Last night, while I was watching Survivor on my laptop computer over cbs.com, I reflected upon the number of technological advances that have been made over the past few years:
(1) The video quality on my laptop is now far superior to my standard TV set.
(2) Skipping ahead during the boring parts of the show was very smooth and did not produce lengthy delays in the feed.
(3) Un-pausing the video did not cause a lengthy delay
(4) The minimal commercial interruptions were tolerable since I (A) knew when they were coming, and (B) were less than 30 seconds.
This experience far surpassed watching the show live on my poor quality TV, having to deal with lengthy (3+ minute) commercial breaks, not knowing when the breaks were coming, and being unable to skip ahead at will. As you can guess, I do not own a TiVO since I refuse to pay for the device or service.
Recently, I have also been using Hulu [www.hulu.com] and sometimes YouTube to catch re-runs of my other favorite TV shows that I always miss watching real time since they tend to come on too late in the evening for me. Between Hulu, YouTube, and the TV station Web Sites I can now get about 95% of everything that I'd ever want to see on live TV. The question I am now pondering is, "Are the available online videos at the stage where I can get everything I'd ever want to see over the Internet and ditch cable?" I'd love to save the over $60/month I paid for 1,000+ channels of which I watch about 5.
Unfortunately, it's that 5% that keeps me from cutting the cord, but what about other people who can now get it all online? Should the big subscription TV providers be worried about a demand decline?
A quick news.google.com search revealed that I am not alone in my thinking - Read the following article "Netflix Broadband Model May Upend Cable" which provides numerical data to back up my claim that there is a definite shift in the growth of cable due in part to the wider availability of accessing the desired content online.
Perhaps money isn't even the most driving factor for the switch away from 'watch TV on a TV' either. As this article "Unplug and Run" highlights the recent ability to obtain media content over a wide verities of portal/wireless devices is also driving people away from their traditional TV sets and from their traditional TV view locations. (For example, I was watching Survivor in my kitchen where a traditional TV is nonexistent.)
Over the next few years, it will be interesting to see if the year-over-year cable/satellite subscriber backup these predictions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I see happening is internet service becoming more expensive and tv service less. I have my tv on a surge protector with a remote control on/off. This saves the "standby" energy that the tv, cable box, and dvd player normally use. It almost never gets clicked on (last time was the superbowl).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still have tv service because it only costs me $5 more per month to have digital cable with cable internet than it would have cost me to only have internet. That $5 is for the box.
This is because of Comcast's year-long "promotion" for high speed internet. It looked like they were trying to get me to buy internet along with the tv service they assumed I wanted. They were wrong - I bought the tv along with the internet service I wanted.
Not that I don't watch "shows." I just watch 1) wherever I want to (in bed or at the dining room table, mostly) 2) whatever I want to (including lesser-known documentaries) and 3) whatever I want whenever I want while I'm doing anything else I want (like the CSPAN hearing on Blair that I had up in one window with his QFR answers in the other)
Thank goodness tv discovered the internet.