TV Ownership Declines For Second Time Since 1970

bs0d3 writes "Almost every year, the estimated number of U.S. households owning TV sets goes up. Until now. This year, for the second time since 1970, TV ownership has gone down; by about 1%. TV ownership among the key adult 18-49 demo also declined even steeper, down 2.7 percent and percentage of homes without a TV is at the highest level since 1975. The reasons behind this appear to be online media content and the recession."

Comments

Slashdotted already?

[mcl630]

Was this already slashdotted? Or is the link bad? Strange to have a web link using port 82.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Samantha Wright]

The link is actually an ugly frame-wrapping news aggregator. The actual story is from Entertainment Weekly. For shame, submitter. For shame.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not forget that it was approved by a slashdot editor as well. This is yet another of many reasons why I don't bother logging in anymore.
 
Thanks for the clean link.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Ihmhi]

Lets not forget that it was approved by a slashdot editor as well. This is yet another of many reasons why I don't bother logging in anymore.

Thanks for the clean link.

You don't get it man. They do this stuff on purpose. They deliberately misquote and mirepresent stories in order to generate discussion. It's all about increasing the traffic as much as possible! IT'S A CONSP- *hurk*

Ha ha. Just kidding. I enjoyed the story immensely. I live for reading Slashdot and it's masterful articles.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Lets not forget that it was approved by a slashdot editor as well. This is yet another of many reasons why I don't bother logging in anymore.

Just an idea, but comments are the property of the submitter, and the host is not responsible, at least in most countries. Possibly this system arose to protect Slashdot from copyright lawsuits from the stories it posts the way that Google News was attacked.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's odd. I read Slashdot every day, spend quite a bit of time and like it a lot. But frankly I mostly just read the slashdot comments, and rarely bother with TFA. It's just usually not necessary and I find I learn much more in understanding how people analyze and relate other facts than I generally do by reading the article. Of course if I'm really interested I do read the article first. But the comments are usually much more entertaining and useful than the article.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Disfnord]

it's

Brilliant parody of Slashdot editor's grammatical skills.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Ihmhi]

It was no parody. My brilliant linguisticalatic and grammetical skills show that that are the proper usage of "its". All hail Slashdot.

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor lhmhi was taken over by someone who doesn't understand its / it's. :(

Obligatory from The Onion

[Mean Variance]

An oldie but timeless.

Man doesn't own a TV

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

I own two TVs. I use one for DVDs, Netflix Instant, and OTA NFL games. The other is collecting dust in my bedroom, I really should have it recycled.

So while I own them, I don't watch much TV--at least not until it shows up on Instant. Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Gaygirlie]

I own two TVs. I use one for DVDs, Netflix Instant, and OTA NFL games. The other is collecting dust in my bedroom, I really should have it recycled.

So while I own them, I don't watch much TV--at least not until it shows up on Instant. Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

There's two TVs in this household too, but both are only used as display devices for PlayStation 3, PC and my tablet. None of them are used for watching actual TV - shows or such. Why? Because most of what is there is just plain crap and more annoying than entertaining. Watching TV is a terribly passive experience so if I'm going to sit down and just stare at the screen then I atleast expect it to be worth my time. Alas, if there even is a good TV show going it's always pushed to really late hours, it's shown only once a week, and there's only ever at most one, single good show running at any given time. Never more than one.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[LoudMusic]

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

Not in my book. The way I see it, you're a fucking hero. Keep up the good work.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a business class connection which is tied to my domain. I am not about to commit copyright infringement and have a direct link to me. Sorry.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

I guess I should have said I have it hooked up to a console device and I wouldn't have been modded into oblivion.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mrmeval]

I don't own a TV. Last year sometime I had to stay in a Motel and did not have a laptop or smart enough phone so was stuck watching TV.

I was inundated in all it's excremental glory. During a 1 hr movie I was presented with 20 minutes of commercials from the TV network along with slide ups, drip downs, splats and other crap slathered over top of the show I was trying to watch all the while the cable company had an annoying bar at the bottom harassing me to buy merchandise that had nothing to do with the demographic of the show, was boarder-line pornographic and mostly annoying.

I'd been TV free for two years. It had been bad when I'd quit but there is no way in hell I'll go back to those one way slimy assholes who think they own my eyes.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[similar_name]

While broadcast and cable TV may be down in viewership the decline in TV sets probably has more to do with saturation. Pretty much everyone has a TV whether it's used for games, internet video, traditional shows or collecting dust. People are still staring at screens a lot, it is just now connected to a general purpose computer and it's not called a TV.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[reboot246]

I'm sorry. I don't care for the old "bread and circuses" crap called pop culture. Network television is a wasteland of rehashed sitcoms and stupid reality shows. Who needs them?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[0100010001010011]

There are plenty of excellent TV shows that have already had their run.

I just stared Farscape. I watched all of Smallville in the course of 3 months.

The only down side... you might get sucked in. Me and my roommate have watched the entire run of Spaced this week. It's full of cultural references and pretty good.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tepples]

People are still staring at screens a lot, it is just now connected to a general purpose computer and it's not called a TV.

But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa, or are they forever alone in their own bedrooms?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[similar_name]

But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa, or are they forever alone in their own bedrooms?

That is a good point. As the technology line blurs between TV and 'monitor' perhaps the differentiation lies in your question.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you were modded to oblivion because you came off as a douche in the post. The reason The Onion story in the GPP that you replied to was funny, is because the guy in the article is a smug asshole which seems stereotypical for people who claim to not watch TV.

Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

It is understandable that you seem frustrated that people talk about shows you don't care about. Many people feel that way, but the tone of disdain in the message makes you come off as smarmy prick. That is why you were modded down, not because you don't play games.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Mark Twain, Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture. Pop culture is just the art and culture of the modern era, the rest is just that which has seemed to stand the test of time.

Just remember that when you are not being a pretentious asshole.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Randle_Revar]

It ain't a monitor until it does at least 1920x1200

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Kjella]

Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?". You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

Heh, I used to be the other way around... "Saw the first episode of $show last night, was really good." "Oh, what channel does that run on?" "Humm... it aired in the US last week, not sure if anyone here sends it." or "Damn, season 3 of $show rocks/sucks!" "Umm, aren't we on season 2?" "Maybe you are..." Fortunately "I couldn't wait" is a socially accepted excuse among fans everywhere. Not to mention it seems to become more and more common, I find there's more and more people I can talk to about episodes I know hasn't aired here yet. Funny, that.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

My TV is only for watching sci-fi. Otherwise I'm reading or on the internet.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Telecommando]

Before the analog to digital conversion, I had 5 TV sets in the house. But I couldn't afford/justify the expense of replacing them all so I only bought 2 digital sets.

Now, over a year later, I don't miss the other 3 and have no plans to replace them.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Ltap]

One of the annoying things about this "issue" is that "TV" is treated as a single, discrete entity, when it is really three things: a) the device, b) the programming, c) the delivery system (e.g. cable, satellite). Many people in their 30s and above think of them as insepar

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[demonlapin]

Cable is putting out Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, and Game of Thrones, all of which feature interesting plots, very good acting, and engaging writing. (Dexter was pretty weak last season, but I've been pretty happy with this one.)

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

And you were modded up Insightful responding seriously to a post which was clearly sarcastic and meant to be funny. Plus you did it as an AC.

If that's not 'douchey' and 'smarmy' I don't know what is.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[RobbieThe1st]

Well, asude from maby Mark Twain, I can't say I see any reason to read/watch/look at their works either.
Sure, most modern entertainment is frivolous and trite... but that doesn't mean that older works(which we now seem to revere) are actually any better...

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[evil_aaronm]

Ditto. We got rid of cable service almost two years ago and I don't miss it. I find that when I go somewhere that does have cable, it's embarrassing the so-called plots and acting, and the commercials are obnoxious. We have a big screen TV, but watch DVDs and play minimal Wii. If it's on, it's likely playing music from my wife's Apple TV.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[datavirtue]

I own one TV but only use it for watching movies via DVD. I have no cable or reception since I opted out of the digital receiver conversion thingy. I haven't had TV since. It is actually like breaking a drug addiction. You always think about it and wish you could tun on the news, but I know I'm better off without it. I only watched PBS before ditching it anyway, which is OK. The real issue isn't the recession OR streaming, it is a lack of notable or appropriate content. Seriously, all the network stuff was trash. When I did switch off PBS to another channel it wasn't for long.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[djl4570]

Back in 1982 the TV I owned died. I did without for a few years and didn't miss it. During that time I read lots of books and high quality magazines such as Parabola and Verbatim. Guests thought I was weird because I would leave back issues on the top of the toilet. I finally bought a small portable in 1986 so I could stop telling people I didn't own a TV. I wonder if the advent of entertainment media in the technological age is why SETI has failed to detect any signals. We are trapped by a vast wasteland of programming that is crap. Otherwise healthy minds zone out and atrophy while sucking on the glass teat. Perhaps alien cultures fell into the same trap. First it was television, then video games, then internet porn, then blogs and more porn and finally pontificating on Order 66 at Wookipedia. If I could do one thing over in my life it would be to get rid of the television when I was in grade school.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[CronoCloud]

I really don't think that last 120 pixels matter all that much, really.

Look, if you can hook up a non RF device to the screen it's technically a monitor. Back in the 80's TV sets that also had non-RF inputs were also called monitors, they were usualy badged as TV/Monitors, they usually had much nicer screens too, much more expensive though. In fact in the same period some people were predicting that all tV sets would become monitors to facilitate hooking home computers up, and that you would attach external TV tuners to them. so called "component systems" They never took off.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[fast turtle]

I really don't think that last 120 pixels matter all that much, really.

And I say Bull Pucky to that. If it aint 2560x2400 then it's not a monitor, it's a damn TV that claims to be a Monitor.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like what you need is privacy.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[hairyfeet]

Funny but I've found at least when it comes to the cableco my experience is quite the opposite, in that while I personally don't mention the fact that I don't own a TV the girls at the desk mention it constantly when i walk in. There always seems to be a new girl there and the others are like "That's the guy that doesn't own a TV" and the new girl is ALWAYS like "No, really, you have at least one, right? What do you mean no?" and when i point out that while I do have a capture card in my desktop I frankly haven't fired it up since 2009 the look I get, its just shock.

The hilarious part is the thing that seems to cause them vaporlock is NOT the fact that I don't actually own a set so much as I don't watch reality television which I swear the way they react I have to wonder if there is some hidden signal in that tripe that makes people addicted to that shit. Frankly I do NOT care who got voted off some island, or who was voted the best at singing some crappy old song and I sure the fuck don't want to watch anything called a Snooki. And when did the world start caring about such things? did I miss a memo again?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Fjandr]

I'm pretty sure that's just a shorter restatement of the point the AC you were replying to was making. It was the AC above that who was making the distinction between the two.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

"smug asshole which seems stereotypical for people who claim to not watch TV."

Being such a smug asshole myself, I ditched mine last century because I could stand to watch a single advertisement anymore or I would have become a serial killer.
Now I have a big monitor, a fast connection and uTorrent.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[dargaud]

Yes but what will be left of your hundreds of annual movies and TV series in, say, 50 years ? Only a handful of them. Then they will be called 'real art'. The rest is indeed "frivolous and trite" pop culture. We listen to Mozart now because very nearly ALL the others of his century have been forgotten. So one way to think about TV is that we might as well not waste our time with stuff that is worth forgetting, no ?
Personally I took the decision to eschew TV when I was 16 and that's one of the best 2 decision in my life.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mrmeval]

BWA HA HA HA Indie media FTW. DIE you manipulative big media assholes!!! You and your fucking sled too! :-D

We should burn a rosebud effigy annually.

Snowboards are more fun anyway, they have.. well gosh MORE CONTROL.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[dargaud]

Fair enough.
Let me add a little fun anecdote: at work a colleague started talking about Lady Gaga at lunch and, having no clue what he was talking about, I asked: "Who's Lady Gaga ?". Ensued one of those discussions where 2 alternate realities collide. I couldn't imagine anybody with such a stupid name so I was making fun of him for making it up. And he couldn't believe that in this day and age someone wouldn't know of Lady Gaga, so he thought I was pulling his leg and started getting pissed at me. And 10 colleagues around us where ROTFL.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[khr]

I haven't possessed a TV since I finished college and moved out on my own in the early 90's...

Around that time I was talking to a cousin of mine and when I mentioned I didn't have a TV, she asked "you don't have a TV? Where do you go to watch 90210?" And I was like "90210? what's that?" which shocked her even more...

TV interests me even less now that the sets are so much more high tech and thinner, I'm just not sure I can stack books on them.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[AmiMoJo]

The situation isn't quite so bad in the UK but I still avoid watching ads. Fortunately we have the commercial free BBC channels so you can flick over and watch a bit of news or something. Having said that I rarely watch any broadcast TV other than the BBC, preferring to get everything else via BitTorrent with the commercials removed.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[TheRaven64]

Totally agree. I don't have a TV, but I have a projector connected to a machine that can play DVDs and things from iPlayer. I watch a lot of TV shows, but I watch most of them a series at a time on rented DVDs. I'm usually in the early-adopter demographic, but the emphasis on DRM from the movie industry means that I'm sticking with DVDs at the moment.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[TheRaven64]

Why do you need to replace them? I don't know where you live, but in the UK a Freeview set top box only costs about £20 (my step father got a couple for £10 in the massive discounts a year or two ago). Just plug it into the old TVs and they'll work.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[SuricouRaven]

Aristophanes was quite the satirist. Doesn't work as well today because few people know what exactly he was satirising.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[SuricouRaven]

On the other hand, it's also putting out 'Ancient Aliens.' Television has good and bad shows, and often the most popular are the least culturally valuable.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[SuricouRaven]

Come to the dark side... join the pirates. We will save you money.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[1u3hr]

You always think about it and wish you could tun on the news

TV is purely for entertainment.

I remember when I was in primary school, the teacher asked us some questions about "current affairs" and asked if we watched the news . I said I didn't, because it was boring, for which I was sneered at. Then he proceeded to ask some questions about specific issues in the news, which I answered. He asked how I could know that if I hadn't watched the news. I replied that I read the newspaper every day. To which he was silent.

I wasn't being a smartarse, I just had never considered sitting through the dross that passes for "news" on TV as a way to keep up. Now I use mostly the BBC World Service, and still read a newspaper on Sundays, the rest via web. Never watch TV news unless there's a particularly photogenic disaster.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[SuricouRaven]

Didn't take off in the US. Here in Europe, we mandated many years ago that all TVs must have a composite input.

Unfortunatly we also mandated it be via the SCART port, a connector designed by a committee to support every possible video standard in existance at the time on one port. It has a cable like a hosepipe and no retention clips.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[SuricouRaven]

The TV advertising industry finds this concerning. Not the torrenting - pirates are actually a very small minority - but the use of PVRs to flick through adverts, a practice which threatens to destroy their entire business model. That's why they have increasingly been turning to product placement in recent years, and some channels have opted to make their commercial breaks shorter and more numerous.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

You know, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Mark Twain, Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture. Pop culture is just the art and culture of the modern era, the rest is just that which has seemed to stand the test of time.

Just remember that when you are not being a pretentious asshole.

People who have no sense of taste, style or discrimination always rely on cultural relativism to justify their enjoyment of garbage and inability to enjoy anything more challening than a coffee advert. If you want to say that "Jersey Shore" and "King Lear" are simply two bits of culture, with nothing to distinguish them qualitatively, I feel sorry for you.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

If you can't appreciate Shakespeare, Mozarrt and Picasso (leave aside Greek playwrights for the moment) then you have a very shallow understanding of the world. It may not be your fault, but you're still missing something.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[hairyfeet]

I gave mine up when I got my first capture card around 2000. Once you have a capture card you think "hey my monitor is better resolution than my TV, why do I need a TV again?" and that's that. I'm sure this will make me sound extra geeky but when Firefly went off that was the last of the TV for me. The only one that missed me not having a TV was my ex, she liked to snuggle up with a movie but once she learned how to control the PC with the remote she was fine with it.

The funny part is i gave up on TV because of my monitor and now one of my biggest sellers is people having me build HTPCs so they can get rid of their monitor for their TV! I can see the appeal though, at least for part of it. watching one of my customers play Batman:AA on that nice 42 inch was quite impressive and his wife just loves to death the Lenovo remote I recommend for her as the keys on it are just like texting on a phone which she is scarily fast at.

i just wonder now that all the TVs are basically monitors with tuners if we'll see more doing like my customers and just forgetting the big monitor and going for the big set.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Phoghat]

Ok, then how about I don't give a shit about your frivolous and trite pop "culture"? I'm too busy immersing myself in real arts and culture.

Touchy today, are we? Methinks that you doth protest a bit much.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mdsolar]

I only use one TV but I bought a digital early. It broke after a hurricane and I decided to buy used because I prefer the CRT to the plasma or LED. It was very hard to find a used TV. I finally went with a good SONY HDTV that lacked a digital tuner combined with a tuner box with HD output that had been a demo given to an FCC guy. That took dedicated searching. But you can get TVs like the ones you replaced for free. Most tuner boxes only put out standard resolution so there is no improvement going to digital with those TVs and the subsidized tuner boxes.

So, I think we are seeing a very tight used market for HDTV and a very pricy latest tech driven new market. Little wonder that ownership is down. A lot of false advertizing that you have to have cable or satellite to get HD is probably souring the market as well.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Phoghat]

Shut the fuck up, simpleton.

And I JUST used up all my mod points too!

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Phoghat]

On the other hand, it's also putting out 'Ancient Aliens.' Television has good and bad shows, and often the most popular are the least culturally valuable.

On the other hand, I have 4 fingers and an opposable thumb.

De gustibus non est disputandum IS the operative phrase here.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[AmiMoJo]

In defence of TV there are some good programmes and while I enjoy reading I also like being able to relax and eat dinner or just rest by eyes in front of the box. I spend all day reading a computer screen, focused on something relatively near to me and looking for fine detail, so it is nice to do something different when I get home.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which will come to DVD and you can buy them. So lets see cable access for basic stuff around me is about $30 bucks a month. HBO is about another $8, and those are the deal prices you have to keep calling to get.

38 x 12 = $456 a year

HBO DVD price $60 maybe $70 a season. You can find them cheaper some times.
70 x 3 = $210

Net savings $246, any other TV shows you want to buy?

Price is the only reason why I ditched cable. Hulu, CBS.com and netflix along with sharing dvd seasons among my friends makes cable priced way too high to be worth it for me.

I don't have a family and the amount of TV watching is just based on me solo so that is why I killed it. If I had a family of 4 and young kids I would think it would be more worth while to have cable.

I do miss History Channel and Discovery channel, but then again buy DVDs.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[pnutjam]

DVD is code for ******** copy.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

You're like that judge in the 1960s who asked "who are the Beatles?" At some point, it is simply perverse not to be aware of the real world around you.

You can be aware of things like chart stars, popular reality TV series, bestselling novels and so on without having either to like or consume them.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

Personally I took the decision to eschew TV when I was 16 and that's one of the best 2 decision in my life.

What's the other?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

So you're all 1337 because you ditched your boring old TV, but now you watch even more rubbish, but that's OK because you do it on your computer?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

My TV is only for watching sci-fi. Otherwise I'm reading or on the internet.

I'd be more impressed with that statement if there was, in fact any good sci-fi on TV.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

Unfortunatly we also mandated it be via the SCART port, a connector designed by a committee to support every possible video standard in existance at the time on one port. It has a cable like a hosepipe and no retention clips.

But for 99% of users and uses, SCART is fine, it certainly makes hooking up new peripherals a doddle.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[operagost]

I can't specifically appreciate Picasso's works. I'm pretty much a Dutch Golden Age and Impressionist guy.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[operagost]

Where do you go to watch 90210?" And I was like "90210? what's that?" which shocked her even more...

Apparently she failed to notice you have a penis.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgoing sex obviously.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[jedidiah]

That's a great problem with most of the classics. People don't realize that they were "timely" and "topical". As others have said, they weren't simply created "for some pure higher purpose". In the case of Shakesphere, he was doing it for the money.

The Globe theatre was the boob tube of the day.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[jedidiah]

You can't really rag on Twillight until you've actually seen Twillight.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[jedidiah]

What makes you think he watches Jersey Shore?

That's the problem with bragging about your own ignorance...

You become ignorant to the point of public ridicule.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[jedidiah]

...which is why it is good that someone decided to apply general purpose computing technology to the issue of finding, selecting and automatically recording content.

As far as "popularity" goes, I suspect that the most pretentious people here are actually the least informed about that and the least likely to actually check their assumptions.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[dargaud]

Going to spend a winter in Antarctica...

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[avandesande]

...and the vast majority of it is forgotten.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and I'm happy to catch all of those over a long weekend down the road when I can watch the whole series, commercial free, in a go, essentially free (or close to it) from Netflix or whatever.

Otherwise I can't be bothered to schedule my life around some show. And I'm not using some commercially approved DVR (which doesn't adequately remove the commercials) or fucking with MythTV for the privilege of time shifting either. Likewise paying HBO or Starz 10 bucks a moth (apiece) for the privilege or watching the one show they're airing that isn't ass, is too expensive. In fact, the insane expense is why I ditched cable altogether. OTA isn't worth screwing with whatever antenna solution is condo compatible (besides it has commercials, and really, screw commercials).

I literally have more entertainment than I can ever consume and that's without an endless timesink like many MMOs seem to be, if I spent a lot of time on one of those I'd probably need no other entertainment at all.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[BigSes]

So you're all 1337 because you ditched your boring old TV, but now you watch even more rubbish, but that's OK because its stolen and you do it on your computer?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

Oldie but goodie indeed, always liked that one. I haven't read the linked article, but it is one of many (probably all cannibalized from each other) and I've seen a few.

It's misleading to the point of possibly (or probably even) being false. Just because sales have fallen doesn't mean ownership has fallen. I haven't bought a TV since 2002, so they probably count me as a "household without a TV" despite the fact that there are two in the house (one of which hasn't been turned on in years).

A more accurate headline would be "TV sales decrease for the first time since 1970".

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

Because most of what is there is just plain crap and more annoying than entertaining.

Well, TV has always been mostly crap, but I do think it's worse than I've ever seen it. The only thing I watch any more is Big Bang Theory, and the morning news shows just to keep me occupied while I drink my coffee and wake up.

I was pissed off last night, they pre-empted BBT for some local show about bullying. Guess I'll catch that episode on the internet.

I refuse to watch movies on TV, especially comedies; the censorship totally ruins it. What's odd is, for example, "The Terminator" they show Arnold ripping a guy's heart out, all sorts of carnage in the disco, shooting a middle aged woman in the forehead, cutting his eyeball out, but they censor the "fuck you, asshole." WTF is wrong with those people?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[AmiMoJo]

I would love to know exactly how much one viewer is worth in terms of advertising revenue. My guess is not much, certainly less than £1. Rather than trying to chase networks who take their massive cut the show producers should sell directly to viewers.

There would be a pilot episode released for free and people who liked it could pre-order the series. If there is enough interest the show gets made. Just like a pilot shown on TV the viewing figures and viewer approval ratings would indicate if it is worth making more episodes, and the pre-order money would help finance them (as well as the usual loans and investments). Even if a show made considerably less than it would on TV the overall profit to the producers would be the same or better since the middle men have been cut out.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying the three 1920x1080 monitors on my computer are TVs?
I'd argue it's not a monitor unless it has a DVI port, but Samsung recently decided to switch out having a HDMI and DVI port on their monitors for a VGA/RGB and a HDMI port. Really? Who buys a 27" 1920x1080 monitor for use with a VGA cable?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[fsck -fy]

From my perspective, no! I am visually impaired and only seldomly feel the need to use a resolution this high. My home computer is connected to a cheap-as-dirt used monitor which fails to do display anything above 1024x768 and to me it is a feature, not a bug as it means the text is not scaled. BTW: I know quite a few people who don't have a TV but never met anyone remotely like the onion article. I generally find this out only when talking to the person a longer time. So yeah, while parodies are meant to exaggerate, I do not even see the thing they exaggerated upon (people without car however...).

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Nethemas the Great]

That's ok. According to Data...

That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue, I spent 5 minutes thumbing through the first book, and I knew then (before it was a movie) that it was abysmal. The quality of writing is more appropriate to someone writing at a junior high level and is embarrassing beyond belief for a "professional author".

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. I don't care for the old "bread and circuses" crap called pop culture.

The very worst that pop culture has to offer is still far better than the wannabe elitism of hipsters like you who desperately want to appear to be "above" pop culture.

Doubly so when you think you're being clever by repeating the tired old "bread and circuses" line. It doesn't make you look like the world-weary cynic you want to think you are.

Oh, and by the way: those sports games you watch on television are pop culture.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

A digital tuner box for an analog TV is only forty bucks, that's what I use for my nine year old TV.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

While broadcast and cable TV may be down in viewership

Cable viewership can be measured easily by the cable company, but how can over the air viewership possibly be measured? Comcast lost me as a customer quite a while ago, and I switched to their competetion -- an antenna. I have no Nielson box, how can they possibly know if I even turn the set on? By any measurable metric, I don't have a TV even though there are two in the house.

This is, I think, why people don't trust statistics, because so many "statistics" are entirely bogus. Less TV ownership? I haven't bought a TV in nine years, how are they counting me?

They spew "statistics" about drug use, how can they have a clue? They can enumerate drug siezures and arrests, but there's no way possible to know how many people are using illegal drugs. But that doesn't stop them from giving "statistics".

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa

Cnsidering that most TVs have HDMI ports and many have built in wifi now (my mom's new TV even has USB ports), why not? I know I'd much rather watch BBT on the 42 inch TV than on the notebook's little screen.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

It ain't a monitor until it does at least 1920x1200

So computers didn't have monitors until this century? Funny, I thought that green screen hooked up to my old IBM XT was a monitor. Hmm, let's google. Noun 1. computer monitor - a device that displays signals on a computer screen

Monitor
The term "monitor" is often used synonymously with "computer screen" or "display." The monitor displays the computer's user interface and open programs, allowing the user to interact with the computer, typically using the keyboard and mouse.

Older computer monitors were built using cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which made them rather heavy and caused them to take up a lot of desk space. Most modern monitors are built using LCD technology and are commonly referred to as flat screen displays. These thin monitors take up much less space than the older CRT displays. This means people with LCD monitors have more desk space to clutter up with stacks of papers, pens, and other objects.

"Monitor" can also be used as a verb. A network administrator may monitor network traffic, which means he watches the traffic to make sure the bandwidth usage is within a certain limit and checks to see what external sources may be attempting to access the network. Software programs may monitor the system's CPU performance as well as RAM and hard disk usage.

Finally, monitors also refer to speakers used for monitoring sound. Audio engineers typically use "studio monitors" to listen to recordings. These high-end speakers allow the engineers to accurately mix and master audio tracks. So a sound mixer could be monitoring a recording visually using a computer monitor, while monitoring the sound using audio monitors at the same. As you can tell, "monitor" serves as a rather multipurpose word.

Hmm, nothing there about resolution. Maybe my old IBM had a monitor and you (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Creepy]

I'd be more impressed with that statement if there was, in fact any good sci-fi on TV.

no. There is some unrealistic inane idea sci-Fi on TV though that panders to the ignorant masses. Terra Nova makes me groan as often or more often than Train does (I'm a lyrics guy, and my wife is not a lyrics gal - she LOVES Train because she ignores the inane groaner filled lyrics and just sings the choruses), and that takes effort.

and if you don't understand what I mean by groaner from Train, here's an example from the groaner filled "If It's Love":
early in the song there is a lyric about "husband and wife," so I assume the song is about a straight couple, and then this
"I wanna buy ya everything
Except cologne 'cause it's poison"

Colognes are a name for perfumes marketed to men... and yes I am aware there are some marketing gimmick colognes for women, but these are always labeled "women's cologne" and "women's" is not in the lyric.

and that is the only thinker in that song - any song that mentions "Mister Mister" and "remember Winger" gets some serious groans for bands I didn't like in the '80s that got popular God knows how. If he dropped Menudo into the mix, I'd probably throw up every time I heard this song.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tepples]

Look, if you can hook up a non RF device to the screen it's technically a monitor.

But not a computer monitor once computer makers stopped making home computers that were compatible with composite monitors as a standard feature.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[DrSkwid]

It doesn't matter how hard you try the vast majority of the world's books, music, films, television and art, you will never see.[1]

Consider books alone.

If you read two books a week for your whole life, that's about 6500 books.

Two full Kindles worth.

The number of book titles on Amazon.com is: 1,748,230 [2]

[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/04/21/135508305/the-sad-beautiful-fact-that-were-all-going-to-miss-almost-everything
[2] http://askville.amazon.com/book-titles-amazon/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7298162

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture.

No they didn't. Mozart became "pop culture" when he got a little too weird and the rich folks stopped paying him. None of the other pop stars of his culture are remembered today.

Picasso was never considered "pop culture". Warhol practically invented "pop art". None of the painters who were showcased in the galleries when Van Gogh couldn't sell any paintings are remembered today.

Not all great art was popular, and little that was popular is considered great art, But your "standing the test of time" is correct. 99.9% of everything you read and watch and listen to will be forgotten a hundred years from now, but there are true artists now as there always was, and they will be remembered.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

At some point, it is simply perverse not to be aware of the real world around you.

What do the Beatles and Lady Gaga have to do with the world around me? They're not IN the world around ME.

You can be aware of things like chart stars, popular reality TV series, bestselling novels and so on without having either to like or consume them.

You can, but it isn't required. As I'm one who's always shunned and despised the worship of celebrities, I don't give a damn about some Hollywood bimbo's drug addiction, no matter how talented they are.

I'd dearly love to watch a news show without hearing about "dancing with the stars." If I wanted to know about that incredibly stupid show I'd just watch the damned thing.</crochety old man>

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

While media content owners may think that "Instant" is 'stealing', it's not. I don't download anything illegally.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, I always thought my old 1024x768 CRT that I used to play Quake on was a monitor. Thanks for setting me straight!

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

You're not only missing his point, you seem to be trying to actively avoid it. The fact is, 99% of everything is crap. And just because I enjoy something doesn't make it high art. I mean, I love BBT and I loved My Name Is Earl, but I doubt either one will ever be considered "high art" any more than Jersey Shore.

They've been rerunning Rawhide on MeTV; I was a kid when it was on (actually it started before I was born), and it is surprisingly good, often insightful.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

You'd probably like his early, pre-cubist work. Most laymen who see an early Picasso say "wow, he could really paint?"

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

I wonder if the advent of entertainment media in the technological age is why SETI has failed to detect any signals.

Maybe they don't know where to look?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Fjandr]

In the US, "professional" is frequently the label added to work that would be more appropriate if submitted by a high schooler.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[hairyfeet]

I guess that is the same thing with the reality tripe as I've noticed talking with my customers the females are SERIOUSLY addicted to that shit, why? i haven't a damned clue. But I've also noticed its the females addicted to farmville and those other horrible "games" which remind me of a hamster running on a wheel to get a pellet.

Maybe my oldest nephew was right when he calmly walked up to me at age 6 and had me lean down and told me his great revelation "Uncle, girls are just......they're weird".

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[khr]

Actually, not that, I think she failed to consider that there was anybody who wouldn't have been interested in that show, gender notwithstanding... On the other hand, I didn't know 90210 was a chick show, as I never knew more about it than the name and that it was extremely popular...

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[khr]

I got my first capture card around 2000

Oh yeah, that reminds me, I had a TV tuner card for my PC in 2001... But I was living in India and getting cable TV was such a pain. After two months of it the cable broke or the something went wrong with the signal. The cable guy refused to fix it until I paid the bill and I refused to pay the bill until it was fixed, so at an impasse there I gave up with my new, novel experience of having a television (and gave up watching Tu Tu, Main Main to try and learn some Hindi from a funny sitcom without complicated dialogue...)

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mrmeval]

If it were just the commercials I'd be ok. If I could stream it the exact same as I'd watch a VCR recorded TV show I'd be ecstatic. If I could pay them exactly what my set of eyes garner them from the commercials I would as it's far less than what they want to gouge out of me. "CWTV" shuts off the on screen volume control. HULU has several quirks. Both won't let you pause something for more than a brief time.

I'm to the point that I watch via their broken streaming maybe 4 shows and am going to drop one due to their incoherent and psychotic scheduling and just pick it up as DVDs in the used bin when they cancel the thing.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Randle_Revar]

>I thought that green screen hooked up to my old IBM XT was a monitor.

Prehistoric predecessor to a monitor. Actual monitor status debatable.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Randle_Revar]

>So you're saying the three 1920x1080 monitors on my computer are TVs?
Not TVs, rather they are Fischer Price toy monitors. When they grow up, maybe they will be real monitors.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[toddestan]

The thing is, now anytime someone admits they don't have a TV around here, no matter the context, you have the inevitable responses along the lines of "Oh, so you're one of THOSE people". Perhaps The Onion should make an article about that.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[toddestan]

If it's not 4:3 (5:4 is okay too) it's not a monitor. Widescreen is for movies and gamers, not computing.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[AK Marc]

Porn is not real arts and culture.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mcgrew]

Odd, that's what they were called. And think about the term "prehistoric", they've been writing things down for six or eight thousand years now. The stone age was way before green CRTs, it was the '70s when everyone was getting stoned.

Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because everything on TV now is absolutely shite.

Re:Or...

[ackthpt]

Perhaps because everything on TV now is absolutely shite.

Or it starts out good, but then they beat it to death.

Sponsors pay for the shows and should be demanding better, but then they go and try propping up something like the Simpsons for a couple decades because it's a safe bet for viewer share.

Can't win for losing.

Re:Or...

[antifoidulus]

But increased "sponsor time" is at least in part to blame for the declining quality, esp. of comedy shows in my opinion. When the Simpsons started, they had two and half minutes, or roughly 10% more show time per episode than they do now. The extra time gave the writers more of a chance to better pace out their jokes and had time for better B and C stories. Some of the funniest Simpsons moments are the B and C stories, but there is no way any of those could have stretched into a full story. Part of the reason I think they do some of the extended couch gags nowadays is that the A story isn't enough to fill the whole episode, but whereas in the past they would have had enough time to do a good B story, now they are forced to make up the gap using a couch gag as there is no way they could fit the B story into the time allotted.

Re:Or...

[nomel]

They're talking about the physical device, not the content.

I have a "TV", but I use it as a large monitor for my computer. The only difference between a large "computer screen" and "TV" with hdmi and vga ports these days is an integrated tuner and less emphasis on things like color accuracy.

I think their numbers are going to get more and more meaningless as time goes on.

Re:Or...

[mirix]

The commercials. Jesus Christ. When I very rarely watch live TV (say, at a friends house), I'm shocked by the amount of advertisements. How did people ever let themselves become subject to such shit?

I watch a few shows that I DL, and listen to public radio, if I listen to radio. Adblock on the web. Advertising is still stupidly pervasive, even with all that... Why would I pay to watch it?

Re:Or...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Where I live, there are still a couple of good current affairs programs, and I find that lately there have been a couple of very good series (most notably from HBO). TV isn't all shite... but some years ago I've discovered that watching TV live (not live tv) is an utterly rubbish experience. Well, I didn't really discover it; it's just that before PVRs made time-shifting practical and easy, there was no real alternative to viewing everything as it was broadcast. That meant wasting time channel surfing, waiting for your favourite show to come on, and sitting through endless, repetitive commercial breaks... I can't imagine how people were/are able to handle that crap.

I still watch a fair amount of TV, but it's all time-shifted. I can download the series I want to watch, and most of our TV channels have a rather good service for watching their shows of the past few weeks on-line. And I still own a TV to watch it all on.

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a look at all the adult fans of My Little Pony:Friendship is Magic. I watched some of it, and yes, it's aimed at 6 year olds, but within those limits on content and language, it's actually got characterisation and plots that make sense within the logic of the show world.
What does it say about modern television when a cartoon for 6 year olds is less condescending and intellectually insulting than the huge array of shows that are allegedly made for my demographic?

Re:Or...

[viperidaenz]

Thats what happens when a 30 minute time slot has 9 minutes of ads...

Re:Or...

[tepples]

The only difference between a large "computer screen" and "TV" with hdmi and vga ports these days is an integrated tuner and less emphasis on things like color accuracy.

That and being big enough to fit several people around. A "computer screen" still has to fit on a desk, possibly the same desk that once held a 17".

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say I've watched regular TV unshifted for a very very long time. I purchased a VCR that I could program a year after I graduated college, and I haven't watched live TV ever since -- and that was back in 1992. Live TV free for 19 years, and I'll never go back. Sure, it's gotten better with PVRs and now DVRs, but it's still the same thing. I skip the commercials.

Re:Or...

[Macgrrl]

I still listen to commercial radio, but haven't watch live-to-air TV in I don't know how long, a number of years. We mostly consume TV shows via DVDs or downloads.

I see far more print advertisements (in the mail box, the free commuter newspaper and the local broadhseet's webpage) than any other source.

Re:Or...

[gfxguy]

...and that's why God invented Tivo.

Re:Or...

[demonlapin]

There are still people who think that piracy might end up with them on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Really rich people don't care, and poor people won't be much bothered. But someone who makes $100k/year has a lot to lose and yet not enough resources to avoid being hurt badly by an adverse judgement.

Re:Or...

[datavirtue]

"Wondrous secrets were revealed to me the day I held aloft my sword and said...."by the power of gray-skull.........I am Sheeeraahhhh......"

Re:Or...

[CronoCloud]

Yeah, what was up with that?

What I don't get is why She-Ra had so much better stories and writing than He-Man, same production company but She-Ra was obviously written by someone who cared. Hordak, was simply a much better, more competent and better written villain than Skeletor ever was.

Re:Or...

[ncgnu08]

That's what the DVR and "last channel" button are for. This allows one to watch two shows at once, missing the commercials from both.

Re:Or...

[Opportunist]

And what's not is available online as well.

Re:Or...

[Opportunist]

Too true.

When I was a kid, the average half-hour show was 25 minutes. Today, we're closer to 15 minutes. In a few years, "commercial break" will turn around, it's gonna mean the break between the commercials where they show the 5 minutes of the show.

Re:Or...

[Opportunist]

You got only 9 minutes of ads sliced into your shows?

Or do you not count self promotion by networks that insist in showing you previews for shows you never wanted to hear about (which accounts for about as much time by now as the ads themselves)?

Re:Or...

[sound vision]

... and the length of the program (21 minutes) is exactly the same on "Tivo" (read: digital video recorder).

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well maybe, I watch mostly old stuff star-trek (everything apart from TOS, never got into that) and lately a rerun of Dallas (J.R is a pice of shit, but it's nice to have a character to hate that everyone who has ever seen one episode agrees on). But back on topic, yes a lot of the new stuff seems mass produced, and even a few channels that used to be realy good (Discovery an National geographic) seems to have refocused on "Ice road truckers" and the like, come on we can get reality tv everywhere else

Re:Or...

[TheRaven64]

So? I don't pirate, but I rent TV shows on DVD. It costs less than a cable subscription to have 3 DVDs at home at once and since I don't receive broadcast TV I don't need a TV license, so it works out at about the same total cost.

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the '70s my family all gathered around a 12 inch TV.

Re:Or...

[SuricouRaven]

The channels have countered tivo with new ways to get the advertising in. Like those annoyingly huge banners that take up half the screen, and the increasing use of product placement. Sometimes so skillful you won't even notice it, others so unsubtle it ruins the program.

Re:Or...

[surgen]

should be demanding better, but then they go and try propping up something like the Simpsons for a couple decades because it's a safe bet for viewer share.

Y'know, I think that if The Simpsons was the worst kind of programming we had to deal with, I'd call it a victory. Sure they've lost their charm for a lot of people, but even if their comedic voice has changed it still is a decent show with amazing production value.

Re:Or...

[jedidiah]

In the 80s, my computer "monitor" was a 19 inch color TV.

Re:Or...

[gfxguy]

Oh, I see what they do, and I do find it annoying... they are starting to mix up the length of commercial breaks, too... sometimes just one or two ads, then another break will be like 7 minutes of ads; to add to the annoyance, they are varying the segment lengths... sometimes no longer than the commercial breaks.

So people will continue finding technical means to circumvent the annoyances, and when it just gets to be too much - they'll quit.

Re:Or...

[nomel]

Mine is a 47 inch 1080p color tv, so, TV computer screens seem to grow about an inch per year. :)

Re:Or...

[demonlapin]

That's fine if you don't mind watching TV a year or more behind.

Re:Or...

[mcgrew]

I don't mind product placement a bit. In fact, I'd rather have the character drinking a Budweiser or a Guiness than some obviously made up brand. It makes the show more realistic.

The other shit you mention, yeah, I absolutely hate it.

Re:Or...

[SuricouRaven]

Depends on how well it's done. A well-performed product placement isn't a problem, but sometimes it can be horribly forced and appear out of place, or even demand the writers alter the story in order to get it in.

The most extreme case of placement-induced rewriting I've heard of was actually from Japan - the fourth series of Digimon. The series actually started out as a card game and toy series, with a TV series written to promote those. Over the first three series it created a popular world with many viewers, but the company behind it decided that the series had drifted too far from it's original purpose: Selling toys. So they made a demand to the writers for series four: The series must not only include all of the toys and the card game, but they must all be frequently shown and used by the characters and made an integral part of the story. Amazingly, the writers actually pulled it off and made that work story-wise, but only by performing a complete reboot of the story universe, relegating the previous three series to 'didn't really happen.'

And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[unity100]

'If it sold, rinse and repeat it' -> the same principle corporations employ in everywhere else including game sector is employed the same in tv sector for a long time now. so, we get shows that are repetitions of each other, totally geared towards keeping high ratings than viewer satisfaction nomatter what the cost in the long run (hence shows like american idol), creative talent getting tired (writers) of having to produce content too frequent and starting mold-cast repetitions and ...... you get the idea.

Thats also a reason why there is so much piracy. Shit is not even worth paying cents. There is so few content that actually is worth it, and they are being bundled with 100s of useless crap in order to bump up prices and sell everything over those few shows. A good example is sports broadcasts (only for popular sports though) -> bundle sports broadcasts with 100s of shitty channels and sell people. they will have to buy it for sports from those exaggerated prices. or, a few quality shows - all the same format. NO different than how music industry has been selling us albums containing sub-par 12 songs bundled with chart topper 2 songs for the last 2 decades.

Natural result of profit maximization of capitalist system - maximization eventually results in trying to achieve maximum possible profit with minimum effort in shortest amount of time, and you end up getting 'crap' as the product.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Yes, this is it.

I remember when the Discovery Channel was actually educational and even thrilling, showing a packs of lionesses hunting gazelles and whatnot.

Now, it's a bunch of bullshit "reality" shows which all could be titled something like, "Ignorant wooden-acting rednecks hamming it up while doing tedious or dangerous jobs." Seriously, the West Coast Chopper guys?

Disco, get your fucking cameramen back out to the damn jungle or rainforest. I want to see strange animals and their mating habits again.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[game kid]

So you're saying "ignorant wooden-acting rednecks" don't count as "strange animals"?

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[AlphaWolf_HK]

They still do, or at least Discovery as a company still does. Only difference now is that there are different channels with different Discovery related topics (I think there are a total of 6 different "Discovery" channels.) The one you're looking for goes by the name Animal Planet, and yes it is owned and run by Discovery networks, and yes it is rich with plenty of animal porn (not to be confused with bestiality.)

I myself am an avid watcher of Investigation Discovery, aka ID channel.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Randle_Revar]

Quality has declined on those channels as well, if not as much

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[datavirtue]

wow.....on so many levels. "Here we see the north american fleetfooted flannel shod redneck about to make an attempt on this particular female........she's not having it, oh oh, oooohhhh, no one saw that coming!"

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[theArtificial]

Kudos, Sir.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Thats also a reason why there is so much piracy.

That's something I've never understood. How does crappy content encourage more people to download it? If I think something is worthwhile, then I watch it. If I don't, then I won't. Why would you continue to seek out and download shows (or music, movies, games, or any other form of entertainment) you think are crap?

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[AlamedaStone]

Thats also a reason why there is so much piracy.

That's something I've never understood. How does crappy content encourage more people to download it? If I think something is worthwhile, then I watch it. If I don't, then I won't. Why would you continue to seek out and download shows (or music, movies, games, or any other form of entertainment) you think are crap?

Well, it beats doin stuff.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[master_p]

I want to see strange animals and their mating habits again.

According to your description of their program, they do :-).

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[unity100]

let me tell you something - i have not even watched 20 minutes of many things i downloaded. had to close down. after it repeated too many times over a duration of time, i quit even downloading. now im just not watching anything. if, i was content with just staring at something mildly amusing to busy myself as i was in earlier years, i would download better of the crap and stare at them and then maybe smile occasionally or say 'hmpphhhfff'. but im not content with that anymore.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

And over on one of the channels with "Adult Lock" enabled you can see the result of the a fore mentioned redneck making a successful attempt.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not surprising. They have the same amount of good content as before but now it's split between many channels.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Disco, get your fucking cameramen back out to the damn jungle or rainforest. I want to see strange animals and their mating habits again."

Why would they bother when you can get it for free?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

OK, so no mating habits, but cool nonetheless.

I guess 64,402,526 viewers isn't enough to catch the attention of Discovery Channel. Or maybe the message presented by pissed off water buffalo is too close to "KILL THE RICH!" for the shareholders comfort?

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

Employing typical slashfag logic here: So you're saying that Animal Planet now only shows meerkats building bikes?

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[xhrit]

They changed that. Animal Planet does not make shows about animals anymore. They make shows about people who like and or work with animals. I have not watched much since they made that change. I am however a fan of Investigation Discovery, aka the Murder Channel.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[jedidiah]

This is a trend across the board: more channels with content being diluted across them.

A single channel might be good for one or two decent shows tops, with the rest being shark jumping garbage.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now future generations will now understand the Song "Bad Touch" by Blink 182.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[treeves]

Yeah, flannel shoes are a huge turn off for most women.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to have to wade through American Chopper and Deadliest Catch to get Mythbusters and ID seems more like Law and Order, Short Bus Edition. Or CSI for dummies. I don't want a crap mystery novel fed to me over TV. I'd rather watch Hill Street Blues reruns.

Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe its being inundated with invasive high volume crap they should PAY YOU to watch every 15 minutes. Its geared to intellectually bankrupt people, and its an insult to be exposed to it. I download shows now, and I feel good cheating cable companies out of revenue. I feel good. Why? Because their retarded content is destroying our society.

Re:Right...

[somersault]

I download shows now, and I feel good cheating cable companies out of revenue. I feel good. Why? Because their retarded content is destroying our society.

Good job, you genius motherfucker. Let all the idiots buy the crap, then download the stuff that apparently is good. That will really encourage them to improve.

Re:Right...

[ackthpt]

Maybe its being inundated with invasive high volume crap they should PAY YOU to watch every 15 minutes. Its geared to intellectually bankrupt people, and its an insult to be exposed to it. I download shows now, and I feel good cheating cable companies out of revenue. I feel good. Why? Because their retarded content is destroying our society.

Well, the paying thing right there... Let's consider household expenses.

• Mobile and data plan for the smart phone - 70$ (on up)
• Cable/Satellite TV 50$ on up (I know some people with combined plans for this and above of around 140$ month)

Consider early cable was around $17 month and land line phone was $15 month (excluding long distance.) Getting kinda spendy, isn't it?

Re:Right...

[M0j0_j0j0]

In Capitalist America TV watches you!!!

Re:Right...

[antifoidulus]

I always found this argument hilarious, you complain endlessly about poor quality as the reason you won't pay, and yet you obviously still sit there and watch it. Um, you know there are other things to do besides watch shit, you are aware of this right? RIGHT? If the stuff sucks that badly, don't pirate it, go out for a walk, doodle on paper, read something etc.

Re:Right...

[Anarki2004]

I always thought that was Oceania. That, or maybe London.

Fad

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I told you so. TV is just a fad (says dead guy from the early 50s).

Re:Fad

[ackthpt]

Ha! I told you so. TV is just a fad (says dead guy from the early 50s).

You probably mean Fred Allen, a great (nay, brilliant) humorist who hosted a radio variety/comedy show. He was well known for poking fun at Television and show characters, like Titus Moody the farmer saying he was doubtful of it, but had (by the early 50's) determined that Radio was here to stay.

I have an additional theory

[grasshoppa]

How about the idea that, by and large, the shows on TV are painful to watch?

Seriously, how people can subject themselves to the crap on TV now a days boggles my mind.

Re:I have an additional theory

[skids]

I don't think that's it. A TV is still usually owned for use with a DVD collection.

One thing I think they might have missed is that a lot of people who gave up watching TV just happened to technically "own" one, but since it was analog and not on cable, they finally got around to throwing it out when digital RF broadcasting made their sets incompatible and they didn't want to bother with getting the free gubment receiver.

There were a few months not so long ago where there was a TV out on the curb every few miles, as people put them out there hoping someone will cart them away so they don't have to pay a disposal fee.

Re:I have an additional theory

[whereissue]

"There were a few months not so long ago where..." the technology was reinvented and vastly improved at that same time. those who care for televisions upgraded... now they all have one. they're back to selling TV's to people who need replacements. it was a bubble. but you mentioned DVD's... who stll watches DVDs and speaks about it in the open? are you a vampire?

Re:I have an additional theory

[Drinking Bleach]

I like to own movies I buy, rather than being covered by a "cheap" subscription service. I can happily plug in any DVD I own, be it a movie or even TV shows, and not have to pay for cable or Netflix per month.

Re:I have an additional theory

[captjc]

Judging by the TV-on-DVD section at Walmart, Target, KMart, most department stores, Best Buy, and the few remaining "book stores", I would say quite a few people still watch DVD. While Amazon Prime and Netflix are really tempting, I will probably stick with DVD sets for my TV show watching needs. I also like having a physical library,

Re:I have an additional theory

[smellotron]

who stll watches DVDs and speaks about it in the open?

I'm your huckleberry.

Re:I have an additional theory

[dishpig]

Seriously, how people can subject themselves to the crap on TV now a days boggles my mind.

I love this - when was the golden age of television that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator, didn't thrust into your eyesockets with advertisements, had shows of culture and integrity that challenged and invigorated its audiences? When was that?

TV today is as good or better than it ever has been. There are quality shows with believable, complex characterization and multi-season arcs that don't always center upon the medical or legal system. Sure, they don't build radios out of cocoanuts or learn valuable life lessons on a Princess Cruise, but you can't have it all.

Re:I have an additional theory

[camperdave]

I have a DVD player. Almost never use it. I've got a WDTV Live box with a big hard drive. I've got everything ripped and sorted into genres. If I want to watch something, it is a couple of menu clicks away.

Re:I have an additional theory

[mikael_j]

I love this - when was the golden age of television that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator, didn't thrust into your eyesockets with advertisements, had shows of culture and integrity that challenged and invigorated its audiences? When was that?

Well, where I'm from the advertising laws have definitely gotten more relaxed in the last couple of decades (how many minutes are allowed for a specified length of programming as well as the number of commercial breaks allowed during that same length of programming and the allowed length of a commercial break). Not to mention the increase in product placements, sure there have always been product placements but not to the degree we're seeing now.

TV today is as good or better than it ever has been. There are quality shows with believable, complex characterization and multi-season arcs that don't always center upon the medical or legal system. Sure, they don't build radios out of cocoanuts or learn valuable life lessons on a Princess Cruise, but you can't have it all.

I actually think a lot of the current TV shows are very good (if you can just find them and manage to ignore the commercials), the problem is TV as a medium has turned more and more into garbage (at least from my POV as a Swede).

Of course, I don't even have a TV these days, I just download the shows I want to watch. This has also resulted in me thinking of US "30 minute" and "one hour" shows as being "20 minute" (20-22 minutes to be more precise) and "40 minute" shows.

BTW, I'd love to download the shows I watch legally (without commercials in exchange for money) but I can't. Really. My option if I want them legally is either to wait until they air here in Sweden so I can watch them on the TV I don't have or I can wait until the season ends in the US plus another couple of months at which point they may become available on DVD (add another two months for the Bluray version, not that I have a Bluray player). And since a lot of shows end up airing several months after they air in the US (which these days is due to local TV networks caring more about how they want to schedule shows than when episode become available) buying the DVD will quite often allow you to still watch the last few episodes of the season before they air in Sweden...

Re:I have an additional theory

[TheRaven64]

I like to own movies I buy

I used to, but then I realised that there are very few films I want to watch more than a couple of times. I'd much rather watch something new. For me, buying a DVD is not much different from renting it twice, so unless it's cheaper than a single rental I won't bother.

Re:I have an additional theory

[whereissue]

That is what I was meaning... Physical media is dead! Sort of! Almost! =)

Re:I have an additional theory

[tehcyder]

One word: kids.

Children will re-watch a DVD dozens of times.

Re:I have an additional theory

[tehcyder]

BTW, I'd love to download the shows I watch legally (without commercials in exchange for money) but I can't. Really. My option if I want them legally is either to wait until they air here in Sweden so I can watch them on the TV I don't have or I can wait until the season ends in the US plus another couple of months at which point they may become available on DVD (add another two months for the Bluray version, not that I have a Bluray player). And since a lot of shows end up airing several months after they air in the US (which these days is due to local TV networks caring more about how they want to schedule shows than when episode become available) buying the DVD will quite often allow you to still watch the last few episodes of the season before they air in Sweden...

And obviously, the most important thing for everyone to consider is your instant gratification, to which you are absolutely entitled under the European Human Rights Act.

Re:I have an additional theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Also what exactly defines a TV these days? It's not like I can't watch various shows and movies via the internet using my desktop PC, laptop, or tablet. Technically the video quality is good enough on portable devices now that you don't really need a dedicated TV as a household appliance. Netflix on an iPad, Kindle, or Nook is quite acceptable.

Also not forgetting that wiifi + broadband internet is often surplanting broadcast and traditional cable TV these days because it offers more choice and more flexible schedules. Why limit yourself to a region-limited list of shows picked by some programming director that apparently is clueless as to what you yourself would watch? Even if I'm in the U.S., perhaps I find programs from Japan or France or the UK more entertaining to watch (ditto for them, but the other way around), and I can catch the cartoons or weird obstacle course gameshows during my lunch break when local TV is showing soap operas and Jerry Springer. Alternately, it's possible to download or stream a movie and have it ready to go when and where I want.

Re:I have an additional theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Even at 240 bucks a year Netflix is way cheaper than buying most of the movies I watch. In fact I quite buying movies. It's nice to "own" stuff, but not crap you're going to watch once and then have to cart from house to house forever and just let collect dust.

Buying beats renting in a lot of cases, but not always, and renting from Netflix is an order of magnitude or two cheaper than buying for a lot of us.

Re:I have an additional theory

[mikael_j]

I don't consider instant gratification a right but I also don't consider corporations deliberately withholding their products from the market to maximize profit to be just or a right either. I have no doubts that they would make more money by allowing people to "buy" episodes of TV shows the moment they've aired in the US instead of sticking to their old business model of signing time-limited exclusive deals with local TV companies (which in turn care more about fitting shows into their own schedule than anything else) followed by staggered releases of their product in different formats (starting with the lowest-quality format and successively moving to higher-quality formats).

And as I said, if I could pay for their products I would. But I'm not going to wait for months for the "privilege" of paying for something which they could easily release at the same time here as they do in the US.

Reasoning

[dcray2000]

What's required to be on modern TV
- Be as cheap as possible and thus totally suck
- Continue previous statement, but add shocking situations or violence
- Tell a story that induces anger about everything that's wrong with the world
- Have a panel of judges review the performance of yet another reality star
- Cook something you will never eat, or see, or see before you eat
- Watch fat people get skinny

What's banned from modern TV
- Good Science Fiction or Fantasy (you know what I mean)
- Truly deep and telling story lines that make you think about the wonderous possbilities
- Show all the good things that are happening 100 feet outside your door 5,000 times more often than the bad

... I can't imagine why people don't have a TV.

Re:Reasoning

[ackthpt]

One thing you missed - engage in some topical issue in a completely tawdry and unconvincing way, like you expect when the lesbian couple announce they want to get married there's the unexclaimed 'Dun dun DUNNN!' hanging in the air, rather than let's really examine some real situations, rather than the oversimplified, dumbed down way so much writing is now.

Re:Reasoning

[eulernet]

You forgot:

- Always use a pessimistic point of view. Happiness doesn't drive audience.
- Use cheap emotions whenever possible. No emotions except sadness or joy are allowed.
- Hire fake audience to represent your audience in your poor shows, and make them laugh when you need (remember Pavlov ?).
- Give random (poor) people access to the american dream, by giving them shiny objects.
- Explain with lots of details terrible crimes. Morbid fascination everywhere.
- Let people believe that possessing objects lead to happiness, and do that every minute, to be sure that they won't forget (ads).
- Always paint the world in white and black (if possible black). Never use another color, it's too disturbing.

Re:Reasoning

[Ethanol-fueled]

- Tell a story that induces anger about everything that's wrong with the world

That's not true, they learned long ago that people buy into more shit when they're happy and distracted, where all experienced controversy is safely insulated from any parallel to the real world. All the shows with mass appeal that really say what's wrong with the world, like The Daily Show and The Simpsons, are funny.

Even the so-called "news" is nothing but distraction. Hey, don't pay attention to Rome burning around you, an attractive blonde girl was abducted in some state you don't live in or care about. Don't pay attention to the DOW dropping 500 points, 4 new McDonald's jobs were created last month! Oh, and you can sleep soundly tonight, because terrorist and pedophile plots were foiled, and that evil guy who was caught pissing in the bushes will get killed in prison.

Come to think of it, you are also wrong about the Sci-Fi - Star Trek: The Next Generation reruns play every weekday at 3am.

Re:Reasoning

[LordLucless]

Ok, so its not screening at the moment, but Game of Thrones is in production with the second book atm...

Re:Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will ever see this, but check out the 2010 New Zealand series "This is Not My Life." Supposedly, ABC bought the rights to make an American version; if it's like the original, it will be suck noticeably less than the rest of TV for the year that it airs.

Re:Reasoning

[gman003]

- Hire fake audience to represent your audience in your poor shows, and make them laugh when you need (remember Pavlov ?).

Oddly, I seem to have developed Pavlovian conditioning such that, anytime I hear canned laughter, I push the off button on the remote. Wonder how that developed...

Re:Reasoning

[droptone]

Currently running or in production: Game of Thrones, Homeland, Louie, Boardwalk Empire and Breaking Bad (I can't personally vouch for it, but a lot of people whom I respect love it so I am quite confident that it is worth your time if you're remotely interested in watching good TV).

Ran in recent memory: The Wire (might be too pessimistic for your tastes but excellent nonetheless), The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Freaks and Geeks and Battlestar Galactica.

If you're interested in comedies then there are mounds more. Like with all things, there's a lot of crap with a few gems.

Re:Reasoning

[gordo3000]

how is any of this different from 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? What era do we need to go back to for this to work?

Re:Reasoning

[cbhacking]

Agreed. I would really, *really* like to give The Big Bang Theory a try. A lot of my friends recommend it, and in transcriptions or summaries, a lot of it sounds fantastic.

Then I hear a laugh track, and I turn it off immediately. Who the hell wants to hear that?!?

Re:Reasoning

[skine]

While I agree that a laugh track is a cheap way to indicate to an audience "hey! this is funny!," it doesn't always mean that the TV show is using one in lieu of actual humor.

The IT Crowd is an example of a show that used a laugh track, but didn't really need one.

Re:Reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

-Profit

Re:Reasoning

[olau]

What? Then how do you watch Monty Python?

Re:Reasoning

[Larryish]

The Big Bang Theory uses a studio audience.

They record the audience laughter during taping.

They use that recorded laughter as a laugh track in post, to fill in places where several re-takes meant less audience laughter.

Also the show is f-in brilliant, laugh track or no.

Re:Reasoning

[LaRainette]

Well for starters 15 years ago there was no reality TV, which let's face it represents a fair amount of the crap on TV.
I would still object that there are some good stuff on TV, the problem is they don't air when I want to see them. TV in itself is not fit for watching high quality material because you don't control WHEN you see WHAT.

Re:Reasoning

[colsandurz45]

- Truly deep and telling story lines that make you think about the wonderous possbilities

Watch PBS!

Re:Reasoning

[Weedhopper]

You gotta be kidding.

BBT used to be smart. BBT used to be funny.

It's basically drivel now.

When was the last geek/nerd joke that felt like a natural part of the converstion? Hint: Not in the past two years.

Now it Star Trek Joke, laugh track, explain that it was in fact a Star Trek joke, laugh track, explain why Star Trek joke was funny, laugh track.

Brilliant? Please. I loved the first season or two of the show because all four of the main characters were somewhat relatable. Now they're just caricatures of the characters they used to be and the nerd/geek pop humor exists either as throwaways or excuses for the characters to do completely outlandish things.

Intelligence Increases

[FrankHS]

In a related story, researchers find an increase of the average intelligence over the same period.

Re:Intelligence Increases

[icebraining]

"I find television very educational. Every time someone switches it on I go into another room and read a good book."

-- Groucho Marx

Seems like a meaningless metric

[Meshach]

I wonder how much of a correlation there is between people watching the television and the number of people who view a given program? Just because the TV numbers are down does not mean people are not watching the show online, on their phones, in a pub...

Re:Seems like a meaningless metric

[dfries]

Just because the TV numbers are down does not mean people are not watching the show online, on their phones, in a pub...

That's completely true, they don't count that way of viewing TV content. My household was randomly picked earlier this year to collect TV viewing habits. I was disqualified, because I don't own a TV, never mind that I have two computers each with a tuner card, and one is a digital TV tuner. I talked to one of their install representatives, they install an audio pickup on a speaker and use that to collect what is being watched when, I don't know why they couldn't do that to a computer, although it would be much more likely to pick up VoIP and such. So I've contributed to the decline of households without TVs, even though I can watch it just as well as anyone with a TV. I have effectively stopped watching TV since Star Trek Enterprise was canceled, so at least the viewing hours will be accurate.

I blame illegal immigrants

[demonbug]

First they took our jobs, now they are taking our TV sets!

some shows to check out

[Chirs]

Person of Interest
Terra Nova
Lost Girl
Grimm

Re:some shows to check out

[bloodhawk]

He had already mentioned good sci fi and fantasy as being absent, no need to give examples of some of the current truly cringeworthy crap they are trying to push.

Re:some shows to check out

[dcray2000]

Ha, yes, agreed.

Re:some shows to check out

[KingMotley]

Person of Interest - Garbage.
Terra Nova - Just couldn't get into it. Don't know why.
Lost Girl - Never seen this.
Grimm - I have every episode recorded on my DVR, I just haven't bothered to start watching it and decide if I should continue recording them or drop it.

Better shows to check out:
Doctor Who
Big Bang Theory

That's about it.

Re:some shows to check out

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Misfits kicks the ass of all those shows.
But it's from the UK. I think it might be on Hulu - I watch it on AARGH - the piracy channel myself.
Being Human is pretty good too - UK or American remake, both have their strengths.

Re:some shows to check out

[KingMotley]

Yes, I watch being human (The american remake). The UK version isn't easily gotten, and I don't like the UK's idea of a season... 6-13 shows per yer isn't a season... That's a miniseries, lol.

I like what I read on wikipedia about it misfits, I'll see if I can find it...somewhere...

Re:some shows to check out

[LandDolphin]

Misfits is on HULU for free. Worth the watch. The UK version of being human is on Netflix. Also worth the watch.

Re:some shows to check out

[CronoCloud]

I think they used to show the UK version of Being Human on BBC America.

Re:some shows to check out

[Anonymous Coward]

Checked!

Shite!

Next!

Re:some shows to check out

[NJRoadfan]

I didn't see Fringe mentioned on that list. Sadly this season will likely be its last. Heavily serialized genre shows don't pull the ratings network TV demands.

Re:some shows to check out

[tehcyder]

I watch it on AARGH - the piracy channel

I take it they show lots of Somalian reality TV shows?

Re:some shows to check out

[jedidiah]

They did. It's much better than the Americanized version. Although it kind of jumped the shark in the last season.

On the plus side

[nightfire-unique]

This can only be good news for North American politics. Die, TV, die!

Not Watching TV...

[ackthpt]

The shows which have appealed to me had dwindled to a few.

Then there was one.

Then there were none.

Television has become so many over-hyped, insipid or worn out shows. Last show I watched was 60 Minutes. Now if I can remember, it's on the radio. My television hasn't been turned on in 10 years. I used a TV card in my computer for a while. Now I read books, watch movies or get the few DVDs of shows which really were worth watching and view them in my own good time sans commercials.

I get antsy when TV shows are on, like I'm being bombarded with some some radiation and want to get up and out of the way. Probably something to do with writing. Something else to do with horrible actors - we don't have many quality actors, so many are there because they are young, look good or were comedians. Few really can act. I feel the combination of watching people terrible at the craft, mixed with uninteresting writing have failed to keep my attention. No problem finding things to do with the time, though.

Re:Not Watching TV...

[ksemlerK]

This should help you: Micro Spy Remote

Hold down the mute button until the tv mutes, release it, and hit it again. You now have control over the TV. You can change channels, switch AV sources, power it off, or adjust the volume.

The poll takers realized...

[damn_registrars]

... that indeed, there is nothing worth watching on broadcast TV. Cable is the easiest bill to cut out entirely, and would be the first I would axe completely if I lost my job (and of course that same demographic is also very much impacted by the crappy economy and high unemployment).

Re:The poll takers realized...

[Billly Gates]

Cable is the easiest bill to cut out entirely, and would be the first I would axe completely if I lost my job (and of course that same demographic is also very much impacted by the crappy economy and high unemployment

No kidding. 20 years ago cable was $40 a month. Then $40 a month plus $10 a month for each TV. Then $60 a month + $15 a month for only 13 channels. $89 a rest for a tier including other channels. Then $119 a month for HD + $25 a month for each set .... today a family of 3 with 4 TVs with one set with a DVR + HBO and showtime and one other HD set is $200 a month!

Gee, how much is a monthly car payment? Gee $200 - $300 a month. Is TV worth the price of a car. Hell no!

$200 a month more into your retirement and wihtin 30 years you can a house paid for in cash. Or you can pay 1/4th the cost of both your kids college.

With crappy wages, high unemployment, and little value it makes sense to unplug. However some people born before 1990 absolutely HAVE TO HAVE TV. Sigh. It is like electricty to them and I frankly do not get it. I was born in the 1970s but never liked TV as I viewed it as harmful. If you are unemployed TV has got to go. Keeping an internet connection, water, and electricty are more important to keep you alive and search for work.

Re:The poll takers realized...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I cut my cable about 3 or 4 years ago. No regrets, except maybe Mythbusters, which I've heard has been going downhill pretty hard anyway.

I have Netflix... seems to do for pretty much all of my viewing, and I don't even view much on there. Honestly, I'd ditch it if my wife wasn't the one wanting to keep it. Haven't even downloaded a TV show in a while.

At least video games are interactive and keep your mind working. Skyrim anyone?

Computer monitors and gaming systems

[antifoidulus]

In addition to watching shows online, the ability to easily connect the XBox 360 and PS3 to a computer monitor has to be having a dampening effect on TV sales, esp. among the young. For less than $200, I can get a 23" LCD monitor that I can connect to my laptop for computing and watching shows online, and can connect to my console for gaming. Why on earth then would I want a TV, especially if I am living in a dorm or small apartment where space is at a premium?

Re:Computer monitors and gaming systems

[ackthpt]

In addition to watching shows online, the ability to easily connect the XBox 360 and PS3 to a computer monitor has to be having a dampening effect on TV sales, esp. among the young. For less than $200, I can get a 23" LCD monitor that I can connect to my laptop for computing and watching shows online, and can connect to my console for gaming. Why on earth then would I want a TV, especially if I am living in a dorm or small apartment where space is at a premium?

You want a TV so you can hook it up to cable and they can keep track of what you watch, so mysteriously you receive advertising in the mail tailored to your profile.

DHS probably monitoring it, too, in case it turns out unstable people or terrorists favor particular shows.

The Interwebz did it

[GodfatherofSoul]

I just about abandoned network TV about 15 years ago and I used to be teased mercilessly for being a gamer while everyone else was sitting on their couch watching crappy TV shows. Now, the general public is partaking in the much better entertainment options online. I bet half the time my TV is on is just for background noise when I'm doing something else.

Article is bereft of real numbers

[mad-seumas]

Household that do not own a TV set? Or households that own a TV set but don't have cable, OTA tv? In our case we dropped cable several years ago, still have OTA TV thanks to an antenna on the roof of our condo, but consume the vast majority of content through a computer hooked to the TV. So we own a TV, but according to Neilsen's rules maybe we don't own a TV? Maybe we just own a huge monitor? Maybe we don't qualify to be a Nielsen Family so we don't count?

Re:Article is bereft of real numbers

[mapkinase]

I suspect that many people who dropped their TV sets many years ago now are watching more TV content than ever.

Two scenarios:

1) A typical Japanese man (see recent stats on them) in a kitchen cooking, watching TV. Since content is tied up to timing, once nothing interesting is there, he stops watching.
2) same scenario with a computer monitor located in the same place, watching free streaming from all over the world of the stuff he wants to see at the time he wants to see, sans ads. The only time he stops watching is to go to a keyboard and fire up another episode of Sopranos.

Arbitrary Figures

[scorpivs]

Where do they get these numbers? I am among the 18-49 demographic; I don't recall anyone asking me this year or last year whether I watch or even own a tv; I for one, was around in 1975, and I don't recall anyone asking me back then, either. Yes, I know what a correlation coefficient is. Additionally, I belong to several paid internet survey sites, which earn me several hundred dollars every year answering questions about products and services I have or use and none of them ever asked me whether I have or even own a tv. What was their resource base, a town of 5,000 people near Salem, Massachusetts?

Not Surprising

[monopole]

I haven't looked at a TV transmission in over a year, I only happen to have 2 monitors that incorporate receivers, cancelled cable over 5 years ago.

I either watch DVDs or streaming video. I do have a lovely home theater arrangement, with little or no time to watch it.

TV hit the point of diminishing returns a decade ago.

Re:Not Surprising

[DanielRavenNest]

I have my 10 year old rear-projection TV up for sale on Craigslist, since I don't watch shows on it any more. I had cut the TV portion of my Comcast subscription down to basic, since for some reason its a few dollars less for Internet + basic cable than for just internet. This year that is changing, and now internet by itself is a bit less, so out goes the TV part. Any shows I want to see I can download, without commercials, and watch when I want. That's a better product than broadcast, which is when they want, and with commercials. My larger PC monitor is HD resolution (1920x1200), so no loss of detail watching there.

I expect in a decade broadcast TV will be in the same category as land phone lines are now. Still some holdouts who have it, but on the way to extinction.

18-40

[Vyse of Arcadia]

18-40 is a pretty broad demographic.

Re:18-40

[Anonymous Coward]

The 18-40 pretty broads are the most important, though!

Console TVs?

[identity0]

I wonder how many of those remaining TVs are just "monitors" for consoles. I know people that have a TV to play their PS3/360/Wii on, but never really watch stuff on it.

I am one of those people without TVs, and one reason I stick with my DS instead of home consoles is that I don't have to bother with a TV, and a bunch of cables, etc. just for games.

Re:Console TVs?

[sandytaru]

That's us. We don't have cable or any means of getting broadcast free stuff either. Instead, the 40" flat screen is a monitor for one of the computers, a monitor for one of the laptops, or the head for the PS3. So while we technically have one television in the house, we don't use it for traditional TV viewing. (On the other hand, we have 5-6 computers and at least two phones capable of viewing Netflix in the house as well.)

What is a TV?

[Bent Mind]

After glancing at the article, I have to ask, what is a TV? From the article:

a few factors that could be at play, including more people watching TV shows online

So that tells me that a TV is not a video unit capable of displaying television shows. Perhaps they are referring to those old all-in-one units that had a television decoder built into the display? I have a 42-inch plasma display connected to a computer and home network. It is primarily used to view NetFlix, Hulu, and some light gaming. I also have a DTV tuner in a different computer on the same network. It can send video out to about ten other computers scattered around the house. Not a single display in the house has an integrated tuner. Does that mean I have zero televisions, or ten?

On a side note, I do laugh when I read Hulu's message that the current program is not viewable on televisions, then proceeds to display the show on my television.

Re:first post

[ackthpt]

first post!!! Ha Ha suckers!

Oh, my! Next it will be: In Soviet Russia TV owns YOU!

Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reasons behind this appear to be online media content and the recession."

It might also be that most people are starting to get tired of constant reality tv shows, and watching news that is not at all newsworthy. For example Paris hilton getting released from jail (and the news anchor trying to burn her news sheet) and recently kim kardashian getting a annulment.

I don't know what is your views?

Understandable

[MBGMorden]

I can understand the trend. Realistically, most of whats online is simply more entertaining and a better way to spend my time. I don't see myself getting rid of my TV anytime soon as there are still a few shows that I watch, but usually there's only one running show at a time that I actually watch (right now only "The Walking Dead").

Re:Understandable

[93 Escort Wagon]

I can understand the trend.

To what trend are you referring? The only trend illustrated in the rather short article is that TV ownership has been increasing over the past 16 years (as well as the past 40)! Two points do not define a trend.

The story refers to a slight drop in estimated per-household television ownership from 2011 to 2012, plus the fact that the increase from 2010 to 2011 was less than in previous years - that's all.

Re:first post

[renegadesx]

Oh, my! Next it will be: In Soviet Russia TV owns YOU!

I thought that was America from the 1970's onwards?

TV Free Since 1979

[Anonymous Coward]

and proud of it

The Slashdot Test Pattern

[westlake]

For those who never RTFA:

Meanwhile the rich get richer:

Homes with three or more TV sets will climb a notch to 56 percent.

UPDATE A Nielsen rep, after seeing media stories reacting to their report and chart, emailed to clarify that TV ownership has actually declined once before: In 1992, "after Nielsen adjusted for the 1990 Census, and subsequently underwent a period of significant growth."

or the articles it links to:

So, my story (below) about six-month-old Nielsen data has so far been picked up by the New York Post and Pat's Papers.

TV technologies on their way up include DVRs, which Nielsen estimates will be in 41 percent of homes in 2012, digital cable (51 percent) and HDTV (67 percent).

Also upticking: houses with three or more TV sets (56 percent) and time the average household spends in front of the tube or flat screen: a record 59 hours 28 minutes of TV watching per week.

Despite earlier reports that suggested people were unplugging, cable and satellite TV use has remained rock-steady in homes with TV (90 percent versus 10 percent of homes using rabbit ears).

For first time in history, TV ownership declines

These blog posts are a few paragraphs long and don't link to the Nielson report itself.

I would have liked to have had a look at regional and ethnic distribution --- our local cable service has gone multiingual and multicultural in a very big way.

There are a lot of ways to feed media to that big screen HDTV --- if you can afford (and have access to) digital cable, broadband Internet service, the video game console, the Roku set top box, and so on.

I haven't seen a shortage of programs worth watching. The problem is finding a program that everyone in the family wants to watch together.

You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it's not about the 1%ers, because 56% of us are rich:

"Meanwhile the rich get richer: Homes with three or more TV sets will climb a notch to 56 percent."

WTF?

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[LandDolphin]

I bet they have refrigeratorstoo

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[AlamedaStone]

I bet they have refrigeratorstoo

Lucky duckies.

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a refrigeratorstoo?

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[avandesande]

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a negative correlation between wealth and TV viewing.

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[Anonymous Coward]

OP Here,

never thought about it that way, then again I wouldn't really expect that argument to be in a article of cherry-picked stats from Entertainment Weekly. I think it really was someone just twisting a stat to the breaking point to fit their world-view.

Re:You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[toddestan]

Wouldn't surprise me either. And with TVs cheaper than they have ever been you don't have to be rich to own 3+ sets.

There's nothing on

[Animats]

This season, there are two spinoffs of "Storage Wars" - "Pawn Stars" and "American Pickers". That's how bad it's become.

The only time I see broadcast TV is at the gym. (They have basic cable, which seems to consist mostly of broadcast TV, shopping, and really old reruns.)

TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a TV, its used to play tv shows from the 4 cable channels I don't feel like paying $80/month to watch 24 hours of, total, per month.

   

I don't have a TV

[MoronGames]

I'm really not interested enough in regular television to purchase one. What shows I am interested in, usually show up on Netflix and Hulu, both of which I can (and do) watch on my computer. It made more sense to just buy a larger monitor.

Lost Girl?

[YesIAmAScript]

No. That's not good fantasy at all. Give me a break. It's just the same thing as "The Fugitive".

You're watching "The Littlest Hobo" but with a succubus instead of a german shepherd.

I've been trying to watch Terra Nova to try to support some Sci-Fi, but I just can't be interested in the characters anymore. I feel I am letting the show down, but I also can't just waste my time if I don't enjoy it.

Re:Lost Girl?

[camperdave]

There's a voice that keeps on calling me
Down the road, that's where I'll always be.
Every stop I make, I make a new friend,
Can't stay for long, just turn around and I'm gone again

Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down,
Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.

I liked the Corner Gas episode "The Littlest Yarbo", where a stray dog helps Hank and he thinks it is the Littlest Hobo.

What is the definition of "TV"?

[Grave]

How do you define "TV"?

If you mean a display device with a tuner built into it, then there are two in my house (old CRTs), neither connected to cable.

If you mean a display device that can be used to display content regardless of a tuner (such as via the Internet), then I have 12, not counting cell phones/iPods. (7 LCDs, three laptops, two CRTs)

If you mean a display device with a coaxial cable or antenna connection that is actively used for watching sat/cable/ota broadcasts, it would be a bit fuzzy in my case. I've got a single HTPC that is connected to an LCD monitor and also streams cable broadcasts to two XBOX 360s. So there are three display devices that can be used to view broadcast television content (theoretically four, as I have 4 tuners in the HTPC, but have not assigned the 4th to any other device).

"TV" as it existed as a physical device ten years ago, does not really match up to what is sold today. Most "TV"s sold today are really just monitors, as they often lack tuners.

I'm sure the numbers can be manipulated to show whatever the interpreter desires, just like "record" sales.

Junk

[p51d007]

Also, perhaps the fact that the "network" shows STINK! Every stupid show that you tune into, be it on network or cable/satellite, has the word "reality" in the title. Cheap to make, and for some stupid reason the bulk of the fat a** idiots out there tune into this garbage.

Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Gaygirlie]

This may not directly relate to the article itself, but how about trying to be a little bit constructive here instead of only offering criticism? What kinds of TV-shows or series do you view as being worth watching, worth your time? Are there some that you'd feel others might also enjoy and thus you'd like to recommend them?

I personally do not have any specific genre that I enjoy as I can watch mostly anything, it's the flow of the story and the believability of the characters and their actions that matters the most. Then again, as I watch movies most of the time and not TV-series I don't really have all that much experience on that field. I still do offer two recommendations that I personally feel that are definitely worth watching, and if you can afford it, they're sure worth owning, too:

* Breaking Bad: A high-school chemistry teacher in his 50s hears he has a lung cancer, realizes he has been an under-performer his whole life and wishes to be able to leave his family with means to get by even if he isn't no longer supporting them financially, and derails completely and decides to take part in meth-cooking business.
* Walking Dead: As if the name isn't already descriptive enough or anything, but, well, a small-town sheriff gets shot, is taken to hospital, is unconcious for some time only to wake up to a seemingly empty hospital and the rest of the town either empty or trying to eat him. From there, it's only downhill!

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Phrogman]

I agree about mentioning the good stuff on TV these days. Unfortunately it makes up about 1% of all the content currently being pushed out at us. I prefer to buy shows like this on DVD or download them, then at least I get the full show, and I am spared the endless advertising breaks. IMHO its the onslaught of advertising that is driving people from TV.

* Sons of Anarchy - the trials and tribulations of the members of a motorcycle gang in California. Its kind of soap opera-ish, but its got some great characters and a great storyline. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124373/
* Fringe - the best compilation of bizarre psedoscience I have seen, with a very convoluted plot that spans across all of the seasons. About the only thing I haven't seen them mention so far (as of season 3) is the Voynich Manuscript, but I imagine that's coming up at some point. John Noble (Denethor in Lord of the Rings) as Walter Bishop is hilarious. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a TV snob. I like television. I agree that 99% of what's on is utter crap. But there is a lot of great storytelling as well. I wrote up my top 10 shows of 2011, and would argue that all of them are worth your time if you like quality comedic or dramatic entertainment.

http://foughtandwonone.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-top-10-tv-shows-of-2011.html

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[John Hasler]

What kinds of TV-shows or series do you view as being worth watching, worth your time?

"Victory at Sea" wasn't half bad.

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Walking Dead - If you have a brain, avoid this one! You'll be screaming and pulling your hair from the incredible stupidity of the characters. Obviously coming from the authors themselves being nothing short of retards themselves.
If you like rednecks on the level of those "Dey dewk ur djewbs" guys in South Park, and take such people seriously, this will be great for you though.

I rather recommend Dexter, which has the best authors I know of, nice smart plots, no pro-war or pro-religion propaganda and a really great season right now. (Don't think the current season is pro-religion. It's not. But it's also not contra. It's too smart to take such simple positions. [And I fuckin' love that. :])

Other than that it's all between unbearable and just scraping by.

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't own a TV but I watch a TON of shows. I feel like TV is where most of the good storytellers are these days, what with the book industry being in even more of a disruption period than TV, and movies REALLY being in a huge rut. The storytelling qualities of my favorite shows come close to matching my favorite books, and generally surpass my favorite movies now.

Yes, pound for pound, with all of the 1000 cruddy channels, the cream of the crop is probably less than 1%, but that's not that different to other mediums.

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[bemymonkey]

The first decent episode of "The Walking Dead" was the last one... where the psycho dude goes psycho and opens up the barn full of walkers. The others were cliche-filled popcorn-flicky background noise type shows...

Now shows like The Big Bang Theory on the other hand, and a few other comedies (airing and long gone) are very much worth watching. :)

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

OTA only, and don't watch it because we haven't found anything worth watching other than the weather forecast, school closings and occasionally the kids watch extreme home makeover.

The kids love cake boss, dirty jobs and how it's made, and we watch take home chef and just finished what netflix has for dog the bounty hunter. Best $80 a month I make is not paying the cable bill.

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[jedidiah]

Get rid of all of the "reality TV".

It was just a cheap stopgap to deal with writers strike. It should have ended with that strike.

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[fsck -fy]

For me it is certain tropes which ruin a series for me:
* gender roles from the 19th century
* women who only exist as decoration or object of relationships
* women who are wearing clothes which are just ridiculous. I seriously would put most actors in a burkah for their performances, not out of Islamic fundamentalism but because enough is enough. (This gets a pass if the men are wearing as little as well)
* magic
* science is bad
* "listen to your heart, not your head"
* excessive violence

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Gaygirlie]

For me it is certain tropes which ruin a series for me:
* gender roles from the 19th century
* women who only exist as decoration or object of relationships
* women who are wearing clothes which are just ridiculous. I seriously would put most actors in a burkah for their performances, not out of Islamic fundamentalism but because enough is enough. (This gets a pass if the men are wearing as little as well)

Heh. Those kinds of things tend to put me off, too. I am not a feminist -- atleast I personally don't view myself as one -- but it really does tick me in a bad way when people even in this day and age try to push centuries-old misconceptions and roles on us just because we happen to be the ones with breasts, trying to box us in with restrictions about how we should be, behave and what we should like and dislike. In that same vein I find it annoying that even women who are supposed to be some total badass killing machines, going out to kill dragons or take out half a robotic army all by herself, are wearing chainmail bikinis that barely cover nipples and genitals: how the f*ck is that supposed to protect them when the male characters doing exact same stuff are wearing full plate-mails? Either have them both jumping around in loincloths, or have them both in plate/full body armory/whatnot.

* "listen to your heart, not your head"

That is indeed annoying. Sure, listening to your own emotions is important, but you should still use your head, too. A "great teacher" - character should know better than teaching his/her students to only to listen the one and ignore the other.

* excessive violence

I have yet to see too much violence, only too little.. :D

Reruns in prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, used to be they'd order 23 shows for a season. Now the standard is 13. So half the time you tune in to a show and... it's a rerun. With more commercials than ever, of course. And they wonder why their viewers don't seem to exist anymore.

The shows are not the point

[DragonHawk]

"Television [network] companies are not in the business of delivering television programmes to their audience; they're in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers." -- Douglas Adams

(From "What Have We Got To Lose?"; first appearance in Wired UK #1, 1995; reprinted in The Salmon of Doubt)

Re:The shows are not the point

[wfstanle]

This may be true but with the decline in TV viewership, there will be less viewers that can be delivered to the advertisers. To reverse the trend, the networks will have to pay more attention to their viewers. Either that or they could have 100% commercials but no viewers. Of course, the advertisers will jump ship well before that happens.

DECLINE?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I grew up, we were lucky to have the one TV and a little portable that barely got anything in reception. Grown up, I now have a TV in every room, one room has TWO!

The major difference being that I don't actually have cable, we rarely look to the antenna to see what's on and mostly watch downloaded TV shows, play games, movies and other streaming services.

Predicted by Star Trek

[Hadlock]

I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: TNG (on netflix... on a computer!) and they had revived some cryogenically frozen people from the year 2000 who were shocked that nobody watched TV anymore. One of the cast members explained to them gently that TV had been a entertainment fad, and died out as a passtime by 2040.
 
I'm sure TV audiences watching Star Trek in the late 80s who had grown up on a healthy diet of 4 hours a night of TV found that hard to believe, or impossible even. Looking back twenty years, it is looking more prophetic than ever.

Re:Predicted by Star Trek

[cashman73]

I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: TNG (on netflix... on a computer!) and they had revived some cryogenically frozen people from the year 2000 who were shocked that nobody watched TV anymore. One of the cast members explained to them gently that TV had been a entertainment fad, and died out as a passtime by 2040.

To be fair, if we had HoloDecks today, I wouldn't watch any TV, either,. . . ;-)

Re:Predicted by Star Trek

[Billly Gates]

Did you hear why TV became unpopular by 2040?

Mr. Data explained it was being replaced by the Earth Planetary Network as more and more video went online and people prefered that. I remember that episode as that to me smells like The Internet. Today's DVRs are embedded computers and many fiber cables to our houses are internet connections with their own IP addresses where video is streamed.A

This is why the MPAA and the TV industry want to kill net neutrality. They realize this and wont to make video expensive so they can keep streaming $200 a month HD crap on the pipes so they can get paid no matter if we use TVs or computers.

tv not dead yet (hyperlocal)

[Anonymous Coward]

In the small town where I live the live broadcasts of the School Board meetings are the most interesting thing to watch. Ya never know when a fistfight might break out! Every Wednesday you can find me watching...

How do the numbers look...

[John Hasler]

...when you add in "home entertainment centers"?

Is it possible

[Kevin108]

that viewership habits are regressing? Instead of the whole family having their own TVs in separate rooms, maybe more households probably have one TV for everything and that more people are watching together.

More likely it's the fact that TV isn't just on TV anymore. It's possible to download or transfer from DVR shows nearly just as soon as they've aired. They can then be watched on any myriad device from a netbook to a smartphone.

I dumped mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why other people got rid of their TVs, but I dumped mine and cancelled my cable. As soon as the first wave of reality TV shows it the airwaves, I just shook my head. I thought to myself that this was like watching that satirical commercial in the film ROBOCOP where the guy just keeps saying "I'll buy that for a dollar'. I retreated to the then Sci-Fi channel to only have them spring "Scare Tactics". I just tossed up my hands and unhooked the box and took it back. Never looked back. I have a digital projector now and an 8 foot screen that I just watch movies on. Also seeing how I can only operate the projector when it's dark outside, I don't find myself getting sucked in and browsing through the channel. I just go out and have a day. TV be damned.

Re:I dumped mine.

[cashman73]

I dumped my 27" CRT when I moved from Pittsburgh to Knoxville because I didn't want to move it. I did buy a 40" LCD TV down here, but apparently, like most other Slashdotters, it's connected to my computer most of the time via HDMI. I watch most of my shows online via Hulu, Netflix, or other sites. I do have Limited Basic Cable, which is nice for things like sports. But overall, I spend most of my time doing other, more productive things instead of watching the endless stream of pure and complete garbage that is put out these days. Growing up, my family had cable and kept the TV on pretty much most of the day. Even back then (mostly back in the 1980s and 90s), it was barely tolerable.

Clearly this requires a new law

[high_rolla]

I can see it now. MPAA gets a hold of this, attributes the decline to piracy and gets to work.

In a few weeks time we see a new law being pushed stating that any household without a TV must be a household that's involved in piracy and needs to be taxed more accordingly.

Then after the law is passed, someone points out that people with a TV can be involved in piracy too. Law is shortly amended to include households with a TV as well.

OK. I'll say it.

[carpefishus]

I don't own a TV. I'm better than you.

what do they expect?

[ushere]

endless cycle of repeats interspersed with mind-numbing dross...

What’s a TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like YouTube but without the ability to do anything for yourself?
Remember that guy who commented here about how his daughter looked for the controllers behind the TV and was disappointed to find none, since to her it was unfathomable why something would not let her think and act for herself.
I myself can't stand even a news article where I can't comment on.

I think that, the fact that I can't choose when to watch what, and that there is barely one show I'd describe as good on TV, is why TV can't survive. It has lost its point. People don't want to be passive anymore. And there's nothing that interests them.

What's a TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Do they mean a broadcast receiver for VHF and UHF?

Do they mean a media display?

I own a big LCD (and a lot of little ones). The big one has a receiver which has never been used. If I could have gotten it for less without the receiver, I would have. But no one makes 60" display only device.

The more interesting story would be the number of hours of broadcast (cable + UHF + VHF) people consume, vs on-demand (which includes time shifting a'la tivo, since it's no longer "broadcast")

Displays with built-in receivers is hardly a benchmark for anything except anachronistic benchmarks. It's like saying "horse and buggy ownership has dropped" while people are buying more cars. Duh?

Re:What's a TV?

[heathen_01]

I don't understand this new fangled achievements thing that most new games seem to have. It makes me think the game designers have given up on making a compelling and engaging game and gone, fuck it lets just use some cheap tricks and hope the pidgeons get addicted.

Re:18-40 Not really that broad.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only 20 years plus a smidge. Got stuff sitting in my fridge older than that.

There is a lot of toxic crap for the under 14. The god awful colors on the sets. My eyes!

They just gave up trying to make anything for 45 and older. Probably because the experience of life overwhelms whatever education/indoctrination/class the kids making The Shows have. Death, Divorce, Bankruptcy, Extreme Pain, Terrible Illness, Injustice, Loss. They can't teach that in school and there is no formula. The showmakers are shallow people.

You can only truly play the Blues if you have suffered. Like the man said, "I know you listen to Jimi, but do you HEAR Jimi?"

At some point in your life, are older than every philosopher that ever lived. They all died pretty young. You read Nietzsche and Machiavelli and see only optimism and naivete of youth. Books are only the mere approximations and after thoughts of the marginal players. You know that the good stuff is not written down. That shit is proprietary. Occasionally, some of the well made movies give you a wink though.

I like to read the old uncensored myths. There is some raw humanity. Some God screws around and his wife lays waste to a whole village. Read the Uncensored Grimms Fairy Tales. Lots of Wisdom there about the evils of the Kings. They used to read those to children.

Cultural products, like movies, films, books, buildings, religions, morals, legal systems and plays are made by rich people. Always have been. Even Budha was the offspring of rich people. The loathsome 1 percenters.

Safety Moms, Church Ladies, Busy Bodies, Scolds, Hormonal Housewives seem to be the current fashion in TV and Law.

The shows are not about a story. They are not parables and myths that offer a hard won pearl of wisdom. They are not written by some dude in a garage, a basement or a leased bay, trying to climb up a few rungs of the ladder to gain some kind of security for his loved ones. (What Ladder?)

The shows are written by the one percenters for the one percenters to glamorise the one percenters and to promote one percenter agenda.

God forbid is someone should swear or smoke or drink, but that still happens occasionally in a movie. But tell the Establishment to go fuck itself? When did we stop calling them Pigs and start calling them Law Enforcement Officers? Even the token corrupt 'Boss Hog' is gone.

The shows are the cultural excrement, um, product of rich, bored, jaded, spent moneyed , privileged one percenters, devoid of any joy, any creativity, any wisdom, any compassion, any humanity.

The one percenters are in a death spiral. They are broked. Their -isms are all was-isms.

The shows contain agendas of the monkey see, monkey do variety.

Watch. Kill. Spend. Conform. Believe. Obey.

Michaelangelo needed the Medici. Artists need Patrons.

Why don't Gates or Ellision or Buffet or Bloomberg of Forbes get off their fat arrogant pompous asses and sponsor a whole GENERATION of new artists.? ? ?

Okay, explain the BBC then?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The BBC has cheerfully dived into the abyss for years nows, farting upwards to accelerate its descend. Want to see what a thousand TV cooks look like? Just turn on the beeb. It will show you.

They even got so desperate that when they finally do manage to get a program that people watch, they run repeats off it during the same WEEK. QI, QI repeat and QI XL. Same with Have I Got News For You. Oh and both programs are now in double digits. Not because they are that fresh anymore but because there is absolutely nothing else that has the slightest appeal anymore. This all despite the fact people can rewatch it on the BBC iPlayer... what better way to advertise you don't have any content worth watching then repeating the same half hour program 3 times and adding material you left out the first time on the third run. Oh and then repeat the entire running between this season and the next.

And all this crap, without any advertisers.

If you don't believe me that cooking shows are out of control, they got a cooking game show that when it ends, immidiatly starts up again. There is no end to it.

And if it isn't cooking then it is some lightweight back into history program that glorifies everything and examines nothing.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[Opportunist]

Wanna trade it for the German "reality show" marathon? Today, we get to see how some spoiled brats are turned into little angels, how to decorate your house, what fun it is to swap the moms out of two completely incompatible families, how to cope with your unemployment and finally how to get out of a six digit debt (or not...). And if your brain still isn't baked enough, we also have a few fake court TV shows and a few talkshows Springer would have refused for you.

But if you have to work (hey, you still have work? What are you, a manager?), there's reruns from midnight to dawn. Of course we cannot waste prime time hours on that crap, for that we got Big Brother.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[StoneyMahoney]

With BBC3 and BBC4, it's not like the amount of content has gone down, you just have more chance to watch it. Also, the BBC is still total bliss compared to ITV's current output. How many different vehicles can SiCo find for the same tired idea? How many "game shows" based purely on random chance and nothing else can you possible squeeze into Friday-night primetime?

Besides, just because *you* don't like cooking shows doesn't mean it's crap quality TV. You post on Slashdot ffs, I thought it would have been fairly obvious to you that your tastes are somewhat different to mainstream TV output expectations.

Last thing - BBC News vs Fox News. (I would put discuss here but I'll think I'll just sigh with relief and leave it at that.)

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[Inda]

No, no. We have that as well on the BBC. It's on their third channel which, coincidently, is third-rate.

From 22:00 every night they show two Family Guys and two American Dads. I liked both programmes the first time, but you can imagine how quickly they get repeated, and now I find myself knowing all the words before they&#226;&#8364;(TM)re spoken. They should turn it off before turning me off.

Then there&#226;&#8364;(TM)s the BBC News 24 hour channel where they tell you no news for 55 minutes in each hour. We&#226;&#8364;(TM)re expected to put up with the &#226;&#8364;&#732;expert&#226;&#8364;(TM) in order for him to tell us our opinions.

Even the new David Attenborough show &#226;&#8364;oeFrozen Planet&#226;&#8364; is the same tired old format, with extra spin from Sir David trying to make us all feel guilty.

Don&#226;&#8364;(TM)t even get me started on their can&#226;&#8364;(TM)t-be-controversial sports programmes. Just tell it as it is FFS.

The BBC have just enough content to fill one channel and yet I have to pay for six for fear of gaol.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[Inda]

You'd think that by now I'd learn not to C&P my text from Outlook to Slashdot. If only this shitty browser (you know the one) had a spell checker.

I said:

No, no. We have that as well on the BBC. It's on their third channel which, coincidently, is third-rate.

From 22:00 every night they show two Family Guys and two American Dads. I liked both programmes the first time, but you can imagine how quickly they get repeated, and now I find myself knowing all the words before they're spoken. They should turn it off before turning me off.

Then there's the BBC News 24 hour channel where they tell you no news for 55 minutes in each hour. We're expected to put up with the 'expert' in order for him to tell us our opinions.

Even the new David Attenborough show 'Frozen Planet' is the same tired old format, with extra spin from Sir David trying to make us all feel guilty.

Don''t even get me started on their can't-be-controversial sports programmes. Just tell it as it is FFS.

The BBC have just enough content to fill one channel and yet I have to pay for six for fear of gaol.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[TheRaven64]

I don't have a TV, so my view of what's on the BBC comes from iPlayer and may not be representative, but recently I've enjoyed (off the top of my head) The Fades (Buffy for grownups), the new series of Merlin, the last season of Spooks, QI, Have I Got News for You, Doctor Who, and Garrow's Law. QI had a few significant errors in the last show, but was still funny. HIGNFY doesn't seem to have suffered, but maybe I'm not not sufficiently jaded.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[SuricouRaven]

They still lead when it comes to documentary programs too. They don't dumb down as much, plus they have Attenborough. Any channel that has Attenborough is basically unbeatable in the field of nature docs. You just can't outdo his work. I'm concerned at how long he can keep it up though - he is 85 now, and there are no younger producers who even come close to matching the consistant quality of his work.

Re:Okay, explain the BBC then?

[tehcyder]

You'd think that by now I'd learn not to C&P my text from Outlook to Slashdot.

You use Outlook as some sort of text editor, from which you copy and paste to your browser? Why?

Actually a dutch company

[SmallFurryCreature]

But I can see how you can confuse us Dutchies with a divine god. We are pretty amazing people. And humble.

Re:Actually a dutch company

[VoidCrow]

Stupid Sexy Flanders...

Ah, allow me to explain my personal reasoning

[SmallFurryCreature]

The worsed thing about say Discovery channel in Holland is the commercial break every 15 minutes with the most inane ads that are repeated over and over again. Because if you tell me a 100 time I pay to much for my electricity I am really going to switch (like I am likely to believe a company is cheaper with the same service when they waste a fortune on in-effective ads). Then there is the US narrator who repeats the same thing over and over again in that way that US narrators repeat the same thing over and over again because US narrators believe that repeating the same thing and over agai... okay I will stop now.

So, I might not be 100% interested in a show to sit through all the bullshit but enough to want to know what happened next, download it, watch that last ep and be done with it. So a bunch of genetic waste didn't make it as gold miners. Thank you. I thought they wouldn't the moment I saw them in the ads (run during the same program) and my prejudice about lazy and idiotic Americans were confirmed once again. Not quite worth sitting through endless ads and US narrators repeating themselves because what can you possible say about people failing in digging a hole.

When I download it, I can watch it WHEN I want, at what speed I want and skip what I want. For a LOT of stuff on TV, that is the only way to watch it. Could for instance SOMEONE please put a 1 minute clip on youtube with the ending of House so I don't have to watch it and fast forward beyond seasons 1 episode 3 by which time I had a pretty good idea of how the next dozen or so seasons would go for each fucking episode?

Think of it as a 1 euro McD hamburger. Sometimes you a bit hungry, it is cold and you could do with something warm on your way to somewhere. So you walk in, buy one and eat it on your way. It is okay and fits your needs of the moment. That does NOT mean I want to spend an hour eating it while being bombarded with ads.

TV is mostly boring trash but sometimes I am in the mood for it. Sadly not on the terms of the TV channels (watch it when we want, with ads, at our speed). Thank god I got an alternative.

Maybe I am a waste of space for occasionally barely enjoying bits of a trash and not filling my live with stimulating high quality content every waking minute but at least thank to trash I can still hold my head up high knowing I am better then people who can't dig a hole or who start each bike building project to late.

Turned down a free 50' TV

[ctime]

It occurred to me how obsolete television has become in my life after reading this thread and realizing that at one point in my life, TV was actually *important*. I remember coming home from school and turning it on, watching TV for hours on end and that was was "OK". After the Interwebs and PCs took over as my main source of *everything digitally consumable*, I never looked back. A week ago a family member bought a new 70' Sharp TV (all the rage right?) and offered to give us their maybe 5 year old 50' rear projection TV (imagine a 50' Sony that has 3x more depth than a newer LCD). Without hesitation I turned them down, why? Because I have two relatively new large LCD TVs that I _never_ use. I realize my younger years I would have killed for such a device, for free. My view on TV is a mix of nostalgia and worthlessness. Like Landline phones, CRTs, VHS, Palm PDAs (lol) and so on.

Except for Breaking Bad.. Best. Show. Ever. And I watch it on Netflix and iTunes, so I guess I'm not really even talking about a TV show anymore.

Re:Turned down a free 50' TV

[muindaur]

Landline phones are one of those funny things. A classmate remarked how theirs was helpful during that freak Oct snow storm in CT. My great uncle had no land line for over a week because *shock* the line went down. Yet with my cell phone I could go to the shelter and charge it if I needed too. So there are still people clinging too it for the reason it works in an outage...

As for a TV. The only thing it might be of use for me is a console, but I'm starting to walk away from even those. Since building a good PC for gaming is much cheaper these days. You can even stick with a laptop, and still have something great for games. It's a personal choice, but I've dropped down my moving important possessions (also fire replacement) down to my computer, clothes, and Kindle. It saves me a good deal of effort and space. Trips and school also means I can go with the entirety of my real possessions (furniture is just additional possessions that I don't care much about.)

Two TVs Too but...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have two TVs too, BUT they are only used for watching DVDs or Netflix streaming. We have neither Cable tv nor sattelite tv. The reason? As others have mentioned, so much of it is crap! Like the song says, 57 channels and onthin on (worth watrching)! And the constant increase in the number and length of comercials per hour is extremely annoying.

I recently bought an ebook reader, so now I will be watching less DVDs/netflix than ever. Reading is better for you anyway...it makes you use your brain and imagination.

Multitude of choices

[Cherubim1]

There are so many dffferent ways people can watch content today besides the TV. We have smartphones, tablets, netbooks, laptops, media players etc. Cheap LCD monitors are being used for games consoles and DVD/Bluray disc watching instead of gawking at free to air rubbish. The multitude of choices for watching content has impacted TV sales quite a bit and the manufacturers are trying to arrest this decline by offering more smart features built into TVs. The problem is, a lot of these extra features (eg. 3D, video streaming) are too awkward to use or require some proprietary configuration. In addition to the above, many people are fed up waiting for shows to appear on FTA TV ad have opted to source their content online instead.

What's a TV?

[Peganthyrus]

I just installed a TV in my apartment for the first time in nearly a decade. Well, sort of. I got one of those pico projectors, made a little mounting bracket out of some scrap cardboard, and put a sheet up on the wall. After dark I get a pretty nice 4' wide image, suitable for kicking back on the couch and watching. (And for me, not having it usable during the day is a plus - otherwise there's a part of me that would go get a game system and spend weeks getting nothing done but acquiring achievements.)

But I suspect it's not a "TV" by the metrics this article's using, given that I feed it video from my iPad or my computer. Funny, that.

I think in the next decade or two, the "TV" will simply vanish. Especially when my tiny projector seems impossibly quaint because we can just roll out some e-paper or something...

I'll probably always own a TV.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Although if it weren't for live sporting events, I'd have dumped cable/satellite by now. Netflix gives me enough of what I need as far as programming goes, and with dumbass networks like NBC shelving wonderful shows like Community while keeping shit like 'the Biggest Loser', I see no reason to support their bullshit.

If NHL Centre Ice would give me all 82 games of my favourite team, I'd drop satellite like a bad habit.

The TV stays though; if nothing else, it's used by Netflix/the game consoles/whatever.

You're all missing out!!!

[AbRASiON]

Ok well, you're not actually missing out,... BUT there is better television than ever out there right now and it's worth checking out.
Don't get me wrong, I love being all unique and internet awesome telling people "What's television" - I don't watch any free to air TV here in Australia at all, it's utter trash.

However thanks to the internet, I do watch some great shows, some old, some new. - I mean let's take a look here.
Breaking Bad - amazing television, really, really good TV show, funny, intelligent, thrilling and screwed up.
Arrested Development, ok yes it's old now but that is some incredibly clever writing, awesome humour and just an amazing show.
South Park, always on topic, very few lemon episodes, not just for kids or deranged people, often has a genuine message or makes a mockery of things others are too scared to
Mythbusters, this is slashdot, I shouldn't even have to explain
The Wire, also an old show but an incredibly good show, really, really good.
Venture Bros, it's crazy, it's different, it's a bit retarded but it's great fun
Curb your Enthusiasm, just brilliant.
Dexter, beggining to weaken I hear but seasons 1-5 are pretty damn good TV. What self respecting /. poster can't empathise with a guy who can't fit in and doesn't understand many "social norms" !
Futurama, ok the return is weaker than the original but hell it's still worth it
Louie, great comedy / strange drama by Louis CK

So yes, it is cool to not like television. I mean I don't watch sport, I read more American news than Australian - I don't "watch" TV at all but I do consume quite a few TV shows which come from television.

Re:You're all missing out!!!

[White Flame]

Yes, there's some good shows. But it's not worth watching TV to see them. A lot of people catch an episode of something they like, or hear people talk about something of interest, then watch it on DVD when it comes out or download/watch it online.

The whole TV "experience" is painful and insulting. Need to watch it on their schedule (if you don't have a Tivo-alike), inundated with insipid shallow advertising, stuff splattered all over the bottom & sides of the screen during the show, etc. Get just the content itself separate from TV, and it's a much better product that you can actually enjoy.

Re:You're all missing out!!!

[neminem]

I disagree about Dexter: I thought seasons 2-3 were kind of weak (comparatively - they were still great), and this current season was comparatively excellent (though the first season was still the best). Dexter is quality.

Burn Notice, Castle, and Leverage are also great shows from the US. As was the first season of Game of Thrones, and that shows signs of continuing to be the case. And Hustle and Being Human are great, too, if you include British tv (Doctor Who used to be, until season 5 came and ruined it).

However, while I watch all of those every week they air, I don't watch any of them on tv.

Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable TV seems about 50% commercials, and stations schedule commercial breaks at the same time, so it's impossible to watch two programs simultaneously.
Network news is biased toward the left. "right-wing" and "conservative" are common, but "left-wing" and "liberal" almost never are used.
Good riddance.

Because everything has a price.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is saying content is bad enough that its price is zero. Meaning, people will only watch it if they get it for free.

For a minute, try thinking dispassionately and objectively: how many movies/tv-series you'd watch only if you could see them for free? How many of them you'd "watch" as an excuse to snuggle with a girl? ...to kill time and boredom? ...as background noise? ...to know what your friends are talking about?

Would you pay for those reasons? Pay to snuggle with a girl? Pay to kill time when anything would suffice? Pay for background noise? Pay for talking with your friends?

I would not.

Re:Because everything has a price.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

He is saying content is bad enough that its price is zero. Meaning, people will only watch it if they get it for free.

But it costs you time and attention, no matter how much money you pay. Why would you even spend your time on something that's so crap?

For a minute, try thinking dispassionately and objectively

Why do assume that I'm not?

Are sales an accurate guide?

[Computershack]

Are sales of TV an accurate guide anymore? If someone has a computer, they can get a tuner for it assuming it doesn't have one already so does that make sales of TV a good indicator? And then there are those in the age range who will have had a TV when they lived at home with their parents and take it with them when they move out.

I don't own a TV

[Spacelem]

I haven't owned a TV for 5 years, and I haven't lived in a flat with a TV for 3. The only time I see TV is at Christmas, when I go to stay with my or my wife's family, and I'm continually reassured that I've made the right choice.

I find that TV is an amazing attention grabber. TVs are entrancing, and if there's one on in the room, it ends up drawing everyone's attention, when we should be talking to each other. There's always something else on, although it's probably rubbish, and the temptation is to just channel flick during the adverts (and TV is so full of adverts -- I'm lucky enough to live in a country where we have the BBC, which doesn't have adverts, but even so). I'm very happy not to have that in my flat.

That doesn't mean I go without though. If I want to see something, I buy it on DVD and watch it on my computer (without the ads, competing programmes and in my own time). I listen to the radio a lot, and it is so content rich in comparison to TV (and satirical comedy news shows are amazing ways to get unbiased news). I also have a lot more time to do other interesting things.

I'm glad to hear that fewer people are watching TV (even if only by a tiny amount). I do know a few others who don't have one (admittedly not many), and I hope that more people end up spending less time in front of the box.

first world problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

what a tough life we have, the country didn't buy more tvs than last year

Crime Shows

[ThatsNotPudding]

I know a sweet, 80-year old church-going lady, and all she watches are crime shows. There's a basic cable station that runs damn near every police procedure show available back-to-back-to back. Pretty sure the reason for so many of these shows with rather horrific violence starting out is that in the end, the wicked (now more and more wicked terrerists) are punished by the infallible John Law. Respect authority, citizen.

Speak Up

[ThatsNotPudding]

and remember when Congress was going to do something about loud commericals? I SAID, REMEMBER WHEN...

Who cares ?

[ToddInSF]

You can watch all the tv you can stand on the internet. And worse.

Your computer is the new tv.

Turn the ******* thing off once in a while and LIVE your ******* lives.

Get off your lazy, fat, ignorant asses, and go to the library and read a ******* book.

Loaded question/statement.

[BlueCoder]

First what is a TV.

To be it's anything capable of displaying video. And their statement to me reads as video is declining which is rubbish. Video will never die and it's bigger than ever. People own more and more equipment capable of displaying video every year. I challenge anyone to find a home with less than 3 video devices per person. If you qualify it with a certain size screen then I would reduce it to 2 per person.

Further people are no longer inclined to sit through the commercial TV format. They are will no longer go to their video programs, their video programs will come to them when it's convenient. Also I think it's highly encouraging that people are probably reading more now with the internet than they ever did.

Re:Loaded question/statement.

[Larryish]

Now if we can get the spelling squared up...

remember who the customer is

[argStyopa]

It bears repeating - although I'm astonished that people still don't seem to recognize this - the CUSTOMER in the "free television" transaction is not the viewer, it's the advertiser.

YOU (more accurately, your attention) are what is being sold.

The shows are ostensibly only the bait, engineered to keep you in your seat until the next commercials.

So this survey is merely measuring how many people have the intellectual equivalent to a barbed hook in their home. All the comments here are (accurately) commenting just that the "worm" is too small and the hook far, far too evident.

Personally, we had a very early HD set from the late '90s that didn't have an integral HD tuner, and don't have cable (we do roku-netflix instead) - so I'd gone the route of OTA HD with a set-top tuner. The first tuner died after about a year, but when the second tuner died and (as far as I can tell) was dead for more than 3 months before anyone actually noticed, and another 2 months before anyone told me about it - I never bothered to replace it, and we're just fine. Any show we want to watch - Castle, Bones, Big Bang - we just wait until it's on Netflix and watch it uninterrupted in 3-4 episode doses. We can't really stand watching normal TV with the 3 mins of commercials every 10-12 mins.

I want to keep my TV

[Anonymous Coward]

But I have dropped my cable package and installed a tv antenna in the attic. Must must admit the TV could have been a big monitor since i really mostly watch stuff over the internet.
I hate reality shows so that's like 98% of the TV content thats irellevant for me.

Pirates!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This foul trend, akin to the scourge of child exploitation and terrorism, is obviously due to the lack of legislation surrounding physical hardware piracy. Oh, TV "ownership" is UP - but it's the -taxpayer- who is paying the bill! People are simply 3d-printing their own, or replicating them with cheap, prevalent Star-Trek technology from Iran. Let's not all pretend we don't know this is happening - maybe in your child's bedroom, right now. Does Timmy seem disconnected? No longer interested in church? Has he asked more than one question this month? Does he sometimes, or often, lock his door? He's probably in there, rep-rapping a TV right now, supporting terrorism or, worse, toddlers n' tiara moms.

I suggest SOPA be -expanded- to include this sinister practice which is threatening the livelihood of nearly 10s of media conglomerates, and the paid bloggers who are pimped by them.

Re:first post

[Phoghat]

@ackthpt The young and stupid will always be with us.

Because when it's 1% useful content

[Anonymous Coward]

then you're paying and having to sift through 99% crap.

Why not then pirate the 1% good stuff, which is both free and crap free.

How does this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

For only the 2nd time since 1970 tv ownership decreased. By 1% this year. Yet "percentage of homes without a TV is at the highest level since 1975".

Not sure how this adds up. 39 years of increase and only 2 years of decrease. I would think we would be near the height of ownership levels, just 1% below the peak of last year. Clearly I'm missing something. Can someone explain this?

Re:first post

[2fuf]

ok, who left the gate of Digg open?

Terra Nova

[madhatter256]

Terra Nova has been quite entertaining, so far. Hope I didn't just jinx the show now that I mentioned that....

DVR geek-niks

[jmcmillan757]

Geez - for a bunch of smart people haven't you heard of a DVR (aka Tivo)? I haven't watched commercials in years (except for a few during live football games and even then I usually read during that time) because you can zap past them. A technical solution to a problem? Go figure why the ... I don't own a TV and it's all crap crowd comes out during a discussion like this. It's all about personal control people.

It's the damn set top boxes

[scorp1us]

Now the cable companies got what they wanted - you need a STB for every damn TV now. Back the the old days you could just get a splitter and get all the channels in all the TVs in your house. But now that there is no real cable card solution you're stuck having to pay for each TV again. I think most customers, particularly today say F that.

TV is a waste

[wfstanle]

I'm not surprised at the decline. For years, critics have said that TV programming is a vast wasteland! Now the TV viewers are starting to agree with them and are tuning out. This decline will continue unless TV executives (I'm talking about cable and over the air) "wake up and smell the coffee", they have to produce quality programming that people will want to see at a cost that they are willing to pay. It's the free market finally beginning to show itself.

You say "over the air" is free? Not true! The time devoted to advertisements has become ridiculous. How about doing something radical, REDUCE the advertisement time!

Re:first post

[jedidiah]

Except now they have the Nintendo DS.

Re:18-40 Not really that broad.

[coastwalker]

In other news you will find many hundreds of hours of hour long public talks, courses and roundtable discussions on YouTube from Universities around the world.

Admittedly the entertainment is all about how in a certain Pharaohs reign the Egyptians had such a terrible economy they were digging up and re-purposing their ancestors coffins rather than having new ones made; how the mathematics of the Standard Model of particles at least catalogs them; or how the idea of a Goldstone boson led to the possibility of the Higgs Boson (Thanks Mr Leonard Susskind of Stanford); or how human perception of music works, or how the US Federal institute for energy security is funding all sorts of projects that could be game changers; or what evidence in the CMB points towards the idea of inflation in the early moments of the big bang. or ... well you get the general idea. There's also Politics, Law, Genetics, Biology, Chemistry, Social Science, Education, Geology, Economics, Materials Science, Ethnology, History, Art History, pretty much any field of knowledge you care to mention all being disseminated somewhere at a level you will understand.

Go to advanced search on YouTube, set the length filter to >20 minutes, sort on most recent and search on university (and subject if you know what you are after - but its often the random stuff that entertains the most)

So no I don't have a TV, haven't had one since 1988 in fact, but I do watch quite a lot of interesting lectures on a large monitor these days. Its utterly brilliant programing with no advertising and at the point of use costs nothing, zilch, for free. Extraordinary.

Of course I might buy a boxed set of DVD's occasionally as well, but broadcast TV? mindless garbage for the most part as many posters have pointed out.

Is there really any sentient being still watching it apart from children being babysitted until they find something better to do?

I am 45 and older and I seem to be getting vast quantities of fantastic free video programs, just don't tell anyone or they might try and start charging for them!

Online media is not the problem.

[blanks]

The problem is that no one wants to spend an extra $500 - $1000 for a 3D tv while most tv manufactures are trying to cover all their losses over the last 4 years from the mistake of trying to push this silly technology.

Once the focus is back to standard TV's with increasingly better displays at a reasonable price then people will start buying again instead off holding onto their all ready "good enough" LED / LCD tv's.

Re:Online media is not the problem.

[fsck -fy]

For me this is not an issue, but then I was quite happy with a tiny television which would not meet any market standards today. While I do agree that 3D TV are a bad idea (full disclosure: I cannot see 3D at all so I am quite naturally just slightly biased) it was ownership, not new purchases which were reported. As such, I do not see how people who use their good enough LED / LCD or even CRT TVs as an issue. As long as they of course not just decide TVs are not a good idea and get rid of theirs.

Commercials

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried to watch a show on TV lately. I am unable to sit through 12 commercials at one time. The networks are killing TV with all of the commercials they are stuffing into each program.

Considering...

[TemporalBeing]

...the average TV costs a lot more than it use to as they are all trying to sell you large LCD or Plasma displays with the latest 3D functionality that no one really wants. Forget about content, people simply can't afford the TVs!

Seriously - back in 2006 we got a 24" CRT TV for between $100-$150USD if I recall correctly. It recently died - nice big blue spark and no more picture etc. So I recycled it. Since then we've been borrowing my sister's 32" LCD TV while we decide what to do. I keep looking around, but the only things at a cheap price are knockoffs that have no quality behind them, and the ones that do have the quality recognition are way too expensive - enough that it easily compares to getting a nice little projector instead.

So, the TV industry is making it more economical than ever for people to ditch their TVs and switch to using computers and Internet-based services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, etc.) instead of Cable or OTA broadcasts. Not only is the Internet-based services more convenient (since you can start/stop watching all you like without a DVR) but they're cheaper too and run on your existing computers.

Now if only Netflix would support Linux...

Use a DVI-D to HDMI cable

[tepples]

Samsung recently decided to switch out having a HDMI and DVI port on their monitors for a VGA/RGB and a HDMI port. Really?

Ya rly. DVI-D and HDMI use the same signals, and you can pick up cheap DVI-D to HDMI cables on Monoprice.

Who buys a 27" 1920x1080 monitor for use with a VGA cable?

Somebody who bought an older or cheap computer with integrated graphics and only a VGA port.

Mental set against connecting a PC to a TV

[tepples]

Cnsidering that most TVs have HDMI ports and many have built in wifi now (my mom's new TV even has USB ports), why not?

Because most people who don't read Slashdot appear to have developed a mental set against connecting a PC to a television monitor, especially when the family PC is in a separate room from the living room TV. See previous Slashdot comments (1 2 3 4 5).

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed an deranged; I have existed for years but very little has changed...I'm the tool of the government and industry too and I am destined to rule and regulate you; I may be vile and pernicious but you can't look away; I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say...etc
Have you guessed me yet? I'm the slime oozing out of your TV set (courtesy of Frank Zappa).
Song is called I am the slime from overnight sensation.

Re:first post

[pseudofrog]

Oh why did my mod points expire yesterday..."and you will do as you are told, until the rights to you are sold"

Link!