The internet's not killing TV, it's the influx of crap that's on each channel for that one good show.

@wrjohnston19283: THIS. Give me something with a good story arc and semi-intelligent writers. Keep the product placement low and I'll be all right.

TV's death will be a LONG time coming, at least here in the United States. What many people don't realize is that while Hulu, YouTube, etc continue pushing streaming media, internet providers are unable to keep up. Their networks cannot handle the increased traffic nor can they justify the costs associated with a major overhaul of the system.

You see the results of this in companies like AT&T and Comcast capping download speeds or setting monthly quotas on downloads. You're looking at bitrates from 10-20mbps for HDTV programming on current providers. Try streaming that level of service to thousands of households in the same region during prime time. Sure they can handle the occasional movie on demand, but to shift the entire load to streaming media will require much better networks

I don't mind commercials. What I mind are those annoying ads at the bottom of the screen DURING THE TV SHOW! Seriously, it ticks me off. I don't need to see stewie and brian running across the screen while watching TBS.

I lived without cable for over a year. The only thing I missed was being able to watch baseball games. I watched a lot of broadcast TV and watched my netflix. I scheduled my life around tv shows. of course there aren't that many that I'd actually watch because they were all opposite each other.

@ElPresidente408: To be fair, Comcast's bandwidth cap is 250gb a month. I don't even come close to that with streaming/downloading constantly. I maybe, maybe, reach 100gb on a busy month.

TV won't die for a long time, but it might consolidate. The digital cable networks that hardly anyone watches would be the first to go.

@wrjohnston19283: My favorite shows have been Anime series that are only one season. Tell a story, tell it well, then leave it the hell alone. This model of running an idea into the ground to milk the most advertising dollars has got to stop. Filling every late night dead air spot with infomercials also isn't helping.

I'd be willing to pay for the individual stations (or families, like all the ESPNs or all the NBC channels, etc.) as long as they delivered a higher quality product like the subscription channels do. There would also be no censorship which would be awesome.

If it doesn't clean up its act, it may very well be.

It seems to me that in trying to please a large group of people ALL the time, they're alienating more than they are attracting.

I barely watch real time tv anymore. A few minutes a week, I go to my dvr and set it to record the few shows I watch. I then watch them at my convenience.

My guess is that this makes my TV watching meaningless as far as advertising, and weekday/timeblock showtime strategy, which I suppose are key factors in their business.

Solution: Smart content and on-demand availability (internet, special cable channel, game console, or whatever else comes down the line.)

Tell a story, tell it well, then leave it the hell alone.

@Persistence: Quoted for Truth!

This is something that's constantly talked about in sad, low voices with people I work with. TV advertisements are the bread and butter in which we make a living.

In post production there's been a major shift in how the business works. Both because of FCP becoming a cheap alternative to an Avid or Smoke, and because advertising dollars aren't what they used to be due to a washed out (and shifting) market, big post houses are collapsing as small boutique places are popping up all over. Don't get me wrong, there are dozens of other reasons as well, but those are two big factors.

While, for the sake of quality programming, I'd like to see more HBO-type subscription shows, that won't work if everyone's cutting their cable. Also, it would hurt the video advertising business.

I don't like the idea of people producing entertainment content more 'just for the web' because the quality general degrades immensely. But, if it's ad supported, I get to feed my kids....

It's a tough, tough situation, I think. And I really, really don't want to learn flash and make websites for a living.

@ElPresidente408:

The connectivity providers have been given more than enough money to expand their networks as needed - not only due to high costs and feeds, but government subsidies:

[www.niemanwatchdog.org]

I've dumped cable and use a free air antenna. The picture's better and it's free. It's just not worth paying money to have 200+ channels of ads. Plus, I like HuLu.

I blame reality TV. It's garbage as a whole, although I have not seen a lot of shows these days come out that has gotten my interest. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are still 2 of my favorites.

Also since there are more channels available viewership is going to shrink.

On demand services (internet or cable solutions) will put a huge dent into standard TV, but i think people will always accept the idea of someone else's play list (standard/traditional tv). It allows them to discover new crap. I think as any of the solutions become more able to collect viewing data we will start to see pricing between what actually popular and what is not adjusted.

I personally cannot wait for the Netflix channel to hit a cable service near you. Add some social networking and you have users programming their own stations. Some other tools and users can even tell the advertisers where their commercials should be inserted.

Ofcourse... drm, infighting, money grabbing, and general human asshattery makes this entertainment utopia a virtual impossibility...

I saw a chart that showed TV is doing pretty good:

Start making more TV shows online-only to cut down on costs or (gulp) consider charging for subscriptions like HBO.

HBO isn't in the habit of canceling shows after just one episode. There's no way I'd pay a subscription for a channel knowing that the shows I like might not even be around for a full season.

Perhaps if tv channels remembered their identity (SyFy, I'm looking at you), we'd remember them.

I want videos on MTV, CMT and VH1; science fiction on Sci F'n Fi; video games and computers on G4 (oh Kate Botello, you were gone too soon); MOVIES on American MOVIE Classics; cartoons on CARTOON Network... you get the picture.

All I got now are 30 channels of Scrubs/CSI/Cheaters.

I would pay to watch videos online even with commercials. The thing about TV is that you have to sort through the crap to find the good stuff, which means planning your day around a TV show so you can catch it. If I can watch the show I like, whenever I'd like, online, even if it had commercials, I'd be content with that and would pay for it.

what it comes down to is...
consumers are no longer willing to sit in front of a 3 minute segment of commercials.
in today's fast paced-gotta make best use of every second-mindset, willfully watching 180 seconds of gibberish is not going to cut it.
on demand viewing is the future, when it fits my schedule then we can talk putting gibberish in the way of me and Dr. House.

TV has been steadily destroying itself for years. Has anybody even watch the major networks recently? It's all hastily assembled reality shows, written-by-committee sitcoms, and sleazy police procedures. Cahle is almost as bad, save for a few worthwhile networks (AMC, HBO).

I haven't just sat and watched TV in ages. We don't have cable and get poor reception so we use Netflix and Hulu, mainly. I have two comments. One: in an on-demand world, it seems harder to just stumble across something that might be really worthwhile. You can't choose to watch it if you've never heard of it.

My second point is about serialized TV shows. I have noticed some of the intensity, some of the emotional involvement missing, when you absorb an entire season in a weekend. Living and breathing with a show for months, really getting to know the characters and the story, create an anticipation, an excitement, and a psychological thrill that can't be duplicated. I miss cliffhangers. I actually moderate how much of a season I'll watch at a time, take it in smaller chunks.

@Ben Popken: What is this from?

The percent change of using the internet is what's scary. TV watching has been stagnant while the number of channels has increased. This is watering down the consumer base and hurting advertising dollars. Plus adding TV on the internet is watering it even more.

The money for producing content is being stretched thin, and will eventually pop in one direction or the other.

I still don't understand why the TV networks don't understand that viewers what a variety of shows to watch.

What happens now is one network has a hit with a prime-time game show (who wants to be a millionare), so all the networks try to jump on the prime-time game show bandwagon and don't seem to understand why it doesn't work.

Then a network came out with a reality show, so all the networks jumped on the bandwagon to make reality shows and don't seem to understand why most don't work.

This fall, NBC is bringing a talk show to prime time (Jay Leno), and GUESS WHAT.... it is not that hard to predict, it will do good and all the other networks will grab stars to do prime time talk shows.... AND GUESS WHAT - MOST WILL NOT WORK and the networks will sit there and wonder why not.

I like what they do in some many Asian countries - they have a show that is 1 season long - THAT IS ALL. Like a mini-series, the show has a start - middle, and since you already know how many episodes there will be, a planned ending.

NO dragging on plots for many seasons and losing viewers because of it (Lost)

NO paying high cost to returning stars for a hit show (they are hired for one season only - NO SECOND SEASON)

The networks need to stop trying to follow each other, and bring a varity of shows.

IT IS NICE to have some cartoons in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some game shows in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some reality shows in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some comedies in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some dramas in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some news shows in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some sports in prime time. IT IS NICE to have some talk shows in prime time.

IT IS NOT THAT HARD - instead of looking at what the other networks are doing and copy - why not see what is MISSING from prime time and do that? Not many drama's, try to fill that need. Not many comedy's, try to fill that need.

it really is not that hard.

It's easy to generalize when we're talking about reality TV - simply because so much of it IS utter crap. But let's take a moment to recognize those shows that actually are worthwhile. I'm talking Amazing Race, Top Chef, Project Runway. If more people took cues from these shows, we'd be in a better place.

@elganador:

Throwing money at a problem and actually having companies do something useful with that money are often two completely different things, for any industry.

It's not just internet networks. I mean even look at the AT&T 3G network. A network they created themselves and even promote in advertisements as a selling point. Try using it in any major city and you'll only reach a fraction of the speeds due to congestion.

TV isn't going anywhere. What we may see is a move away from traditional advertising and toward more product integration, like with movies.

We already have "paid content" TV, it's called cable! Am I the only one that remembers when cable came out, the reason you paid for TV was for it to be commercial free? Yes, cable TV was originally supposed to be commercial free.

@Persistence: The BBC used to produce sitcoms and such that ran just a few seasons - on purpose. We're talking popular shows that win awards. Monty Python's Flying Circus only ran three seasons, for example. Kinda hard to jump the shark when you don't even reach the shark tank before the series finale.

I've been watching a few of these on Roku (the true assassin of television, you just wait). They rock.

I hate reality TV, and I hate "flip your house" style shows, but how much do I love my crime shows and documentaries and Food Network? A ton. There's just so much real creativity out there, and without it we would have never gotten BSG or Monk or The Wire. And disparage it all you want, but even your Law and Orders make for some pretty fine drama (SUV comes to mind). Of course, it helps that I love crime shows.

@elganador: Not only that, but if there is more demand for bandwidth, I am sure providers will be able to produce as much as people are willing to pay for. Would I pay an extra $10-$15 a month to boost my Verizon DSL bandwidth from 3MBit to 5? Hell yeah.

The networks are trying very hard to bring about the death of television. They cancel great shows and fill prime time with cheap-to-make "reality" gameshows.

Here's what should happen: next time some idiot suit cancels a great show, move the show to online, charging per episode to cover the costs of producing the show. The internet should make it possible for worthy shows to exist without needing a network to broadcast them. People pay for DVDs and iTunes downloads of television shows they could watch on networks... If you paid $30 for Pushing Daisies season 2 on DVD, how much would you pay for season 3?

It's TV's fault. My local channels doesn't even show old sitcoms anymore. They only show sh- court programs and the same things every fraking day!

@sponica: Yeah I agree with the during the show ads, they bug me. Theyve always bugged me since it started having a "watermark" logo in a corner, I always found it distracting. Thanks, I know I'm watching Fox, you don't have to burn it into my brain.

The other thing that is annoying is when they overlap the end of shows with the beginning of the next show to maximize advertising time, or put the credits in the corner to run commercials. So annoying

All I got now are 30 channels of Scrubs/CSI/Cheaters.@riroon: Lucky you. I never stopped watch TV I just noticed that I've been watch less and less because every thing seem to be "reality" shows. I just have no tolerance for watch vacuous wannabes argue.

@riroon: AMEN!!!! Couldn't have said it better.

@HurtsSoGood: Four seasons actually. Though the fourth was only six episodes long.

"Four shall be the number of the count, and the number of the count shall be four...."

@riroon: But... AMC has some of the best TV SHOWS on TV - Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. I agree with everything else, but if AMC wants to make good TV, let 'em. Precious few others are.

In the 90's, my wife and I recorded *everything* to VHS in order to skip commercials.

When the first ReplayTVs came out, I got one of those, and manually skipped commercials, and was able watch while recording.

We switched to MythTV eventually, which automatically skips commercials.

I NEVER liked commercials, because they were broadcast at completely unreasonable volume ("****MOR! FURNITURE FOR LESS****!!!!1!!!!ONE!!1"), were frequently insipid, redundant, dishonest, copious, condescending, and let's face it--THEY DON'T MAKE ME BUY STUFF. Ad agencies have an amazingly inflated view of how well ads work (TV as well as grocery store floors, pre-movie hype shows, tattoos on strangers, product placement, mall "surveys" ("here, hold my warm beverage"), streakers at sporting events, my doctor, phony search results, THE MOON'S SURFACE, &c.). Try counting how many ads and logos you see in a day. ENOUGH for crissake! They don't work like you think they do, addies!

I use AdBlock because I get to have the last word what my son sees at age three, and because banner ads waste my time and energy and patience and bandwidth and will never motivate me to buy anything.

We're on the "Do Not Call" list for largely the same reasons, but now we just get endless push-polls, so no big help there.

I do have to say that we watch more commercials now that we watch most our stuff on Hulu/Boxee/Netflix.com. The Hulu ads aren't usually as bad, but they are deeply weird sometimes ("Cube mobile device"‽). If there are more Recession Aggression Bag-type ads, I may have to look elsewhere for content, though.

Don't think people despise ads? Try standing in front of a grocery store offering free steaks, and see how many people avoid you!

@coan_net: HERETIC! If there is one thing that makes my life worth living is watching a show that has long gone off the rails just to see if the male and female leads will finally kiss. That just never gets old.

@ElPresidente408: The problem with your argument is that it assumes cable providers have an interest in increasing download speeds. They don't.

Bandwidth is not capped by limitations in technology available, it is capped by corporate decision-making processes. If They provide you enough bandwidth to watch everything online then why would you pay for their cable service?

There are a lot of comparisons showing how horrible bandwidth in the United States is compared to other countries. I'll only link one.

TL;DR: The bandwidth to stream full HD programming is possible.

@redrolla:
I've actually heard that cable used to be commercial free. But, I've got a question. If it was commercial free, how did they fill the extra time and still keep to an on the hour or on the half hour schedule ( most 30 min shows are actually 25, and most 60 min shows are actually 50 )?

@brianary: I was watching All the Presidents men again and one thing struck me about advertising. There is a scene in a fast food restaurant, the cups and wrappers had just the company logo no ads, the counter had a simple word menu and there were no posters or cardboard displays. I think what you have done is a natural reaction to being carpet bombed by ads all day long.

@JustinSane07: 1995: Landline Phones won't die for a long time

What is the difference between a Desktop computer and a "digital cable box"/DVR?

What is the difference between an HDTV and a flat screen monitor?

These are hypothetical questions, I know the answer...

@sonneillon: Reality TV is all over TV because people watch it. Nielson ratings dictate the programming on every network.

I'll admit, after getting most of my news online for a long time now, and watching the few watchable programs online as well, the last time I was on vac and stayed at a hotel, I found I had absolutely NO patience for televised news. I couldn't stand sitting there listening to stories I didn't care about waiting for the stories I did care about. Went outside to a internet cafe to catch up.
Nor did I have any patience for constant loud commercial interruptions and promotions.

@Ben Popken: This chart doesn't represent the issue at hand. Those top 2 categories will be merging in to one very shortly.

Digital Cable boxes with DVR's are a fancy word for a desktop computer in a different case with a different graphics card. Flatscreen monitors and TVs are already identical technology. The tuner cards you buy for computers already have remote control codes. We are only missing one item before a full conversion to Internet based programming is viable: Bandwidth.

@Nascar24Dude: More content, usually.

Keep in mind that at that time, many of the channels (we had fully TWENTY channels!) didn't fritter away all of their broadcast hours rerunning commercial TV shows. Much of it was original.

Anyone else remember watching Pinwheel on Nickelodeon? Or the Nickelodeon show where they would play "Flight of the Valkyries" and read comic books to you?

@BWoodle: I should be more clear with my ideas. People won't need to be savvy with this technology to get it to run.

Theoretically there would be a section at Best Buy (TV aisle or Computer aisle?), that would have computers for sale that are simply a set-top box with a remote that hooks up to your living room television.

@rugman11: …not that movies are typically all that great anymore.