Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Media Entertainment

How Many TV Channels Will There Be In The Future? 325

Posted by timothy from the seeking-an-all-nero-wolfe-channel dept.
The Importance of writes "MediaPost reports that, for the first time since it has been tracked, the average number of receivable television channels per household has stopped increasing and even decreased a bit. Perhaps we're not going to hit that 500 channel future people used to talk about. TV executives are, of course, worried about this and want answers. Is this just a temporary plateau or the beginning of a long-term trend? Will DVRs reverse this slide or are they part of the problem? Are we heading into a channel-free future or do channels still have value?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Many TV Channels Will There Be In The Future? More

How Many TV Channels Will There Be In The Future?

Comments Filter:

  • I dont know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by angst7 ( 62954 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:16PM (#9601790) Homepage
    Is the matrix just one channel?
    • In about 11 years we'll have tons of channels, and televisions that can show us six at one time. Oh, and video games that use hands for operation will be for children only.

  • This may be because (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:17PM (#9601795) Homepage Journal
    This may be because TV is becoming less popular as a whole. Much of the younger generation spends its time on the internet now, and many just download their favorite TV shows. Losing a sizable percentage of viewers would easily facilitate a drop in available channels.

    • Re:This may be because (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jokach ( 462761 )
      In addition to just using the internet, the younger generation spend alot of time on video games as well (ps2, etc). I know for a fact my own son only knows where 3 channels are on the dial when we receive over 100, and they're the only three he watches because its focused programming (cartoons, sci-fi, nick). I have never seen him watch a prime-time network (ABC, NBC, etc) unless theres some crazy new cartoon comes on FoxKids ... its just the trend in the younger generation ...

    • Re:This may be because (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScoLgo ( 458010 ) <scolgo@g m a i l . c om> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:57PM (#9602027) Homepage
      "Much of the younger generation spends its time on the internet now, and many just download their favorite TV shows."

      Spot on. Another reason for the decline of television viewing is games. Personally, I'd much rather plug in something interactive instead of passively sitting in front of the tube.

      • Re:This may be because (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Stop with that meme already!

        If you find tv-watching a passive experience, then frankly, you're doing it wrong.

        I get just as much interaction with tv as with a video game - whether it's watching an informative program, or a pure entertainment one.

        Of course, I usually watch tv with my brothers, and we tend to talk a lot during the ad breaks (or in the case of some programs, during it, to make jokes, comments, start discussions on what we just saw...)

        If tv is too passive for you, perhaps you better look at

      • Re:This may be because (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cfuse ( 657523 )
        Personally, I'd much rather plug in something interactive instead of passively sitting in front of the tube.

        I'd watch more TV if it did all of the following:

        1. Had pause, fast forward, rewind, etc.
        2. Had no ads.
        3. Wasn't so stupid/patronising/dull/American.
        4. Had no soap operas, advertising disguised as programming, sport or other irrelevances.
        5. I could tell it what I liked and it could go and find more of it.

        Watching TV on my computer lets *me* control the medium, not the other way around. My time is valuable,

        • TiVo (Score:3, Informative)

          by Eimi Metamorphoumai ( 18738 )
          What you want is a TiVo. Since I got that a few months ago, I'm watching more tv than ever.
          1. Pause, fast forward, rewind, check
          2. Still ads, but you can fast foward through them or use 30-second skip
          3. Can't really help you there, all I can say is don't watch the crap you don't want to watch.
          4. Same as above
          5. Check. If you just thumbs-up and thumbs-down shows you like and dislike, it'll get pretty good at recording suggestions for you. If you want more control you can do some really nice things with wishlists.

    • Re:This may be because (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not just younger viewers. I'm going to enter my 30s, and my much older parents even are getting ticked off at coverage. Take, for example, sports coverage. Even between two major channels ESPN/ESPN2 and NBC, there were a lot of tennis they didn't cover despite having exclusive agreements. How do you manage to screw up an asset you paid big bucks for?

      TV is becoming less popular because, as with most things in decline, it has not adapted. Even when they get in viewers, they manage to piss them off. Whe

      • Re:This may be because (Score:5, Interesting)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:15AM (#9603882)
        I'm pissed at how little of the Olympics will be broadcast. The network covering this years events has like 7 cable channels which means they have potentially 1,200+ hours per week to cover the events yet they will only have that many hours of coverage over three weeks [nbcolympics.com], and much of that dedicated to the "major" events.

        What's worse is that the stupid licensing agreements make it impossible for them to webcast niche events to those who would pay for them because then some channel in zimbabwe that wasn't going to broadcast the event anyways isn't getting their money's worth =( Oh yeah and the events are hard to keep up on because the participants are bared from reporting on their OWN participation on a weblog or similar self publication.
    • Agreed. Compared to Video games, DVDs and the Internet, TV has hardly been innovative.

      I still think that 500+ channels is very likely though. Instead of trying to turn your channel into a kind of "portal" (exhibits A and B: MTV and VH1), I think the trick will be narrowcasting. They're doing this in Europe already. Kerrang, a UK rock/metal magazine have their own channel devoted to...rock and metal videos, and not much else.

      Couple with true a la carte ordering, you'll see channels proliferate wildl

    • Read the article about the 'broadcast flag' [slashdot.org]. What the hell good is 500 channels going to be if you can't record any of the other 499. It's going to be a complete waste of bandwidth.

      No more recording Gomer Pyle while watching the football game, but they'll be screaming "Surprise, surprise, surprise" when the TV industry tanks on the 'broadcast bit'.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:19PM (#9601808)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • It seems that bundling actually reduces choices, and therefore reduces competition. Reminds me of MS.

    • Re:I'll tell you why. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by w42w42 ( 538630 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @06:00PM (#9602045)

      Congress has talked about doing away with bundling, letting subscribers pick and choose channels. If that happens, watch the crud channels die away as no one subscribes to them - accentuating this apparent trend of fewer channels.

      The ironic part is that those channels that may not get the audience now may in the future under a law like this thrive, driving other channels out.

      Something else that I find ironic is such a scheme would promote a free market in cable channels - quality would matter again. If Congress doesn't pass this law though I suspect it will only be because of contributions from 'free market' capitalists heading these cable companies.

      • Which is kind of unfortunate. One can subscribe to C-band satellite, there is actually a standardized scrambling system, and you can chose your suppliers. Sure, you pay more up front, but I added up the costs for all the channels I wanted, and I think it was the 20 channels I wanted for $15 a month. You can pick and chose which satellite to pull in from too since the system redirects the dish if you pick a channel that's carried by a different satellite. So you have dozens of available satellites in the
      • If Congress doesn't pass this law though I suspect it will only be because of contributions from 'free market' capitalists heading these cable companies.

        I used to think like that, until I worked for a Satellite TV company. You'd be surprised at how many people who just wanted to pay for only one premium channel used to call in and switch from HBO to Cinemax, to Starz to Showtime every day to watch the shows/movies that they wanted to see.

        Imagine if EVERYONE was able to do this. You'd never be able to get
    • Because you have to buy tv channels in packages, and the strange niche ones don't get included until you are paying like $100 a month, which not many people want to pay.

      The local cable provider where I live allows you to get digital channels seperately (analog channels are still only available in packages). The requirements are that you have basic cable ($24/month) and a digital cable box ($8.95/month). Then you can get as many digital channels ($2.50/month/each) as you want. Or you can get more channels
      • Yeah, but you're already paying $33 a month! I hardly see how this is a good deal. If I were to be offered as many channels as I wanted for, say, $5 a month, then I might get two or three and that would be that - as long as I only had to pay $15 per month, period.
    • However, pay-per-channel would case some of the crammed-on spinoff networks such as NickToons, Cartoon Network's Boomerang, and ESPNews to falter. There just wouldn't be enough demand for those to continue.

      Sure, some new niche networks would form based on demand, but others that nobody asked for would be checking out.

      • Ok, so set up themed packages.

        I have no interest in sports. I would be happy not to have any sports networks. I would, on the other hand, enjoy a suite of comercial-free movie channels (Sundance, IFC, TCM, etc), but basic Comcast cable in my town has lots of sports and -- with the exception of AMC (which seems to have started running channels some time in the past few years [is it obvious I'm not a frequent teevee watcher?] and so doesn't appeal as much as it used to) -- no movie channels.

        Likewise, I co

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doc Squidly ( 720087 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:20PM (#9601813)
    500 Channels and there's nothing on!

    • Re:Wow! (Score:2, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      500 Channels and there's nothing on!

      Nonsense. At any given moment Ron Popeil is on about 247 of them. In the wee hours I think it's closer to 476.

      KFG
    • Actually only 3:

      Shopping Network
      Golf
      Scrambled Porn

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:20PM (#9601814) Journal
    People still watch television? I thought it was just for watching dvds...

  • probably not all TV execs are worried... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdallien ( 564954 ) * on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:21PM (#9601823)
    The TV execs who were busy inventing new specialty channels are likely worried, but folks over at the traditional major networks might not feel so bad about a decrese in channel numbers. More choices pull audiences away from the mainstream primetime shows where the major networks want as many viewers as possible (just like everyone else does).

    As channel numbers grow advertising dollars must be getting fragmented as well. Harder to sell ads on new channels when advertisers are already trying to cover as many markets as they can.

    • Re:probably not all TV execs are worried... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:31PM (#9601896)
      No one would have to worry if they stopped worrying about raw viewership and worried about actually putting some decent programming on. Specialty channels are a great idea, except they only have 4-6 hours a day of unique programming which is repeated 4-6 times a day. If you saw Star Trek at noon, you don't watch it again at 4 then at 11 or whatever, because you already saw that episode.
      • If you saw Star Trek at noon, you don't watch it again at 4 then at 11 or whatever, because you already saw that episode.

        Specialty channels rarely have more than one feed. Space (the Canadian equivalent of Sci-Fi) used to show Babylon 5 at 3pm, 7pm, and 3am (all eastern time) so that it was easier for people in different time zones to watch. Canada covers 6 different timezones (Newfoundland, Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific). The USA covers 4 plus whatever Alaska and Hawaii are in.

        That's

  • 10,000 channels (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:21PM (#9601824)
    In the future there'll be 10,000 channels and still nothing on.

  • There Won't Be Any Channels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:21PM (#9601825)
    TV Programming as we know it will be obsolete. All video will eventually become streaming to individual televisions so that humans don't have to modify their schedules for shows. The only real time people will watch real-time broadcasted shows are for the new episode of a sitcom, a sports event, or a special/awards show.
    • Yeah, it stands to reason that a central server and place the box and recording stuff back somewhere else. Then rather than channels there will be giant lists of every episode of certain shows. Such as what if I want to watch the old show "Freaks and Geeks". From an econimic standpoint there is a demand for this show, but, not enough to dedicate a channel to it.

      In the future, I'll be able to just request this show. And only a few things will be real-time. Also, filler crud will be worthless. No sence ramp
    • Yup. In the future TV listings will list release times, not broadcast times. You'll be able to watch whatever you want after it's released just by doot dooting it up on your remote. Video on demand is what the market has always wanted, and it's what we will ultimately get.
    • In a way I already do this.

      Once a week I go through Tivo's listings under the catagories I am interested in, find the shows I would would like to see, and select them to record. i never pay attention to when they are on, except in the rare cases of conflicts. Then I watch them when I want. Heck, if it wasn't for the annoying little blip in the lower right hand corner, I doubt I would even know what channel they are on.

      I have not watched "live" TV in about two years now. It's been a hell of a relief not ha

    • Hmm, I don't think that scheduled shows for sports events, awards, etc. will be done away with entirely.

      I have the DVD sets for a lot of good shows ( Simpsons, Family guy, etc. ), but I'd prefer just flipping to a channel that has some random Simpsons rerun on instead of popping in one of the Simpsons DVDs which would involve no commercials, or waiting.

      I'd sometimes rather not choose which episode I want to watch, I just want to pick one out of random, and I don't want to use some quirky random-show
    • You're right. However, this could be a bad thing. It decreases the amount of common currency between people (perhaps relative strangers). In the UK with only 5 (3 in the 70s) main channels, people can discuss the latest TV series/programmes because everyone's watching the same stuff. Plus, how many times have you watched a programme that was on, just because it was on, and you found it interesting, but you would not actually chosen to watch it?

      The result of total choice will ultimately lead to the incr

  • 500 channels.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:22PM (#9601831) Homepage Journal
    that you can't decide whats on them.

    or 1 'channel' that _you_ decide what's on it.

    which one is going to be the better choice? I'd go with the "insanely big medialibrary at home that gets updated over the net constantly and you can watch whatever you please whenever you plase" solution('resourceful' people can have it today already..).

    excuse me I'll go back to laughin my ass off at some monty python episodes..
    • What that effectively would be is 500 real-time streams with a TiVo or other DVR cherry picking the programs you want to see out of them.

      There are some programs such as newscasts, sports events, and awards shows that seem pointless to watch if you're not watching them live. Also, in order to get the "watercooler effect", shows are always going to need "release times", such as becoming first available Thrusdays at 8pm ET and that will tend to resemble a present primetime lineup.

      Daytime reruns of cable show

    • Re:500 channels.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )
      Indeed. On Demand viewing is the future, and the future is here [suprnova.org]. I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the media companies if they fail to provide a legal alternative.
  • Does it really matter how many channels there are? I mean, there's a fixed number of people in the world, but every channel means someone is spending more on content for it, driving up costs, since you can't really get more viewers than there already are. Variety is nice of course, but isn't 500 channels overdoing it? What do "TV executives" stand to gain from more channels?
    • The more focused a channel's content is, the more predictable the audience generally is. If you know who is watching, you can sell advertising to companies that want to target that audience.

      It's the same reason a million speciality magazines exist.
    • Blockquoth the poster:

      I mean, there's a fixed number of people in the world,

      Doesn't this just feed the stereotype of the typical geek, unaware of the opposite sex? :)
  • All of them.
  • "Ive got 36 channels of shit on the tv to chose from...."

    speaking for myself, tv just isn't interesting. I find actually doing things to be more fulfilling. And it may be time for a shake out.I predict the 'traditional' networks will either have to die or reinvent themselves.

  • Don't we have enough? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:25PM (#9601850) Journal
    Isn't 7 HBO's and 5 Showtimes and 100 PPV's enough?

    They don't seem have enough programming to fill the channels that are existing. Try surfing around 2:00 AM - Do we really need 200 more Infomercial channels?

    I guess they could make do with a few more p0rn channels, though :)

  • the word "channel" is a paradigm of the past. We should start calling them streams or something different in order to break out of the old mindset of the not-on-demand programming model. The industry should be freed to try new things ... which is already happening, but sllllooooowwwwllly.

  • Only one.. If the user controls what's on it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_rajah ( 749499 ) * on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:28PM (#9601867) Homepage
    I thought that the idea was that eventually we'd select the content that we wanted which would then be delivered via broadband technology to each user at the time that we wanted to see it. No more of this lousey, "what's on at 8:00?" stuff and if you wanted to see episode 34 of some show you'd just call it up.

    Honestly, there's so little on TV that I want to watch anymore. I get my news via Internet so I can select which stories I am interested in and I can get a lot more detail than the 30 second spot news items that seems so prevalent nowadays. For movies, I go to the theater or rent/buy a DVD. The latter allow me to watch when I want and even pause if I need a break for an incoming phone call or to go to the toilet or refrigerator.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

    • For movies, I go to the theater or rent/buy a DVD. The latter allow me to watch when I want and even pause if I need a break for an incoming phone call or to go to the toilet or refrigerator.

      And the cinema/DVDs are (ostensibly) commercial free. Hurray! Although, in the last year or so, I've gone to a couple of theaters I don't normally go to and have seen a crapload of commercials aired before the movie. @#&*%@#

      Commercials are the reason I gave up TV. I despise advertising. If I want information on a

      • Just thought I should add, not all TV is as attrocious as reality TV. I love Stargate SG-1, for example. I just don't like to watch it on Sci-Fi and have 5 minute interruptions every 10 minutes. (Well, wouldn't if I subscribed to cable/satellite.) I download all the newer episodes and own several seasons on DVD.

        Which actually brings me to another point. I know a lot of people who spend an extra $15 dollars a much just to watch, say, the Sorpranos. Now, If you didn't subscribe to HBO, you could use the same

  • As someone... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@ c o m c a st.net> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:28PM (#9601871) Journal
    Who is trying to get directv, dishnet, C band, and FTA Kuband setup, already has basic cable (and is busy hacking digital cable), not to mention that I've getting things ready for broadcast (finally putting out a decent antenna)... let me say that this is just stupid BS.

    Then again, since I'm not paying for any of the above (cable maybe, I do have cable internet), this won't do anything to alleviate the concerns of media marketdroids. Oh well.
  • 57 channels and nothin' on.

    I had digital cable for 2 years, after having standard for the 3 before. At first I marveled at how many more channels I got - 5 Discovery channels, sports out the yin-yang, all that.

    Then I realized it was just more crap to have to flip through to find anything worth watching. I wasn't watching "more" TV than before - in fact, I was watching less.

    I'm back on standard cable now and the only thing I really miss is the on-screen channel guide.

  • internetTV (Score:5, Informative)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:29PM (#9601877) Homepage Journal
    This [nytimes.com] wasn't interesting enough for the slash editors to publish. Go figure. My opinion, as a internet TV operator is that all TV will move to the internet, just as rabbit ear television moved to cable. Nuff said.
    • just as rabbit ear television moved to cable. Nuff said.

      Yeah, broadcast television has been replaced by cable. Who wants to watch the highest rated programs when they can watch niche progamming instead.

  • Since TechTV was purchased by comcast is become nothing but a network about games and porn and the relation of the two.

    They still have lame show hosts with the repetoire of words of a Teddy Ruxpin - but at least G4 (comcasts end) brought a little more appealing looking hosts.

    G4TechTv is so bad now, I axed it from my dish and picked up DIY instead.
    • TechTV's business format all-day TechLive show basically documented the failure of the .com economy as it happened in real time from April 2001 to November 2001, complete with the climax episode on 9-11-2001. On the finalie day you could see people cleaning out their desks in the background as they were being laid off, and the show abruptly ended halfway through the day going to a rerun of the previous day's TSS.

      And in short, that's part of the reason we have less TV channels today. Several marginal channe
  • I@m currently watching Channel 828, which is N8 Output, and 838, N8 Omnibus. I was watching Chanell 260 earlier, News Quad 2, with Reuters, APTN, AP and EVN on. That's just on the ring main, give me a router dest and I can route about 2000 video signals to my screen!

    500 channels? Piddly.
  • Mind you, this figure includes all channels in all countries, including channels displaying only information (weather, program guides, etc).

    Glad I could help. If you have any more questions, let me know.

  • Your Ovn Channel? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:33PM (#9601906) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if, when the net broadcast and broadband technologies grow some more popular, people will start 'en masse' their own homebrew TV channels. Say, a team of 10 ppl team up, and every sunday and thursday from 1PM till midnight broadcast their own TV over the net.

    1PM-2:30 - Jam Session - our band. Good non-commercial rock
    2:30-3:00 - Gamer's Box. Something about cool games we've played recently.
    3:00-3:30 - Best of Demos - our best games of the week recorded. Also tricks and tutorials.
    3:30 - 4:00 - Website Picks. Some of our favourite newly-found.
    4:00 - 5:00 - The Board! - Skateboarding on the backyard. New tricks.
    5:00 - 6:00 - Random Weirdness. (interesting stuff caught on camera by one of the guys who walks around the town with the camera a lot)
    6:00 - 6:30 - Theatre of Madness. (a show)
    6:30 - 7:00 - 20 questions. Talk show.
    7:00 - 7:30 - By Kids For Kids.
    7:30 - 8:00 - News.
    8:00 - 9:30 - Best Picks Of Old Movies (abandonware style)
    9:30 - 11:00 - More Rock
    11:00 - 12:00 - Adult Talk And More. (say, a dare to the best sluts of the school to show their stuff on TV :)
    • Every single one of those things is easier to produce as plain text on a blog/slashdot/whatever post and easier to be consumed. It's much easier to write effectively than to acquire or be naturally gifted with the looks and clear enunciation that you would want for the video format, and reading poor writing is not nearly as bad as watching someone ugly and mumbling.

      Just ask yourself: how long would that post have taken to put together if you had to turn it into a ten minute video, and how many people woul

  • in the future.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spacerodent ( 790183 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:36PM (#9601922)
    In the future I wouldn't be suprised to see vast number of channels as costs for having a station decrease. Right now most channels just show reruns and cheap talk shows and they do alight. The real question is going to be if the "big" channels try to push for legislation to make it more expensive for people to compete at creating a new station. Right now most of hte major stations are "family oriented" and remove anything that might be scary or objectionable from daytime lineup. The cable tv channels are much smaller and generally cater to a specific subset of the audience. Because of the internet I can see channels like these being able to target their specific subgroup much more efficiently and thus become more successful. I wouldn't be suprosed to see 500+ channels in the next 20 years.
    • One of the possible benefits of digital delivery (cable, Internet, sattelite, etc) is that the cost of running a "station" could be lowered to the point where it is feasible to only run one or two hours of programming a day. When this happens we can expect to see a huge explosion of specialty stations. A good example is local news in foreign languages for recent imigrants. We should also be able to see more high quality, niche television. The producers of shows like Firefly would love to be able to sell the
  • During any given week, between ALL of the channels, there will only be 3-4 hours of quality television.
    I get about 15 channels over here, perhaps it could increase for people who get more channels, but I garauntee the increase will _NOT_ be linear.

    Most shows on TV are fairly cheap, in every sense of the word. Even when a good show come out the network usually squeezes the life out of it and then tosses the dry carcess aside.

    I think they created a lot of these new channels because they figured that more sp

  • Seems inevitable to me. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sbaker ( 47485 ) * on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:37PM (#9601933) Homepage
    Given that there are a finite number of viewers - and the market is pretty much saturated, who would be the extra eyeballs to expand the market?

    Whether TV is paid for by advertising or by subscription: that finite number of people fixes the total amount of cash that's available for making programs.

    If there are more channels - then there must either be vastly more reruns - or vastly lower production costs for new shows. Neither of those are very acceptable to either viewership or advertisers - both of whom want new, high quality shows.

    I don't understand how anyone ever thought this would be a sustainable model.

  • Content!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Riturno ( 671917 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:46PM (#9601971)
    While we will probably be able to see anything we want at any time in the not too distant future, the compelling reason to even plant one's butt in the chair is often missing.

    Content! If there is no appealing content, there is no reason to watch. Even some that is appealing is only marginally so.

    Even some of the 'educational' programs that I like suffer from the same issues as the local news.
    1) They tell me what they are going to tell me.
    2) Tell me.
    3) Tell me what they've told me.
    Really, you only need to tell me once. In my opinion, what is limiting 500 channels is that there really aren't 500 channels worth of content.

    Don't even get me started on Fox's decision on Firefly.

  • TV is obsolete (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @05:50PM (#9601989)
    Unless the major media find some way of controlling the Internet, television will become obsolete. Nobody trusts the networks to deliver objective news; 99.9% of the stuff on television is crap.

    The Internet gives people the ability to get what they want when they want, kind of like Tivo, but as innovative as Tivo is, it's still at the mercy of the cable companies who continue to wrestle for control over what the viewer should have access to.

    As soon as the technology makes video-on-demand more practical and homogenous, TV will die, as will the major networks.

    Then we'll employ sophisticated content distribution schemes, similar in nature to RSS allowing users to create their own "channel" of content they are interested in. By the time corporate america realizes that this is a formidible force, it will be too late, but then the fearmongering will begin: regulation, control, jockeying for manipulation of the backbones and NAPs, but still end users will (hopefully) fight for their right to publish and get whatever content they want online.
  • I don't spend much time watching TV. I have a small set near my computer and I mainly use it for background when I'm surfing (like now.) More channels is always a good thing, provided it doesn't raise my cable bill too much. But no matter what's offered, I'll probably stick to my usual watching habits.

    The History Channel - 90% of my TV time.
    Comedy Central - for Reno 911, Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, etc.
    FX - I never miss The Shield. It's not an option :)
    Fox - I try to catch the Simpsons and Th
  • Too many.

    Or not enough.

    Depending on your habits. :)

    Seriously -- personally, I expect the concept of "channel" in general to wane. People want shows. Not channels, "line-ups," or must-see crapfests where several crappy shows try to slide in on the coattails of the decent one.

    Note the popularity of downloading specific show episodes (suprnova is a great example, and there are dozens more with amazing levels of specialization.)

    Why should anyone care about the channels themselves, much less the
  • There won't be ANY channels in the future. There will be programming sources we'd probably consider as networks under today's standards, but there won't be broadcast schedules with programs being shown at specific times of day. It will all be on-demand programming, eventually.
  • Gates TV: All Bill all the time!
  • Without gettting the extra digital channels, the local cable system has about 83 channels. Of these 83 channels, 24 channels are cable local origination, Spanish language, Infomercial, Program Information, and Religious channels. This leaves 59 channels that most people would watch, which includes the local broadcast channels and CSPAN. Even with 59 channels, there is frequently nothing on that is worth watching. Starting sometime during the night and ending about 0600, almost every one of the 59 chann

  • My tv for a working "brightness" knob! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slashname3 ( 739398 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @06:07PM (#9602080)
    More channels?

    I'm still waiting for a brightness knob that actually works. The vast majority of shows and channels in general are garbage.

    And have you noticed that a lot of the ads are resembling on line spam more and more? How about a version of spamassassin for the tv?

    Personally I believe there will be a fundamental change in tv in the next 10 years. Digital recorders will make it easier to capture just the shows you are interested in (hopefully with a nice feature to automatically eleminate any ads). As such the idea of a "channel" may start to disappear. Rarely are there two shows back to back that are worth watching. And for movies I usually wait for them to come out on DVD and buy that instead of going to the movies or waiting for it to come out on HBO or one of the other pay channels. This allows me to watch the movie when and where I want.

    So with DVR's allowing us to record and view broadcast episodic shows at will and DVD's providing a better movie experience the standard broadcast TV stations will have to learn new tricks.

    I can only hope that this will lead to actual higher quality shows (possibly with out ads) which enough people will be willing to pay for on a per episode basis. Almost like waiting to buy the DVD of your favorite TV show such as Stargate SG-1.
  • The TV Networks have the same problem as Record Companies -- increasing network bandwidth are making them unecessary middlemen.

    Who needs CBS, if I can just tune my tv to hdtv://csi.tv/latest-episode?

    (Implementation of the hdtv: protocol is left as an exercise for the interested reader).

  • Probably the same as the number of opera houses, or vaudeville theathers, or movie theaters, or radio shows. They will still exist. And the very young, very old, or simply nostalgic, will think them groovy.

    'Oh, a tv. Can we watch a while!'
    'No, dear, we better just leave quietly. I hear that it makes you fat.'

  • I don't know what it will be (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @06:13PM (#9602116) Homepage
    But here's what it has to be in order for me to pay money for satellite/cable:
    1. Channels are sold "a la carte". If I want only Discovery and Food Network I should be able to purchase just them.
    2. Paid (i.e. non-free) channels DO NOT air commercials. You can't have it both ways, folks. Either make the programming free or don't air commercials.
    3. Pay per view stuff is a BUCK per movie, not 4.95. Set the price at whatever you want for events (sports, etc.), but movies can be rented locally on DVD for a buck a night. Therefore $4.95 is an unreasonable price.
  • TV channels will probably die as a concept as the whole "broadcast" thang slowly dies. However the Network corporations will likely survive just fine as funding and marketing engines, just delivering their material over any sort of medium they can make money off of.

    What will die along with this will be the 30-second stand-alone commercial. Instead product placement will probably become dynamic like the virtual billboards now shown in stadiums (ie the soda can in the hand of the star will appear to be whatever beverage bid highest for that slot in that market.) Or more tie-ins: "Click *here* to buy the soundtrack to this episode!", "Click *here* to buy the outfits" & "Click *here* to book a vacation here!"...

    Another obvious revenue source will be more subscription services. However instead of buying blocks of programming in the form of channels the market will probably move on down to the program level. Want to watch the first run of "Star Trek: The Series XXIII"? That'll be a buck on your bill. Tomorrow it'll be half that and next week will be the freebie broadcast.

    An advantage of this will be the ability of really niche programming to become a la carte.

    For instance I've had my TiVo waiting a few years for a rebroadcast of Gerry & Sylvia Anderson's 70's British TV show "UFO" (the series bridging "Thunderbirds" & "Space 1999"). However hopefully in tomorrow's TV universe I'll be able to get it distributed when I want for a few bucks, or cheaper if I'm willing to be put on a wait list and get it once a critical mass of subscribers have signed up.

    That sort of fan-base marketing could become very important. Small time productions that used to never get beyond their own community will slowly become available to more folks. Want to watch the local access programming in the Madeleine Islands? Sure, that'll be $5, they'll make back $1. "Wayne's World" will be open to everyone.

    But "channels"? That'll be so old-school, like "long distance calls" and "analog media".

  • Too Many (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @06:26PM (#9602237) Homepage
    If there's one.

    What the hell IS a "channel"? Just another metaphor for a file folder?

    Oh, yeah, I can dig having a "Sci-Fi Channel", a "Playboy Channel", a whatever, to some degree. At least I know the overall genre it refers to. But a CBS? An ABC? An NBC? A TNN? What the hell is that? A conglomeration of crap mixed in with one or two (if we're lucky) useful media.

    Someone once told me while window browsing, "I'm always amazed at how much stuff I DON'T want to buy." The same is true of the media. Obviously someone wants to buy it because it gets made and sold. But then most humans are morons, so this is no surprise.

    It's a database issue. I want to find the stuff I like and ignore the stuff I don't. Give me a database with appropriate metadata, a good - REALLY good - search function, and links. Screw channels.

  • Feeder system (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gordgekko ( 574109 )
    I don't know about other people, but I view channels simply as a feeder system. I have a long list of shows that I've programmed into my VCR to tape and I watch what I want when I have the time. For people with PVRs and the ability to record programs the system might think you're interested in, it must be an even better way of watching television.

    I honestly believe that quality of the best programs has risen further than anything we had in the past but that the average quality has gone down because of all
  • and viewing will be mandatory.
  • re we heading into a channel-free future or do channels still have value?

    I swear to god, I'll kick in the balls the first person to mention a "paradigm".

    LK

  • In the future... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @07:18PM (#9602572)
    ...I'll be subscribing to the Law & Order channel, CSI channel, and maybe the Matt Groening channel as well. That's it.

    Seriously, how long before channels like "Fox" and "CBS" cease to exist, to be replaced by channels named after entire TV franchises? Hell, TNT *is* the Law & Order channel!

  • The future of TV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Orion Blastar ( 457579 ) <orionblastar AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 03, 2004 @08:04PM (#9602818) Homepage Journal
    Here is what I see in the next decade:

    #1 1000 Channels to subscribe to, different SAP channels for different languages so it can go global.

    #2 On demand video, this will mean that a media provider will have each show or movie stored digitally and can serve the show or movie on demand at any time the viewer wants to see it. An additional fee will be charged for this service.

    #3 Digital Video Recorders will replace VHS Tapes and DVD disks. Instead of disks, memory sticks or memory cubes will be used which can store gigabytes of information on them. Your Computer or Digital Video Recorder can read these sticks or cubes. There will be a new form of copy protection added to the media format used to store these shows and movies on the cubes and sticks.

    #4 Movie Theaters will change from the movie film format to the digital movie format. Using sticks and cubes, the movies will be in a much better quality. This will also allow a much faster time to be released on home video than DVD or VHS tapes would be converted. This will be done to foil the Internet Video Pirates by releasing the movie in a quicker time and a better quality. A video screen format will be used to reflect light off the screen in such a way that digital cam corders cannot record it, but the human eye can see it.

    #5 We will see partnerships of movie companies to cable and satelite companies.

    #6 Cable and Satelite will find they are competing with Wireless media companies. As the WIFI and Cell phone technology gets cheaper, companies will be providing the same programming via Wireless means in various neighborhoods. Soon the technology will be so cheap and so fast than normal shows and movies can be transmitted over it. Also the wireless service can be used for cell phones, broadband Internet conections, security systems, and Voice over IP home and business phones.

    #7 Media companies will provide shopping, something so revolutionary that you can pause a movie or show and click on any object on the screen and bring up more information on it to buy it or find out more about it. This will give new meaning to commercials, were the whole movie is one big commercial and anything in the movie can be ordered or gotten more information on.

    #8 Once wireless and satelite compete with cable, there will be a big price war. The Federal Government might have to step in to regulate things.

    #9 Wireless media means you can take your receiver with you anywhere there is service for it. Not as messy as adjusting a dish or getting cable hooked up again. It will revolutionizethe media business.

    #10 The cost of having your own cable/satelite/wireless channel will go down, more organizations and people will start to offer more of them, giving the viewers more of a choice. If Howard Stern gets banned from one channel, he can simply start his own channel, for example. There also will be music channels for bands that want to have their music listened to without going through a recording company.

  • channel = brand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spittoon ( 64395 ) on Saturday July 03, 2004 @09:23PM (#9603166) Homepage
    Channels are brands, and brands equate to specific styles or types of content. The way of presenting content to now, via broadcast TV, has been temporally linear.

    When we figure out an awesome way of delivering content to the masses that doesn't rely on waiting for a specific time and date on which to receive that content, the concept of a "channel" *may* disappear in favor of something similar to iTunes for your TV set.

    But the channels, as brands, will survive. NBC will continue to make sitcoms. People (slashdotters at least) will say "Oh, a new show from Sci-Fi. I'm gonna check that one out."

    And there'll be previews of each show available, and if you *want* to, you'll be able to stream all the content from a particular brand, so you can sit there all day and not have to move-- just like now. There will probably be a whole menu full of streams, that will make the "on-demand" act just like TV acts today.

    So no, I think the channel isn't going anywhere. It'll just change a bit in synch with technology.

  • Four (Score:3, Funny)

    by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:05AM (#9603838)
    How Many TV Channels Will There Be In The Future?

    That's easy! Exactly four.

    Here's the list:

    1. BBC One
    2. BBC Two
    3. BBC Three
    4. BBC Four

  • Companies that whine. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by edunbar93 ( 141167 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @04:37AM (#9604686)
    RIAA: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!
    MPAA: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!
    Cable TV: People are downloading what they want off the internet and not buying the shite we shovel onto them through our old distribution channels! Save us!

    These are people who just got run over by the cluetrain. It came, it tried to deliver, but the station was empty because the receivers were sitting on the tracks having their lunch break. It's really a shame, because if they were paying attention they would know that their customers have been complaining to them for years about how they're not getting what they want, what it is they want, and how it should be delivered.

    And now they want the government to save them. Puhleeze.

  • Distributors.. and their money. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MROD ( 101561 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @06:03AM (#9604883) Homepage
    If programme distributors, such as Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB operation in the UK, were forced to sell their wears on a channel by channel basis they would hike their charges hugely.

    What most people don't realise is that the distributing companies get paid by the channel operators to transmit thier content. Less channels == less income for BSkyB.

    Not only this, but by bundling the costs of the charging infrastructure are greatly reduced. It doesn't matter if the viewers don't want 200 knitting channels which spend 18 hours of the day as shopping or text a scantilly clad woman programmes as the advertising blurb can tell the punters that there are n channels available to them (where n is a large number). They can make the excuse for their high subscription charges as "Well, you are getting hundreds of channels for that money."

    It's not in anyone in the media's interest, other than the old, higher quality channels, to restrict this "growth."

    In the end the growth will be curtailed once the advertising revenue is spread so thinly and evenly that no more money is available to run any new services. It will also mean that over the x00 stations there will be nothing worth watching unless you're into cheap shows displaying the base values of the lowest common denominator. No-one will be able to afford to make any good programmes anymore, well, unless they're a premium channel only the rich can afford.

    Thankfully, in the UK we do have the BBC which, although it has gone more for ratings than for quality over the last 15 or so years, is at least keeping the base quality level for the "main" channels higher. I'm sure that without it there would be far more programmes such as "The World's Greatest Dog Poo" on the other channels.

  • More channels == More crap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fujisawa Sensei ( 207127 ) on Sunday July 04, 2004 @12:31PM (#9606433) Journal

    Like we really need 3 more golf channels, and 6 football channels, and a dozen more shopping channels.

  • Some channels have value (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <`gro.daetsriek' `ta' `todhsals'> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @03:09PM (#9607450)
    The channels that have value are the "theme" channels: stuff like Discovery, the Sci-Fi channel, Comedy Central, HGTV, TechTV, etc. If I am bored, want a good laugh, but don't know any of the shows currently on, then chances are Comedy Central has something funny. If I am bored mid-day and want something interesting, then TechTV or Discovery would be a good choice. Theme channels are where you can go to learn what shows you like to watch, so that you can TiVo them later. Conversely, I see the networks being less and less important as PVRs get more and more popular. I can see all the major shows going into syndication based models, with product placements.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close