a supplier of porn as commonly assumed.

Re:Disintermediated

[drinkypoo]

Therefore, it's obvious that the digital world is a broker of graverobbing services, not a supplier of porn as commonly assumed.

Among some circles, those are one and the same.

Re:Disintermediated

[artifex2004]

Therefore, it's obvious that the digital world is a broker of graverobbing services, not a supplier of porn as commonly assumed.

Among some circles, those are one and the same.

It's pretty hard to break into an industry with such stiff competition. And if you make it, everyone wants a piece of you.

Re:Disintermediated

[Temujin_12]

This has huge implications for mank-ind. -Jack Handey

Is this a surprise?

[grapeape]

I would imagine that if they looked they would find that Internet Users on a whole watch less TV. Why just sit there when you can do something interactive. I watch video's online but usually they are shoved up in the corner of the screen while im doing something else more productive. I dont really see this as a bad thing, the major US networks are already catching on and are offering much of their programming online.

Isn't this exactly what has to happen for the mythical media/computer convergence to happen that everyone has harped on for the past 15 years? Its survival of the fittest, adapt or die, all media companies have to come to that reality whether is music, movies television, radio, newspapers or even books.

Re:Is this a surprise?

[kfg]

. . .even books.

Music, video and still art are over there.

Books are right here.

KFG

Re:Is this a surprise?

[fair_n_hite_451]

It actually is a surprise to me, based on logistics. In front of my computer, I have a good upright office chair as befits what I do there - type, mouse, interact with the screen.
 
In front of my TV I have a mega-comfy lay-z-boy recliner that fits what I do there - interact as little as possible and just veg.
 
I can't imagine switching chairs, nor doing the right activity for the viewed device from the wrong chair.
 
Until I find something reasonable that is both office chair and recliner I can't see replacing my TV viewing with PC viewing ... no matter how convenient the downloading is.

Yes....

[zarthrag]

...and here is why: Freedom of choice, competition, and expression. If someone cobbles together a good story, and a budget, I don't see why is isn't possible to launch an internet-based "cable television network" that reaches across borders, and is safely tucked away from the likes of broadcast networks (clearchannel and company), the Bush regime, and the FCC. It could be cheaper, and shows that die on Fox (Ahem! Serenity!) would live forever

This is surprising?

[AKAImBatman]

We live in a world that is no longer as 9 to 5 as it once was (more like 24/7 in three shifts), and people are surprised that television viewers would rather decouple their viewing from "Prime Time Weeknights"? I'm not surprised at all. DVDs laid the groundwork for viewers watching the television they want when they want. Then shows like 24 and Lost further laid the groundwork for story arcs that take advantage of that medium. (i.e. Can't keep with Jack every week? Keep up with him on DVD!)

Now the Internet is threatening to combine the convenience and timeliness of broadcast TV with the time shifting and long-term storage capabilities of DVDs. The result can only be a positive change in the way we view entertainment.

Re:This is surprising?

[kfg]

. . .more like 24/7 in three shifts

Three shifts? I wish. The great thing about working on the Internet is that someone, somewhere in the world, thinks I've just come back from lunch no matter what time it is here.

The great thing about working from home is that you get to choose which 168 hours a week you're going to work.

KFG

Re:This is surprising?

[kent_eh]

Another thought...

Episodes of shows aren't broadcast at the same time in different places. There is often a lag of days or weeks between airing in one country and another.

So, you hear (on-line, naturally) about the latest show and you know it won't be on the local airwaves for a week or so, whaddya do?

The television industry shoots itself in the foot again.

Re:This is surprising?

[mpe]

Episodes of shows aren't broadcast at the same time in different places. There is often a lag of days or weeks between airing in one country and another.

In some cases this can be months to years.

The television industry shoots itself in the foot again.

Or would do if it actually had any feet left :)

Problem or Opportunity?

[Kombat]

Anyone want to lay odds regarding whether the TV networks will view this as a problem or an opportunity? Of course, they'll see it as a problem that must be "solved," rather than an opportunity to be seized. There is so much money to be made here for innovative and visionary content providers, so much cross-promotion and integration they could take advantage of, and yet you just know the "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo, even as their marketshare/revenues decline over the upcoming years.

It's sad, really. I would have hoped that the "younger" networks like MTV and Spike would have jumped aboard and shown the path, but the only network I can think of who has even remotely embraced the dual-delivery model of TV and online media is the Comedy Network/Comedy Central.

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[drinkypoo]

It's sad, really. I would have hoped that the "younger" networks like MTV and Spike would have jumped aboard and shown the path

MTV is owned by Viacom. Spike is owned by MTV, which, again, is owned by Viacom. Amusingly enough, Comedy Central is also owned by MTV/Viacom.

Clearly, Viacom is aware of digital distribution; they likely feel that only Comedy Central is currently capable of providing them monetary benefit. Or, maybe it's just that even MTV's original content uses a lot of content that they don't own, and they can't even do digital distribution because they don't have the rights. Comedy Central produces original programming, which is pretty much what they're internet-distributing (besides South Park material, but Stone and Parker are pretty modern guys.)

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[FullMetalJester]

ever heard of MTV Overdrive? MTV has tie-ins and special extras that are available from their website only. Instead of using the web as a new distribution medium they are likely looking to increase advertising revenue of specific demographics (ie the people that watch the show are the most likely to view the website for that show, giving the advertisers another shot at their target market) Apparently Viacom thinks they can make more money this way, at least in the short term

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[drinkypoo]

ever heard of MTV Overdrive?

Fuck no. MTV may be extremely relevant in today's culture but they have little to nothing that I want to watch any more. Let me know when we get a set of channels that have nothing but videos all the time, kind of like DMX with a video stream.

But anyway, what you say only makes sense. At some point however, all broadcast TV is going to go away. Might be a hundred years from now but broadcast TV is stupid and pointless in its current form. It makes more sense for it to all be satellite-based. I live in a county where you can't get any broadcast TV because of the mountains, but almost anywhere (except possibly where I live now due to trees I can't cut down) you can get satellite.

And eventually one day it will all be mesh networking and then it will all be carried over IP networks and there will be little reason to use satellite. But that might be even further out. Still, it's the only thing that makes sense unless we come up with a whole new communications technology that trumps radio. Practical quantum entanglement anyone?

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[SirKron]

Companies like Time Warner and ATT are already taking advantage of this by offering on-demand broadcasting. If you can get it anytime you want, then you do not need to record the live show right? That is what they want you to believe as on-demand shows will not allow you to fast forward through commercials. They also push viewers to their web portals to drive more advertising revenue.

The media conglomerates will do whatever they can to keep the commercials in our view. If they cannot, then we will be paying extra somewhere to cover their costs.

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[kabocox]

Anyone want to lay odds regarding whether the TV networks will view this as a problem or an opportunity? Of course, they'll see it as a problem that must be "solved," rather than an opportunity to be seized. There is so much money to be made here for innovative and visionary content providers, so much cross-promotion and integration they could take advantage of, and yet you just know the "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo, even as their marketshare/revenues decline over the upcoming years.

Due to economic reasons, I'm still on dial up and can't justify cable. My wife and I can justify the purchase of entire season of a series on DVD though. I don't really think that it's going to be up to the networks to do anything about it. It'll be up to those who own the rights to each of the shows about how they want to milk it. I'm just waiting for the day that any recorded television show from any channel/network could be viewed/downloaded on-line with some type of localized updatable ad box as part of the video. I have nothing against ads. I just wish that ads could get me DSL or Cable or faster internet. I've had to live with ads all my life. I just view ads as part of our culture.

Re:Problem or Opportunity?

[TheDukePatio]

the only network I can think of who has even remotely embraced the dual-delivery model of TV and online media is the Comedy Network/Comedy Central.

CBS has done a decent job of putting current show offerings on-line. It's how I get my Jericho and CSI fix. I'm not nearly as worried if I miss it because it'll be up on their site about 2 hours after it airs. They cut the show into their respective TV "Acts", with a single 30 second commercial spot between each segment. To me, this is perfectly acceptable. I spend at most 2 minutes watching commercials on-line vs. 18+ if I watch it via cable.

I'll support things that I believe are being done correctly. I can live with a 30 second commercial between the acts of the show and I'll even let the commercial play out so whoever it watching the stats knows that folks will do this and that they (CBS or networks in general) should take note and continue to offer this "free" service.

Is the video quality as good as say an AVI via bittorrent? Nope. But it's watchable for shows that aren't trying to blow you away with affects. CBS has done a great thing. They've taken that first step and hopefully other networks will follow suit.

Now for the flip side....advertising revenue. Local advertisers/tv stations won't be pleased. The current format only really supports major players with nationwide offerings (Target, Ford, Wally World, etc). The numbers won't make a dent for the next several years, but I could see this as a fundamental change in the way that we watch the Artist Formerly Known As Television.

Logical step

[Damastus the WizLiz]

This is a logical step really. people will move to online viewing because it offers them the choice of what to watch and when to watch it that fits around their schedual. I think if networks put up their shows for people to watch at any time on the internet with commercials people would watch it with commercials just to be able to watch their favorite shows when they want to not when the network scheduals it.

Re:Logical step

[askegg]

Absolutely!
Here is Australia we do not have Tivo, but I suspect its success is a direct response to the freedom of viewing options it offers. Although we can still record free to air programs and play them back at anytime, this *does not compare* with being able to watch the program *you* want *when* you want it.
Millions are flocking to bittorrent sites to download their favorite programs so they can watch them whenever is convenient for them, not the networks. This presents a tremendous opportunity for a media network who is willing to abandon the current business model and pursue a truly customer orientated service.
The pieces are all there: bittorrrent + broadband. I have said this before, but imagine a unit that plugs into a dedicated broadband connection, your hifi and display. It presents a simple interface to find and download shows and movies, which it does using a built in bittorrent client. The source files are seeded on large distributed libraries owned by the media networks and/or ISPs and because it's BT the more popular programs are naturally faster. Boom! No longer do you have to wait for a show to be aired, you can watch whatever you want when you want.
The entire back catalog of shows can be made available, so if you want to watch the fourth episode of the third season of "The Simpsons" - no problem.

It's obvious

[spyrochaete]

Why do we prefer online video over television? Doy! No advertisements!

Magazines and newspapers have non-obtrusive ads that can just be flipped immediately. TV ads must be watched or channel-flipped with the risk of missing content. Most internet video has ads on the site, not in the video.

I can't wait until TV networks get smart enough to put a Pepsi ad in the corner of the screen and allow "TV pirates" to spread the show on the internet. The network is off the hook for the piracy because it's out of their hands, Pepsi gets advertised all over the world, and the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

Re:It's obvious

[Mad Dog Manley]

The smart tv networks are joining the rush to online video, e.g. CBS. Their television shows are receiving some of the highest views on Youtube. (3 of the 25 highest viewed clips last week were from CBS shows)

Also good to note is the National Hockey League - they offer full hockey games on Google Video 48 hours after they are aired, and allow video clips on Youtube 24 hours after the games are aired. They are the only major North American sports league to do so.

Message to content producers and distributers - get with the program, or be left in the cold!

Re:It's obvious

[GoatMonkey2112]

Don't give them any ideas. I would bet that as HDTV equipment becomes cheaper and everything is broadcast in HD you will start to see your old standard def shows appearing with some extra crap in the sidebars.

Re:It's obvious

[Ant P.]

The BBC doesn't run ads.

Re:It's obvious

[The-Bus]

the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

Not an interruption?

Do you also believe [ How much ladies will love your new ROCK hard action!! Advertisement] that onscreen ads on the internet aren't intrusive? I'd be willing to [ Approve you for best mortgage at prime minus 4%!! Pay nothing! Advertisement] bet that most people don't share that view. Certainly, I can live without [ hottest mover & shaker stocks - investors shouldn't miss out Advertisement] them, and sometimes they're not terribly intrusive, but they are still interruptions.

I always liked the way that ZDF in Germany did it. They had a block of time each night were only ads were shown and the ads were interrupted by short 5- to 15-second animated shorts to get the kids to watch. As they wanted people to actually tune in, most of the ads were of Super Bowl ingenuity: actually fun to watch. I believe some of the American HD networks do something like this currently.

Re:It's obvious

[Bauguss]

Well, I was just viewing Daily Show clips last night online. They impose a commercial after every 2 clips OR pre-clip after you click a video clip link.

I didn't mind the ads because I could watch the clips I wanted when I wanted. I like the Daily Shows view on things but I don't watch much TV.

I really don't care about ads. All I want is to be able to watch things when I want.

Re:It's obvious

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I don't think the advertising aspect is the "obvious" answer. The obvious answer is that internet video is a lot more convenient. I don't have to wait for Jon Stewart to come on at 8pm, and then watch 20 minutes of the rest of the show so that I could see the only segment I like. I could just go on YouTube, do a search, and watch those 5 minutes. There are also things I've watched on YouTube that I would never see on regular tv these days - such as clips from long cancelled shows. The obvious reason that internet video is taking regular television's place is that internet video gives people what they want and when they want it.

Re:It's obvious

[spyrochaete]

Make no mistake, when (not if) the networks put 24/7 ads in the corners they will compete to find the most annoying thing that doesn't scare away viewers. Expect the infancy of this experiment to be the most obnoxious.

Re:It's obvious

[spyrochaete]

BBC is publicly funded and not for profit so they don't count.

Re:It's obvious

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Yes it does - but only for itself.

Re:It's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? We already have to suffer through the ads for their own shows (new daily show coming up next, don't miss it!) that cut into the scene and the subtitles, and frankly it SUCKS.

Even if they started a "non-obtrusive" (and it would always be obtrusive to some of us) ad campaign, how long before someone waved enough millions under their noses to make it just a tiiiiiny bit bigger.. and then bigger, and then bigger..

These are (mostly) money-grubbing mega-corporations with little concern except for their bottom line. They will wreck their "entertainment" for their target audience in a heartbeat if it means more cash. A lot of them are merrily shooting themselves in the feet (*cough* Sony *cough*) because someone up in the top level of management seriously has no friggin clue wtf their customers actually want (i.e. less DRM).

Ironically the captcha for this post was "unneeded".

Re:It's obvious

[HellYeahAutomaton]

I can't wait until TV networks get smart enough to put a Pepsi ad in the corner of the screen and allow "TV pirates" to spread the show on the internet. The network is off the hook for the piracy because it's out of their hands, Pepsi gets advertised all over the world, and the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

That's obnoxious. If I am watching a show, I don't want distractions. The problem is that
TV is going to be perceived as a single-tasking mediaform. Picture In Picture (PIP) exists
but it never really took off in popularity.

One can't help but wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

...how much of the online video the respondents were referring to was pr0n.

The problem with Digital Books...

[bigjarom]

I haven't read a paper book in nearly 3 years. Nearly everything I've wanted to read is available in digital form somehow. The problem with ebooks is a lack of really good hardware. I use a Palm to read ebooks, but traditional PDAs are rapidly declining as we know. The iPod doesn't have a big enough screen to read comfortably, and most phones have the same problem. Nobody wants to buy a dedicated ebook reader either because that is too great an expense for too limited a function. I'm gonna continue to stick with it though and hopefully someone will come up with a mass-appeal solution in the near future.

Re:The problem with Digital Books...

[DAharon]

I was in the same boat as you. There are tons of books available online, but sitting at my desktop and reading a book on the monitor just isn't an option for me (or my back). That's why I got a tablet PC. I needed a laptop anyway, so I picked up one of those HP TC4200. Now when I want to read, I just flip the screen around and laydown on my bed, or sit in my lazy boy, etc. Of course, I do prefer paper books, but with the amount that I read it's just too expensive to buy them. And it's hard to find stuff at the library if you don't already know what you are looking for. Even if you do know what you want, whether they have it at your particular library is a different matter.

Re:The problem with Digital Books...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought that the people who make e-readers are completely missing the point. You're average person doesn't read that many books. Maybe one every two months, if that. It would take years to recoup the cost of buying even a $200 e-reader. Furthermore, most people who do read books enjoy keeping them and displaying them.

However, magazines, newspapers, and periodicals are completely different. People read them much more often. Their periodic nature makes them very consumable. They often cost as much, if not more than a paperback book. And people do not like to keep them around after they have read them.

I think the first company to devise a good download service for periodicals to be read on a good e-reader will be very successful.

Sure it is.

[Rob T Firefly]

My PC plays DVDs, downloads from torrents and Usenet (shh!) and legit online streams (bless you Adult Swim!) My PC plays all the PC games and classic console ROMs I need it to. When I have a video card with the proper inputs, the PC displays my real game consoles as well. My last actual television died about four years ago, and I really never found a reason to replace it.

To be fair I'm not much of a fan of modern mainstream television, and the only two series (not counting Adult Swim) I really follow are British ones I can only torrent in until the DVDs make it here to the States, but with mainstream stuff like NBC's "Heroes" following the legit streaming model I can see standard televsions becoming an endangered species fairly soon.

Many areas currently plan to ditch plain old analog broadcasts in favor of digital, and I imagine that signal is really easy to plug into an Internet server rather than a cable company. I'd love to see a cost comparison of what it costs the networks to stream online versus broadcasting on the dwindling airwaves.

Not a family thing

[sitturat]

A family cannot really huddle around the PC to watch stuff on YouTube, but I think individuals are definitely spending more time on the internet in general (not just TV, also forums etc.) and therefore less time in front of the TV. That's a good thing - the web is so much more interactive.

Re:Not a family thing

[Red Flayer]

A family cannot really huddle around the PC to watch stuff on YouTube

Why not? It's trivial to set up S-video out to a TV instead of your desk monitor. As people become more accustomed to getting their entertainment content from their computer instead of from their broadcast/cable/satellite companies, more family rooms will be designed to accomodate this.

I regularly string a bunch of funny or otherwise stimulating clips together for the wife and I to enjoy on the big screen in the living room. Or a bunch of sports highlights for the guys... we'll put them on in the background on poker night.

Re:Not a family thing

[Damastus the WizLiz]

TV is not really a quality family time. Dont get me wrong there are shows that me and the kids love to watch. however unless you shut off the tv afterward and talk about, it there is no real social interaction going on. The internet is not much better. (yes i know that is not very slashdot of me)Face to face communication is still the best form of social activity for anyone.

Re:Not a family thing

[sitturat]

Sure, you can huddle around a screen that is getting its signal from your computer, but that is exactly the same as watching boring old TV. What you cannot do is share the keyboard/mouse that allows you to interact with the system - finding videos on YouTube for example.

Re:Not a family thing

[sitturat]

I certainly did not say that tv is quality family time - nothing could be further from the truth. But communication on the internet has become very social these days. I know of plenty of forums where the members even meet up in real life. Things really have changed in the last few years as far as the social experience goes. I have even noticed that females (yes, real ones) make up the majority of users on many sites now - a good indication that the web has become a place to socialise.

Re:Not a family thing

[Anne Thwacks]

A family cannot really huddle around the PC to watch stuff on YouTube

No, but silly people acting silly on youtube is "watching Video online" and occupies people's time, partly because of novelty. It does detract from time spent watching rubbish on TV. Youtube in magnificent widescreen 320x240 is not a substitute for watching "scrapyard challenge" or "Pimp my ride" even with my big new 21" monitor. Nevertheless, I do recommend http://youtube.com/watch?v=eSJXNrIQiQs as what is worth watching, but you can't see on TV.

Re:Not a family thing

[Red Flayer]

What you cannot do is share the keyboard/mouse that allows you to interact with the system - finding videos on YouTube for example.

Why not? Wireless keyboards/mice aren't too expensive. Sure, it's annoying to sit and wait while someone else is searching... no less than someone else channel-surfing, though.

Obvious goal

[GigsVT]

There's a good reason the BBC would be interested in this, they would love another way to charge everyone a tax on something silly like they do with TV.

If you own a computer then it's assumed you will consume Internet BBC content, therefore you must pay your computer BBC tax. Socialism works!

Re:Obvious goal

[Anonymous Coward]

They produce the best programming in the world. It's easily worth much more than the "tax".

Re:Obvious goal

[GigsVT]

Excellent. Then it should be free market so that people like you will pay more, and the people that don't care for it don't have their money stolen. It's very simple.

No surprise considering shitty programs

[unity100]

that are running among in all channels. Why watch crap, whereas on internet you can choose what you view on what hour ?

Re:No surprise considering shitty programs

[TodMinuit]

That's right. The Internet brings you even lower quality crap, but on your schedule, and plastered with even more ads. Hooray.

Re:No surprise considering shitty programs

[unity100]

at least i can choose which crap to watch here, and whenever i want.

i have 50 channels on cable here. i watch 3 of them, only at times.

Re:No surprise considering shitty programs

[TodMinuit]

So the actual quality doesn't matter, you just want control?

I'd gladly take quality over control.

Re:No surprise considering shitty programs

[unity100]

You need to eat. There are 3 choices ; Shit, Mud, Grass. You choose grass.

This is as simple as that. More choice on which shit you will have to eat, is better than eating shit without any control.

To Bittorrent

[kickedfortrolling]

I watch tv online for 2 reasons: 1. its on now! Why should the USA get series of popular tv shows months before the uk.. 2. i can watch when i want! im a busy person, and i dont always have time to sit and watch a show when tv decides to schedule. Put ads on the downloads if u like, but im still gonna do it. why doesnt the industry embrace this side of broadcasting, which has done all the marketing and distribution itself

Doesn't matter...

[__aaclcg7560]

Television is when my Dad comes over to switch the video input from DVD to TV and watch re-runs of COPS before he dozes off. I'm not missing much.

Freedom is on the rise Re:Isolation on the rise

[mrmeval]

I'm all for not having the same outlook as corprat media wants me to have. Freedom is on the rise and this terrifies the elite.

Re:Freedom is on the rise Re:Isolation on the rise

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is on the rise and this terrifies the elite.

I know you really, really want to believe that you're part of an uprising against the corporate machine (you know, so that your life has purpose and you're not just a cog in the wheel), but statements like yours are just hilarious for many reasons.

Not only is freedom, if anything, on a downhill slope, but the elite have absolutely nothing to fear, because, even if you were truly free to choose, you'd choose the same as everyone else anyway to make sure that you're part of the majority. Just accept that you're an automaton -- it's ironically liberating once you stop trying to convince yourself of anything else.

Sony and Panasonic are to blame

[Asrynachs]

The trouble with this whole situation is the TV broadcasters are all willing to go web only. It's been known for a long time they have the capacity to go with this sort of system. Overall it'd be cheaper and better for this sort of setup. The only problem with that IS the TV broadcasters have their nuts in the vice by the big TV makers. Sony and Panasonic are forcing the broadcasters to stick to the regular conventions so they can sell their expensive and unnecessary TV. Most people when asked said they are perfectly content with watching a little 7" tv screen just so long as there's something good on. For years we've been brainwashed to think that crystal clear picture and surround sound on a 90" TV screen is the best way to enjoy our favorite shows. Now that the internet has come along and is offering people a cheap alternative viewing experience they're getting scared. Web based TV is also affecting the big couch makers, but not as bad since most of those companies also make some sort of desk chairs. Mind you they'd still be at a significant loss if web TV took over.

The simple reason behind this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't enough free porn on TV.

I don't get it.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

It's all video. It's just a different delivery method. People are still watching television programs, just more often now via a different device than a television set. I don't see the big deal...

Re:I don't get it.

[moore.dustin]

Money. Ads that are being missed are used to fund the station which produces the show. If the station lost that money that show would not be made. It is a two way street.

Re:I don't get it.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

There's no reason you can't put ads on online videos. ABC Family does that.

Re:I don't get it.

[moore.dustin]

Yes I know, but that is not what is being discussed really. The issue is that TV studios have yet to really find a way to make money, other than selling (iTunes) the show online. An ad on the online video is not going to yield as much as a traditional ad would. That just needs to change really. When viewership online gets to the point where companies are willing to pay more and more for them, then things will be fine. Right now, that is certainly not the case. Everyone is going to have to adapt or face losing their ass. The RIAA and MPAA are perfect examples of fighting innovation and technology because they are afraid of change.

Not so fast!

[bogaboga]

To me, all this online video hype is just that - hype! What I have found on flash video sites including Google's Youtube is the inability to have any form of video controls. I mean, I have not been able to increase/decrease the following:

• brightness,

• contrast,

• hue level,

• saturation and

• gamma.

Yet some of these videos are really dark and need some work to be viewable in my opinion.

The day this will be possible is the day I "might" even consider taking these videos serious. On the sound front, bass/treble are also missing!

Re:Not so fast!

[denis-The-menace]

I watch everything in Winamp (because the -> key skip 5 secs ahead for boring parts)
And I have the same issues with low brightness settings in some clips.

For me it's worse. I turn down the brightness of my monitor because it hurts my eyes.
When I watch a video, I have to play with the brightness and reset it at the end.
It's a F'ng pain.

Re:Not so fast!

[Anonymous Coward]

spend some money on a monitor that allows you to quickly switch between brightness/contrast

Re:Not so fast!

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: winamp 5.3 is supposed to has this

Not there yet

[rlp]

I have a PC connected to the TV that I use as a PVR. I time shift a lot (my family mostly watches TV on weekend evenings). Occasionally we'll look at Google video, YouTube, or some other on-line video. But it's usually just for a few minutes. The content of on-line video still can't compare to best commercial offerings like '24', and 'Battlestar Galactica', 'Modern Marvels', 'Extreme Engineering', etc. It CAN compare with most of the other stuff on TV. Which, along with lack of time, tends to limit our TV viewing.

Fear not...

[KeepQuiet]

IP TV will solve the problems.

PoppyCock

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. Complete. Super-soaraway #1 best-seller (in the little craphouse in soho) nonsense.

What exactly are they watching?

[Have Blue]

A lot of people go to Youtube just to watch content ripped from TV shows. Suppose that was reliably eliminated- would the site's appeal still be as high? If not, then it doesn't really represent a new paradigm, just a parasite on the old.

Re:What exactly are they watching?

[British]

I can attest to this. Comcast's OnDemand has virtually nothing I want to watch for free/paid content. Yet, I've been watching MST3K episodes non-stop for the last 3 weeks on YouTube, and even a few on Google Video.

It's been at least five years...

[eno2001]

...since I've watched "normal" television. Ever since I started digitally recording TV shows on my computers, I haven't been at the mercy of ANY of the limitations of standard television. The VCR didn't even do a good job of that as you didn't have random access to your recordings. If you were watching something and fell asleep, you have to spend a good deal of time rewinding/fast forwarding to find the place where you nodded off. This was enough of a time sink that in many cases you either wound up watching from someplace close to where you left off, or just decided to skip it altogether. Especially if you didn't have much blank tape and needed to record something that very day or even minute. Too much time reqinding and fast forwarding or trying to keep track of where the "blank spots" were on your tape in terms of shows you could safely erase. But, in digital form, you just flip back and forth to any point on the timeline and you can easily resume any show in seconds. DVDs were a slight improvement but they didn't help out with recording shows until recently. I suspect this is why books still rule. They are EASIER to use than the technology that is trying to replace them. That same is true of MP3/Ogg Vorbis files for music vs. CD, Vinyl and tape. Also for MPEG, AVI files vs. video tape and DVDs. If there is a way that someone can make something easier to use than a book for reading text, they will have the key to sublimating the book.

I've never once consumed a TV show.

[krell]

"consume Internet BBC content"

The way it works, you just can't consume broadcast content. It's not a good, and does not get used up or destroyed by the act of viewing it.

Re:I've never once consumed a TV show.

[GigsVT]

That doesn't stop them from taxing the consumption of it. That phrasing was supposed to be a tongue in cheek knock at the insane policy of requiring people to buy a license to watch TV.

Why is this a problem ?

[Salsaman]

Why is this a problem for TV companies ? Why not just stream your output on the internet, in addition to broadcasting over radio/cable ?

Re:Why is this a problem ?

[Purity Of Essence]

It's all about control and providing advertisers with the "intended audience". By forcing viewers to adhere to a schedule they think they know exactly the kinds of people who will be watching at any moment. That makes the marketing people a Proctor and Gamble happy. It's also good for the networks to help sell their new shows. They can make you wonder "Where's Lost?!" when "Day Break" comes on, but chances are you'll watch it anyway. They can make you watch "The War At Home" while you wait for the next good show in Fox's Sunday night animation line up. The meteoric rise in popularity of TiVo and YouTube has proven that the shift toward video-on-demand is inevitable, but it's going to take a lot of cajoling to get the networks for play ball.

Re:Why is this a problem ?

[Salsaman]

How is this any different to streaming over the net ? I'm not even talking about video on demand. They can still keep the same schedule, just use a different delivery medium. They can still keep track of the number of viewers (probably even more easily, since they will know roughly geographically where there viewers are). They can still show ads, etc.

Re:Why is this a problem ?

[Purity Of Essence]

I'm sure that FUD on behalf of TV execs, MPAA, IATSE, et al, plays a major part.

They all want you to sit in front of your (Panaphonic, Magnetbox, Sorny, insert-your-favorite-advertiser-brand) television without interruption and with the aid of additional "viewing technology". Ever notice how much television advertising is for television sets?

They don't like time shifting:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
  - Jack Valenti, long-time and now former MPAA president

They don't like you being able view the program more often than they broadcast it. In there eyes, and there is some truth to this, there are serious licensing ramifications by letting that happen. As far as fair-use goes, well, it's an alien concept to them.

They want to have precise control over the quality of the presentation, quality presentation being sorely lacking in internet distribution. I can't blame them for that. Sure, broadband cable modems get you a long way there ... but then again, if you already have cable, what's the point in them spending extra money supporting internet distribution when a perfectly good version of the same program is already coming out of the same wire.

They really don't like you skipping the ads:

"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."
  - Jamie Kellner of AOL / Time / Warner / Turner Broadcasting

Computers make monkeying with their carefully controlled system much, much easier. I think some of their claims have a small amount of validity, but mostly it's FUD and a stubborn unwillingness to move forward to meet consumer expectations. Television is an extremely expensive business where disruptive technology could have major financial ramifications. Hollywood is not exactly known for embracing risk.

basic production failures

[krell]

"Yet some of these videos are really dark and need some work to be viewable in my opinion."

A lot of it is production blunders. You find it everywhere. Did you ever see the Nintendo 64 version of "Doom"? Even at the max contrast/brightness adjustment, it was almost all black. Now compare "Star Trek: The Next Generation" to "Star Trek: Enterprise". Somewhere along the way between the two, they either cut the lighting technician from the budget or decided to save costs by unscrewing most of the lightbulbs from the sets. For whatever the reason, the show was very badly lit. Other shows like the short-lived "Mantis" on Fox, and even "Farscape" were pretty much unwatchable because they were so badly lit.

Like this Cute Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese SIMs Advert, via Kotaku. Alas poor TV, you have no chance.
Apologies if the link doesn't work. Also if it does, I guess. I wanted to test a YouTube link on Slashdot.

What?

[shaze]

No one wants to pay extra to watch commercials anymore?

Re:What?

[Jim_Maryland]

Could be that the UK folks are tired of paying the Television License in the UK.

As for not wanting to watch commercials, broadcasters using the Internet to deliver content will still show you ads for most content I would guess. I know ABC does this for the shows they allow you to view online.

Jim

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder - if someone sticks a huge receiver up in Calais, and makes the resulting British TV streams available over the net, would the TV licensing people be out of a job?

"No sir/ma'am, my television has no aerial, and I have nothing in my house capable of acting as an aerial. In fact, I only use my TV to watch DVDs and as a computer monitor. What do I watch on it? Well, that's really none of your business now, is it?"

Re:What?

[ambrosen]

No.

A TV license is required to watch TV on a 3G mobile phone, if it's a broadcast TV channel.

It's mainly in Ireland that people put up big aerials to watch British channels, though.

It's been threatening TV for 10 years

[heroine]

And it'll keep threatening TV for another 100 years. Problem is, it never quite wins. In Europe where TV is still mainly low definition, the blurry 320x240 quality of internet video probably has an edge. In UKnowWhere where all prime time is HD, there's still a big difference. They've also been saying internet video would catch up to TV quality someday. It's still blurry 320x240.

Re:It's been threatening TV for 10 years

[Anne Thwacks]

In Europe where TV is still mainly low definition, the blurry 320x240

All of Europe is PAL at 768x576. (800x600, SVGA to you) It is interlaced though. There may be occasional overpriced stations running the rare HD demo, but I have not seen them yet. This may be your point, but its not what you said. In the USA, the stuff is supposed to be 704x480. (640x480, VGA)

Re:It's been threatening TV for 10 years

[mpe]

In Europe where TV is still mainly low definition, the blurry 320x240 quality of internet video probably has an edge. In UKnowWhere where all prime time is HD, there's still a big difference. They've also been saying internet video would catch up to TV quality someday. It's still blurry 320x240.

The average viewer dosn't actually much care about these kind of things. The advantage of DVD over VHS random access (which is why sequences of propaganda which cannot be skipped are so annoying).

DVD books..

[krell]

"I haven't read a paper book in nearly 3 years. Nearly everything I've wanted to read is available in digital form somehow"

Do you know if there is some sort of text format for DVDs? Or a utility to convert text or PDF into a DVD file so one of those little LCD DVD players could be used for ebooks? Been looking for something like that...

xbox

[Nerdfest]

The xbox 360 now has a spke TV show (reality show relating to video games) available for doenload ...not quite the internet, but close.

Hasn't tapped books? I doubt that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it's true that book-length text is not often read on-line, but that doesn't mean that the net hasn't affected book publishing and distribution. It used to be that people would often buy books to learn about new subjects when they only really had a few questions on the topic and those days are clearly gone thanks to the net. Non-fiction is by far the lions share of book publishing. So just because people aren't reading novels on their PCs does not mean that the net has not tapped books.

No No No its the UK that has the good show on now

[parodyca]

I have the same comment (from Canada) but it's you guys in the UK with all the shows we can't get here. Doctor Who, Life on Mars, Hustle, Hotel Babylon, 55 degrees north, Mayo, and more... All shows I've been able to watch via BitTorrent that I would not otherwise get to watch. As for American programming I watch as little of that as possible.

I even sent and email to BBC a while back offering to pay to get legal access to some of these programs. Predictably I got no response. Honestly you Brit's who bash the BBC really have no idea how good you have it. Come to Canada and watch some of the stuff here that passes for "Canadian Content" (if you can 'cause most of the stuff here is rebroadcast US shows) and you'll appreciate your national broadcaster so much more.

Schedual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when you schedule something twice it becomes a schedual (sched-dual).

Internet in general

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ALREADY been shown that as internet use has gone up, television viewing has gone down. Why this is news or why online video is being singled out, is beyond me.

Threat or Opportunity?

[SuperKendall]

The increase of online viewing is only a threat to those stupid enough not to provide easy means of viewing shows online!

And by show, I mean any media!

Advertisers seem threatened by online media. Yet how many years ago was it that AdCritic had to start charging because they got too popular? Why is there no modern AdCritic that is free and supported by millions of companies that have ads they want consumers to watch?

The networks have started to air shows online but when will they stop treating online viewers as second class citizens and let the people download a show the moment it airs?

I canceled my cable a year or two ago and have not looked back, because downloading (even by purchase) media is just such an improved way to watch TV, better even than TiVO (which was always merely an intermediate step to true random access of, and within, media).

1980s: Console games threaten arcades

[davidwr]

I put this in the "captain obvious" file.

The TV industry will find a way to keep making money, even if they have to quit being the TV industry as we know it.

www.watchtvonline.ws ??

[Aaricia]

Most of the video content freely available online is usually of lower quality or illegal. Makes me wonder how these guys do it:

http://www.watchtvonline.ws/tv/simpsons.html

Seriously, i am downloading episodes at almost 1 MB/sec. I am not uploading anything, so it does not seem to be a p2p thing.

Anybody care to explain how this is possible physically/legally?

I hope they take this site down soon, because i have a job and not enough time at hand to go through 18 seasons of Simpsons!

Re:www.watchtvonline.ws ??

[Purity Of Essence]

Simple. It's NOT legal. All the episodes are uploaded by consumers to free video hosts. None of the content is physically on the website owners servers, they are simply linking to video hosts which allow anonymous posting. When the episodes are removed from the free servers for copyright infringement, it's uploaded again and relinked. All South Park works the same way. Besides the DeCSS thing, there hasn't been much legal precedent preventing you from linking your website to illegal or infringing content.

Will the internet also take on the role ...

[constantnormal]

Of COURSE it will!!

Only those who grew up with (or prior to) TV and are hopelessly clinging the past would ever doubt it.

Isolation is a feature, not a problem

[WormholeFiend]

Last time I sat down with my extended family to watch a movie, my brother's mother-in-law kept yapping "what's going on?" "who is this?" "why is he...?" and various other inane questions regarding the plot of the movie, disrupting *my* enjoyment of said movie.

And she gave me the evil eye when I told her that if she actually shut up, watched and listened, she'd get the answer to her own questions.

Re:Isolation is a feature, not a problem

[Moofie]

Because the best way to answer rudeness is with MORE rudeness! GENIUS!

Re:Isolation is a feature, not a problem

[WuphonsReach]

And she gave me the evil eye when I told her that if she actually shut up, watched and listened, she'd get the answer to her own questions.

Alternate Theory #2: Some people like to be the center of attention...

I saw the future of television

[schweini]

A couple of days ago, I watched 'Lost' online from ABC's website, and was impressed.
It had a nice interface, acceptable quality (i'm no videophile), and was simply convenient. What i found most impressing, though, were the commercials: there were 3 blocks of interactive, flash-based commercials, that you had to watch for at least 20 seconds (or so). After the counter came down to 0 seconds, you could continue with what you where watching, even if the commercial wasn't over yet. I dislike ads as much as the next slashdotter, but the networks have to make some money somehow, so i accept them as a necessary evil. The nice thing about these ads was that some (Toyota Yaris) were very interactive and well-made, using the new medium as it should be - I even caught myself spending MORE than the the required minimum amount of time playing around with these commercials. On the other hand, some ads (Advil) were 'old school', i.e.: just a normal little video-sequence, and I immediately clicked on 'continue' as soon as i could.
So, my point is: This really worked for me (video-on-demand, nice interface, hassle-free) and for ABC (I actually remember the products they advertised during the show, because they were 'immersive'), so i am convinced that this is the future of television - it's a win-win situation.

Re:I saw the future of television

[krell]

I tried that. The interface was lousy, and it was like a maze. I ended up in UI loops just trying to get to the TV shows. The designers should be forced to look at the Google main page and "make it look/work like that". Then I finally found the shows. There was no way to burn them onto DVD so I could watch them on TV, so I went and found usable versions of "Lost" episodes on Bittorent. If only ABC had not had a terrible "keep users away" UI maze and made the episodes so they could easily be burned, I've have actually watched their commercials.

oh really

[rinoid]

Did you also know that a growing number of people masturbate too!? And they also buy books and cds and music online! GASP!

Re:It's been a long time

[coastwalker]

Ho Hum, its been 25 years since I watched TV on a regular basis. I can still catch a show if I visit people.

I read, listen to music or speech, watch DVD's and have been online since 94. I dont miss Tv a bit.

Having said that Youtube has been fantastic, everything from Geriatric1927, skateboarding dogs, The Dresden Dolls, to rare videos of minor stars of yesteryear, fabulous. I don't suppose it will last much longer when copyright is finally imposed. Half the content will die and the rest will degenerate into an online version of CB radio attached to an online DVD shop and we will all move on to pastures new.

Re:Problem or Opportunity? - Watch the Beeb

[joely]

The BBC don't see this as a problem as they get paid any which way.

I'm all for on-line TV (not video clips necessarily but proper TV). I'm now in to the habit of watching BBC Working Lunch (a 30min programme on Business and personal finance) on my lunch break at work, something I could never do previously due to the lack of a TV.

Check it out http://www.bbc.co.uk/workinglunch/

and while you're at it check-out The Dragon's Den http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/

Goodby network tv schedule idiocy. Streaming sucks

[guidryp]

The only live air I watch anymore is small market non commercial channel (TVO), or local news.

Everything else I get from torrents. Being set free from idiot network TV programmer/scheduling was a breath of fresh Air. I started because I lost cable and had to decide wether to pick it up again. Discovered TV-Torrents and was quickly hooked.

I was now enjoying shows that I had given up on. Stargate SG1 was one that I liked but it was in syndication hell, on 5 different channels, only one of which had new episodes that mixed in old episodes so I could never get a flow of what the heck was going on. Started getting torrents and I was now always only getting new episodes in proper sequence. It was great. Not to mention all the positive attributes of PVR like experience.

Firefly was another I tried to watch when it was on. I could never get into it; they showed them in the wrong order, moved them around, skipped weeks. Killed it for me. Later I downloaded them all and watched it in order. Hey this was actually a good show.

How screwed up does you delivery have to be that I would actually stop watching a show that I liked (SG-SG1) even before I discovered an alternative delivery. I think it also effectively killed firefly before it had a chance.

Streaming sucks though. I have a decent connections(1.8Mbs), but I have experienced nothing but frustration with current streaming tech. Bleh.

I will torrent my TV until the put a stop to it. If there is a lesson, it is to not mess your product up so bad that people don't want it even when free and there is no alternative, once an alternative appears(even if it isn't moral/legal), you are screwed. This is the danger any tired lazy incumbent faces.

The torrenting result is so much better that I will never go back now. If they ever manage to crack down hard on this, I will go to renting the series on DVD.

I imagine we will see more TV downloading crackdowns to come, but I don't think the RIAA is having much positive impact, so I don't think a TV downloading crackdown will stop this either.

I think the end result is that the end result of so much downloading of everything is going end with a highly regulated internet. Probably this will happen on two similar fronts.

1: Death of net neutrality: First they will succeed in charging for "superior" bandwidth, to offer better streaming video and streaming sound, VOIP etc. Next they will start racheting down anyone who doesn't pay for the extra bandwidth. Torrent sites slow to a crawl.

2: The global block list: This is starting now in UK,Denmark, Canada. A mandated blocking list for child porn, except in Denmark they have already added allofmp3.com. It is easy to see that Torrent sites will be soon after.

I figure in 5 to 10 years the wild west open nature of the net will largely be over. Enjoy it while it is here.

Re:It's been a long time

[eno2001]

Oh dear... another one from the "I don't own a TV" brigade. TV ISN'T bad. It's the programming that sucks unless you can find a good source. And that's what digital liberates. Yes, Youtube is OK in that you can find some rare stuff there that you may have been looking for for decades but the quality is ass. You're better off hanging out with connesseurs who know where to get rare stuff and then digitizing it. Sure, I hate reality TV and pretty much all the other tripe out there. But that's no reason to go to the tired old mantra of "I don't watch TV". That's just plain lame. I happen to think American TV is a great tool that's been co-opted by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. That's why the BBC seems to be a bit better. At least there is some control over the programming that allows for a higher level of quality when it comes to their own productions.

It's not your job to adjust the picture quality

[Purity Of Essence]

It's not your job to adjust the brightness, contrast, "hue level" [sic], etc. I'm a video producer and production quality of most online videos is simply awful. Amateurs don't have the training, experience, or the equipment to do it right. There's a lot more to it than pointing a camcorder at the nearest asshat.

Do you actually adjust your TV set every time you change the channel? No, because professional television people know what they are doing and have standards that they follow. How many YouTubers have a waveform monitor, or a vectorscope, or know what SMPTE stands for? They've probably never even heard of those things, let alone know how to actually use what meager tools they already have. An HDV camcorder will not instantly make you the next George Lucas.

Re:It's not your job to adjust the picture quality

[bogaboga]

Do you actually adjust your TV set every time you change the channel? No, because professional television people know what they are doing and have standards that they follow.

I do not adjust my TV that often,,,,but neither do I fancy the idea of being denied the ability to do so, just because TV producers "know what they are doing." Heck, even TV manufacturers put these controls on the TV sets for folks like me. Right?

Re:It's not your job to adjust the picture quality

[Purity Of Essence]

There is nothing wrong with twiddling the knobs, most TV's require regular in-the-field calibration, but it's not something that has to be readjusted once it's properly set up. Unless something major happens, like inadvertently bumping the knobs while dusting (in my house dusting is most definitely a major event), you should have to ever readjust it. That's because pro video people all calibrate their signals using the same color bars a viewer should. If you feel you must adjust your set because you don't agree with a creative decision of the production team, that's strictly an issue of personal taste, not a problem with the production or the equipment (although I'll admit that sci-fi television has been in a rut of Noirism since Deep Space Nine hit the airwaves). On the other hand, if you need to adjust your monitor because some amateur doesn't know what their doing, don't blame the messenger, blame the fuck ups who made the video. And if you can't adjust your monitor directly, blame the manufacturer.

A completely different issue with watching video on computer monitors is that the voltage levels in the signal are often treated differently than on a television. In some instances, the relationship between brightness and voltage is linear, in others the relationship is logarithmic. Most modern graphics cards do process overlay video to compensate, and have controls so that you can adjust them further if needed. For instance, low level signals on this SGI monitor I'm typing at are very dark so I have my graphics card tweaked to compensate. If the video your looking at isn't displayed through the overlay filter, you can use those same controls to adjust the brightness and everything else for your entire display. If your monitor itself isn't adjustable (and in all my years of computing I've never used one that wasn't) then you made a bad purchasing decision. At the moment, I have a television connected as a secondary display specifically to watch video, and everything looks just dandy on it without any tweaking because the video was meant to be viewed on a television in the first place. The controls you want are probably there if you look for them.

Re:No No No its the UK that has the good show on n

[kickedfortrolling]

Hey, don't get me wrong, i love the beeb and all our national broadcasters, but they dont schedule tv when its convenient for me!!

I too have tried to get the bbc to relinquish dvds etc of some classic tv (if you ever see world of pub, buy it for me.. i'll pay!!) but they are too set in their ways.. maybe this is the wake up call!

Hustle is good, Dr Who i think has tailed.. and if u value ur own time.. ignore a show called 'torchwood'!

...never really tapped books.

[benow]

Heinous profiteering. It's not just the publishers, but the device manufacturers and electronic distributers. DRM and other forced proprietarianism used to artificially inflate prices to maximize profit at the cost of the medium. Quite sad, hopefully wont last long. I bought an ebook reader not too long ago (an eBookwise 1150, partly due to other mentionings on slashdot), and it's a great turd. The price is a bit high for the device itself. It only displays one proprietary format, for which there is a converter, but the converter runs only under windows (not even in wine). It only really imports text and even then most of the formatting is lost. The screen is black and white (tho contrast is good). The firmware is fixed, with no chance for extending. The device only wants to talk to its hardwired content provisioner, who have the gall to ask new paperback prices for digital editions. Such an insult to efficiency! No cost for harvesting, material, transportation, production, printing, distribution, vending... only writing, layout and proofing and digital distribution. Digitial distribution costs are negligible, with the majority of the work in writing and a small amount in layout and proofing. So, of the cost of these ebooks, the majority is artificial and going right into the pockets of the less deserving. No wonder ebooks have not taken off. It's hard to get a rock to roll uphill. If this is state of the art after millenia of written history, then we should be ashamed. All this being said, there is nothing wrong with the form factor, reading a book on the device is pleasant and the battery life is excellent. What's holding back the slim geode/xscale (or similar) paperback sized wireless colour expandible linux running pdf displaying cheap ebook reader? I'm guessing it's because the many writeoff ebooks due to the current state of affairs (or lack thereof). There's no shortage of ebooks out there... if you can circumvent the crap that actually prevents them from being useful.

Re:...never really tapped books.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page) or Baen Free Library (http://www.baen.com/library/) and you will see that there is no reason to waste money on dopey proprietary ebook readers.

Obviously

[troll -1]

TV is basically a one way pipe to a dumb terminal, a relic of the last century. Online viewing has the potential to be much more.

But right now we need a lot more bandwidth to make online viewing a more convenient experience. Here's where conflict of interest comes in. In the US some big cable companies are also ISPs. Don't expect them to give you more Internet bandwidth so you can spend more time on the net and eventually cancel your cable subscription. Expect Net Neut to come up again and again as the net begins to compete with TV.

Google / Youtube deny wanting to cannabalise TV

[matw8]

As reported here

all in all...

[deviceb]

It seems most readers of / prefer controlling there own media rather then the brainwashing emanating from the tube.
i could rant for days on how TV does in fact rot the brain... but it seems most here do not need to here that ;)

bottom line: TV/networks need to adapt (voting for your favorite game-show ass face is not what i mean. {rather something along the lines of what they used to do with Lost. get fans involved by making them search the net for clues pertaining to the show, and also steal the best ideas from the fan base & incorporate them into the show. -all the while being targeted with ads of course })
the only constant is change.. On the same hand.. I don't really want the TV tainting the interweb more than it already is.. but thats asking for to much.

just the commercials actually

[ILuvRamen]

I have dual monitors and a really nice TV tuner card so I just mute the TV and watch vids online during the commercials. Nielson better be really glad they didn't pick me to study cuz there's absolutely no way to stop me or others from doing that at all (except making commericals way WAY less stupid and annoying)

Its all about Video that you could never see on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, its the only way you can view the huge amount of stuff out there that would never making it on TV. Where on TV are you going to be able to watch two midwestern guys talk about hacking a PSP? Or RAW footage right from the front lines of IRAQ? You can't, its all watered down pablum of sitcoms, soap operas, gameshows, lame cartoons, guys kicking a ball around, and totally censored or irrelevant news. Your brain would atrophy watching that crap.

einstein
http://psp.anarchy-tv.com/

Re:It's been a long time

[coastwalker]

Who says TV is bad? I just dont have time to watch it. I agree the BBC does some good stuff, we get some entertaining American series too in the UK - I've seen a load of episodes of the West Wing on DVD and occasionaly on the network, great fun. I try and sit and watch all the TV that my girlfriends watch, saw a lot of Buffy that way. But at the end of the day there are other things you can do with your life other than watching a lot of broadcast TV.

Opportunity knocks for the BBC

[adsl]

Online Video/TV is a win win situation for the BBC and it's viewers. Their Revenue comes largely from the License Fees, thus no Ads, so online BBC programs are NOT a loss leader, like they would be for say ITV. Indeed the BBC could even start a new source of Revenue. Instead of restricting their present trials of online programming, to UK residents only, they could open this up worldwide. Such new viewers could pay say %50.00 per annum and receive the BBC programming online. This would satisy those of us starved of good UK BBC programming and create new sources of revenue for the BBC. So Auntie BBC get with it and offer it outside of the UK ASAP. Forget those lousy deals re BBCAmerica etc. First I can't get that channel and if I could they mainly show 30 year old offerings that I already have on DVD. I can sign up now on Cable for dozens of international channels from all over the world, with the exception of the UK. So does us and yourself a favor, open up online BBC programming NOW to those of us o/s the UK.

Re:It's been a long time

[eno2001]

That I CAN agree on. I suppose it was a knee-jerk reaction to all the people I run into who make it seem like watching TV is a horrible thing to do to your brain.

TV Killed the Radio Star?

[Treates2]

TV killed the radio star, DVD killed VHS, DSL killed dialup, online videos killed the tv - coming soon.

Please stop...

[kn0tw0rk]

or I'll have a boner to pick with you. Pity there's not much meat left on it :)

People find solutions.

[crhylove]

This is simple human nature. Television has gotten increasingly shitty with reality shows over and over again on every channel, dozens of dumbed down and frequently WRONG documentaries, badly edited movies that sucked BEFORE being censored, and more commercials than any reasonable human could handle, even if they were in a coma. So naturally people are looking for other things to watch. Enter Bit Torrent and YouTube.

Television did not learn the mistakes that the music industry has STILL not learned. Movies are definitely starting to happen the same way as well.

Love it or Hate it, Loose Change would have been a block buster smash at the box office, but nobody funded it. Even so, millions have watched it over the Internet.

The corporations that run all of our media: TV, movies, music, and print, have tried for years to FORMULATE what people are going to like, and make it a simple numbers game. It's a stupid move. People ARE NOT STATISTICS. People like everything from tofu to greasy burgers. What's "hip" or "in" is a marker that is almost ALWAYS on the move, and never possible to peg with any kind of numbers game or statistic. Making money on trends, which is what most of our industry seems based on, is a foolish game that the house will always win, and in this case "the house" is the ever-changing real-time instant-here instant-gone fads that generally are impossible to capitalize on anyway.

If these corporations were really interested in making money, and not solely in making profit OFF OF NOTHING, they would fund real shows, real movies, real bands, real products, and real foods that are edible and healthy while tasting great. Their constant drive to spend less, rip off consumers, employees, governments, and as often as not shareholders is a game that can only prove profitable in the very short term, even DESPITE their monopolies!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

If someone offered a bad-ass little cell phone that doubled as ipod and camera, cost $100 and had a USB recharging interface on the computer and NO DRM, that someone would put MS, SONY, SAMSUNG, and every other shitty electronics corporation out of business.

At this point though, all those corporations have too high a vested interest in the MPAA, RIAA, and other bullshit political lobbies, and consequently make it impossible for themselves to make:

Decent movies,
decent music,
decent hardware,
decent magazines,
decent television,
decent food.

You get what you pay for. These corporations are not paying enough for what they are trying to sell, so naturally, their shit isn't selling.

Crying about it is just stupid. If you really want to make money, offer a decent product for a decent price, and STFU already.

There is still room for corporations to make money, but they better start making solid products that people want, and fast, because manufacturing prices will continue to go down, till everyone can manufacture whatever device they want without buying it from anyone, which has already happened in the software industry with FOSS (well, Firefox, and maybe Open Office, anyway...).

Playing the current game, with their refusal to innovate, or raise build quality, and eliminate DRM, ALL THESE CORPORATIONS are going to drive themselves out of business. Some frustrated consumer (like me!) is just going to design something decent for themselves, and give away the plans for free. Manufacturing is not going to suddenly become MORE expensive, so the writing is on the wall as to where this is going to lead:

The only way to make money will be in the service industry. People will still need to learn how to use things, and still need things fixed or built that they cannot make themselves. Beyond that, everything will probably end up open source, unless these companies really start innovating and offering valuable services and products.

Personally, my experience with FF and other "products" has been so great that I'm not crying one little bit.

Now whoever gets me that bad ass anti-DRM cell phone, will also get my money, and probably a grip of money from a lot of other people as well....

rhY

There's no free TV there...

[LostCluster]

Remember, in London it's illegal to operate a TV set without a license to do so. The sole reason for that license is to generate revenue for the BBC.

So there's a rational case for throwing out your TV and watching everything over a computer monitor... no tax!

REB1100

[Anonymous Coward]

I love my reb1100 - its an ebook reader. Try ebay.

Fictionwise have rebadged a few on their website.

Exactly

[remmelt]

My only question is, will they really? Will the content providers adapt? Online is always threatening offline, there's always some tv/telephone/cinema/cd/etc killer around. Traditional content providers never speak about the opportunities they see or have taken. That's alright though, it's adapt or die, or at least it would be in a real open economy. What we see now is that the companies have the power to do something about the rise of threatening new technology, either through bad press or bad politics.

You're wrong... stupid.. and outdated.

[ClioCJS]

When i watch youtube videos, I play them fullscreen. On my 36-inch TV. My TV has been connected to my computer since 1995. It's been 11 years. Get with the times, bub.

You're wrong.. and out of touch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most shows posted on the scene are posted in HDTV. Even on a normal CRT, these look far better than what the cable company can send me.

Not Isolation, individuality

[iendedi]

I think that as online TV becomes more popular, people will isolate themselves more and more from a shared experience. So people will end up having even more polarized views of things.

And you consider this a bad thing? Before the advent of television, people generally consumed literature for knowledge and enjoyment. Because what you read is essentially up to you (outside of school), people were in fact much more individualistic back then.

Television is the great brainwashing homogenizer. I don't know about you, but I am very comfortable with the idea that we take the power to control our minds away from those who currently have it. I don't think they are doing a particularly good job at instilling the correct ethics, morality or values into the population.

Perhaps, because of the Internet, we will have generations of thinkers rather than the TV Zombies being manufactured by Fox and HBO.

It's a good vision.