I was watching this vid someone just made about what the future is for Youtubers and got to thinking about the technological drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11jdstrD6ws
My view is that television as we know it from broadcast is going to be tomorrows radio, like XM.
The money will go where the marketing is and it seems clear to me that television is on its way out. People can pick their own entertainment and the technology is there waiting for it.
You already have Hulu, Netflix and Youtube itself.
Is this the sunset for television, or am I wrong?
>>53760907
You're probably right. A lot of people have already cut cable, but I don't think it's really there yet. Apple TV doesn't have a lot of content (and who knows when it will), and the next closest thing would be xfinity. Xfinity is interesting because it's a bastard child of traditional cable companies and Internet streaming.
So who knows? Eventually, without a doubt, traditional TV will go away. When, is the question.
>>53760950
>Xfinity
Many thanks yous for the heads up. I didnt even know about that. Imma look into it.
I agree, I dont think tv as broadcast has much time left. People will own the device, but it will be altered for internet. It already is for many people.
>>53760950
>Eventually, without a doubt, traditional TV will go away. When, is the question.
I'm sure they said the same thing of radio years ago
>>53760907
>I never watch TV
>It's not TV if it's a coax multicast digital video signal delivered to a large screen in my home over IP.
>It's only TV if it's a coax multicast digital video signal delivered to a large screen in my home over ATSC.
>>53761099
Well, Im sure it still will have some niche use, but Im saying it would be limited.
People still have land-line telephones too, for some reason. Damned if I know why exactly. I hadn't thought about it much though desu
>>53761122
Thats a good point. I guess as definitions change, terms will have to be established for context in discussion.
Now Im a bit confused myself, desu
maybe TV shows will be served over the internet. I really wish more stations provided that - a 1 for 1 mirror of whatever they're broadcasting on live TV. It would be a huge strain on infrastructure though. Netflix already accounts for over 1/3 of US internet traffic during peak hours. Now imagine putting all of cable TV on the internet. Fug.
>>53760907
Of course TV will go away. It will have to be replaced with an on-demand system that doesn't charge you stupid prices to watch or even worse, "rent" a single video. The ideal would be if cable is replaced with a clone of netflix but with content that comes and goes. ie this season HBO has these shows on TV and you can go watch them at any time as episodes release. A year later it is removed to promote sales through other mediums and so that other smaller shows stand a chance of being watched instead of filling your service with nonstop big budget content. Channels could have like a "classic season" where they upload and grant access to older shows no longer on the service, etc.
So long as TV continues to be the outdated piece of shit that it is today, it is going to completely die out within two decades at most. Of course companies like Comcast are going to continue their absolute best to hinder other platforms' business as much as humanly possible and keep pushing shittier cable packages at higher prices to stupid people as long as they possibly can rather than adapt to the new market. They'll just offset their lost customers by making their loyal existing customers pay even more.
>>53761437
The way cable works, it's constantly streaming every single channel to your home at the same time. Cable companies could literally get rid of cable for an on-demand internet service and allocate all that bandwidth your internet connection to easily accomplish that, but of course that will never happen.
>>53761437
>Netflix already accounts for over 1/3 of US internet traffic during peak hours
Oooh. That makes a difference. I wonder where that will go. It makes sense though. I'll have to give that some thought.
>>53761640
See, thats what I think. There's the hardware, then theres other forces like marketing and the fact that people are picking their own stuff, a la carte, as you say.
I remarked that I think its being democratized and 'tribalized', as in people are clustering around their own entertainment culture.
Im a binge watcher, myself, when it comes to drama.
>>53761659
Im trying to keep up. This board is clearly way ahead of me. Thanks for schooling me, all.
I advocate for the technology, but from a market point of view, meaning I try to see the business end, but have to keep up with the actual technology. Its all moving so fast.
The guy you quoted remarked on bandwidth, which makes me think.
Plus, this is a developed Western nation sphere we are talking in. I dont know what the context would be for developing countries.
>>53761744
>developed western nation sphere
Yeah but if you live in North America, Australia/NZ, or western Europe you'll find that every single fucking ISP besides Google and any local ISP that somehow exists is trying to increase their profit margins by providing crappy service they continually charge more and more for, while lobbying with corrupt government officials to do everything they can to hinder healthy competition, government policing, or anything that can threaten their profit margins.
I'm sure that in a developing country it would be more likely to succeed because many countries in Eastern European developing countries for example, have decent internet at a not-outrageous price, without huge corporate interest due to the lack of a strong economy. Someone trying to establish on-demand TV service would probably have a lot more luck there, without the obstacle of lawyers and lobbyists blocking their path, or much competition with existing monopolies.
Even the bottom rung of developing countries such as those in Africa and some areas in India as well are getting internet access far faster and more reliably than cable access via things like wi-fi blimps already being deployed.
>>53761853
Thats a lot to think about. Thank you. I appreciate these insights.
It also got me to thinking about how NZ exploits its web users and how they want to bring data caps, so I hear, to the US
Many thanks again. This board has been the most helpful.
>>53761960
Data caps are already in the US. They call them "data thresholds" so they charge people more money for any portion of 50GB beyond their "threshold" because calling them "data caps" is bad for business.
However, there have been confirmed cases of Comcast purposely lying about data usage and saying people used data that they did not. Not long ago a Linux system administrator who was very knowledgeable about the technology noticed this and complained several times, but he was constantly told there is nothing wrong and it's probably on his end. He then completely disconnects his modem for weeks and magically his data usage goes up by 100GB. He finally takes his case to journalists (ars technica I think) and they publish his story. Immediately afterwards, comcast "finds the bug" and "fixes it" as they said.
There's a lot more to the greed of ISPs than meets the eye. 20 years ago the major ISPs were practically given enormous amounts of money (in terms of less taxation, etc) specifically to expand or revamp their infrastructure. They pocketed all the money. We are still on the same copper infrastructure. Furthermore they have been getting away with activities that should be illegal due to a technicality and them identifying as a "data company" instead of telecommunications. Very recently this was changed and as a result data caps were issued in retaliation. Extremely immature like a child almost. Data caps are ensuring the internet in the western world stagnates.
>>53761437
1/3 of traffic isn't necessarily 1/3 of capacity. And at least at a local/municipal level, discontinuing TV broadcasts over coax would open up more bandwidth for IP traffic. Balances out somewhat.
>>53761437
If this happened, ISPs would just do what they do with youtube. They would route all traffic to these media servers along the same paths so as to purposely congest it and delivery horrible speeds, making a large portion of potential viewers to decide not to view said content. This saves money for them because the less bandwidth used by their customers, the less money they have to pay for access to the infrastructure that those customers would have used.
If you want to experience this firsthand, try to use youtube on a friday night or saturday night. You'll probably struggle to get smooth playback at 480p in many cases, especially if you live in an area with a practical monopoly so everyone has the same service as you. Then use a VPN to access youtube. Your traffic will be routed to another location elsewhere in the country before going to the youtube servers, a route that will be almost completely clear of traffic. Assuming you have the bandwidth capabilities for it, you should be able to view even 1440p content instantly and smoothly with absolutely no stuttering or buffering or any other anomalies.
>>53762045
Thats pretty dispiriting. I would've mistakenly thought market forces would advance infrastructure like in Scandanavia.
Instead, it sounds like it may keep us in a dark age. I have tried to get some grasp of the net neutrality argument. I know the internet age we live in has been considered the 'wild west' age.
My other personal concern is what I called the democratization of media. But if the technocracy intends to exploit the infrastructure, that seems like it may be doomed.
I guess thats another topic. I'll be rereading a lot of this thread to try and absorb these many informed viewpoints and information.
>>53762118
Many thanks also. My downstream is limited and I dont get the full advantage of HD because I dont actually use it much for video consumption myself.
Some of this is over my head, but I am trying. This thread will give me many starting points for research later, and I am grateful.
Its all fascinating. There are factors people are pointing out that I hadn't considered.
>>53760907
Not unless everyone gets free internet. Poor people only have to buy a TV and they can watch it without paying monthly fees for internet. So it probably won't die out completely, for a long time.
>>53760907
>Will the internet replace television?
has it not already? i download the shows i want to watch, have been doing so for years
>>53761122
that depends where you live, not everywhere used cable for both (or cable at all)
where i live broadcast tv is done over DVB-T (UHF, over the air), and internet is most commonly ADSL, over POTS (though cable is available in some places for internet, cable is not used for tv broadcasts afaik)
>>53762229
Northern European countries except for maybe Sweden are actually EXTREMELY progressive in terms of technology, human rights, and nearly everything that a society should be doing right. Out of all first world countries, those in northern Europe are probably most likely to make advances of these kinds.
No it won't because what you autists don't understand is that TV is a social thing.
You switch it on, it's on in the background. Nobody is really watching it, but it's background noise. Occasionally something interesting will come on and someone will say "look!" and you'll focus for a few minutes, maybe a show will come on that you've never heard of and you'll enjoy it.
It's something to watch together while you have your family meals. It's something you have on, on low volume, while you have a cup of coffee and chat.
The point of TV is not to watch TV shows religiously, with the lights turned off, your surround sound system set perfectly, a bowl of popcorn and a drink. It's just there for casual viewing and tying the room together.
When people download shows etc. from the internet they KNOW what they want to watch, they are making a point of actively searching for something and watching it because of a specific reason. It's a totally different market.
DVDs/BluRay might become obsolete in the next 20 years or so, but TV never will.
>>53762827
TV can simply be replaced by a TV version of Google Play Music which has playlists based on interests, and more importantly catered playlists based on what you have liked in the past or listened to in the past. It'd still be social. Turn it to family mode and it shows things based on your past family mode data on what you watched and rated, skipped, at what point in time you skipped, etc.
>>53762744
Because they're giant boring suburbs sustained largely by foreign labor and resources.
>>53762897
That's not 'replacing' TV though, that's just making TV better, in the past TV has evolved to what it is today. More channels, analog to digital, live pause etc. etc..
Also, what you are describing might be overly complicating things for most people and if it's not cheaper than what it currently costs them, it has no chance of taking off. I mean, how do you know you don't like a certain type of cooking show if they never come on TV? That's quite limiting.
This idea might not hurt as an optional extra, but it's not going to replace the current standard.
>>53762744
That sounds about right. Iceland comes to mind.
>>53763023
I figure the global market may play a part. What fills a niche one place may already be filled in another, or have no competition.
Thats why I am interested to see how it pans out in Latin America and other places with a lot of room for growth and a lot of economic potential.
Going to sleep, thanks again for all the great insights, will check thread in morning. I appreciate it.
Have a great night!
I don't see the point in TV anymore, all the stuff I want to see is stuff I can also download and I don't have to watch adds on my PC.
