Late 90's/early 00's: The internet will never surpass television, 10's: It's happening soon

[Parasondox]

Evening to the Escapist from stormy Britain, (but in a months time water companies will say we have drought and will enforce a hosepipe ban)

Television was once a great device, actually it still is. I am not talking about the hardware of TV monitors but shows themselves. As most of us know in the past 10 years reality television has been on the rise from watching spoiled rich kids deal with their so called "hard problems" (cry me a river), to reality game shows that has couples competing for a baby... that sounds disturbing but true. Due to most of these being cheaper to make with less effort, networks have been demanding more and more to fill up the slots which leaves dramas in the dark.

In the UK we have the main 5 channels of BBC 1&2, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and then there are others on cable and satellite eg. Sky 1, Sky Living, Lifetime, SyFy, Universal, Discovery, Nat Geo and etc. Let's be honest here, BBC and ITV (mostly ITV) have been focusing there attention to more reality show and less drama. They spend less money and make more money in return with the viewers vote. Let me be clear, I do not hate reality TV, nor do I love it, I just think there is too much on the main channels. Sky on the other hand are trying to produce/showcase new drama both UK made or foreign imports. Strike Back, Moonfleet, Stella, Spy, The Tunnel and to name a few are getting recognized. Even League of their own are gaining more popularity compared to Question of Sport on the BBC.

For many of you in the UK how do you feel about the near domination of reality television (good or bad) and the lack of good dramas out there with great writing?

But I want to get back to the main point which is actually universal to all. In your country do you think VoD's and YouTube and online streaming services are rapidly taking over television programming? We are seeing an increase in the online exclusive shows like Netflix originals and even Disney/Marvel are joining the new trend of online only series. We hear less talk about "straight to DVD and Blu Ray" and more "straight to VoD". YouTube it self is getting more and more viewers with content that you can search for that suits you, millions to choose from and you don't have to wait a month or year for a new content or pay a MASSIVE monthly subscription fee.

Is the internet taking over television at a faster rate? Well personally I watch more things on the internet than I do with Sky/freeview. Make me think should I just get rid of sky all together and view everything online. Oh wait Sky even has NOW TV which is another online service.

I could go into more but I will stop there and let you all discuss it and express your thoughts. DO you watch more things online than you do on television and do you think television content is slowly dying in a way?

Comment below and thank you for reading.

Now time to add a bit of humour that actually seems so true. Thank you College Humour

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

Say I want to watch Walking Dead, Doctor Who, Dexter, Avatar: Legend of Korra, Adventure Time, Game of Thrones, and Downton Abbey for example. If those are the shows that I follow and I want to watch them on TV I need to have AMC, BBC America, Showtime, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, HBO, and PBS. I need satellite or cable to watch all of them, and I can't subscribe to each channel individually either, channels only come in packages, so to get all of those channels together on satellite or cable I need to buy like 3 different packages, coming to around $100 a month, and in those packages I get literally hundreds of channels I don't want or care about.

You compare that to Netflix and Hulu and I can get both services together for under $20 a month and I get exactly the shows I want to watch, nothing more and nothing less, plus I get to watch them at my own convenience.

The only reason to watch things on cable or satellite anymore is to watch live events, like sports, or if you don't have good enough internet to support high quality streaming (something that's becoming less and less of a problem). I think more people are realizing this and switching off of watching cable and satellite TV and just watching shows online instead, and this trend will continue so long internet providers keep improving. This will then drive more shows to go to other sources, like netflix, to find funding rather than TV networks, since the internet is a growing market while TV is a shrinking one.

The problem here is that the same companies that provide cable and satellite TV are also the companies that provide internet in most areas, so if the majority of their income is coming from people watching cable then they don't have an incentive to improve their internet, since doing so may ultimately lose them money. Hopefully we'll find a healthy equilibrium.

 

[tippy2k2]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

Give the man a prize for he nails it in the first shot!

This is basically it; I haven't had cable in three years. The only downfall I have found is that I am a season behind on lots of stuff (Sons of Anarchy, Game of Thrones, Dexter, etc.) but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay for.

I pay $65 for internet (Comcast in 'Merica if you're wondering for some reason). To add Cable to that package, it would be $60. Not only is it an extra $720 a year for me to have cable (versus $96 total for Netflix) but I have to watch what's on TV on it's schedule. I could add a DVR thingy but that adds ANOTHER $20 a month (last I checked), kicking that number to $960!

....yeah, I think I'll go ahead and be a season behind in Sons of Anarchy thank you very much

 

[Albino Boo]

The vast majority of content on streaming only providers come from 3rd parties. Netflix, Lovefilm, etc rely on the the big movies studious and tv companies for content. Without 3rd parties they would look very empty.

Sky have started making more dramma content themselves than before but the vast majority of its dramma offerings are bought in. You can watch blue bloods 3 times a day and god knows how many times they have repeated Stargate and Star Trek: Enterprise. Sky makes a fraction of the original content that ITV and BBC do, so its not really comparing like with like.

 

[Albino Boo]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

Give the man a prize for he nails it in the first shot!

This is basically it; I haven't had cable in three years. The only downfall I have found is that I am a season behind on lots of stuff (Sons of Anarchy, Game of Thrones, Dexter, etc.) but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay for.

I pay $65 for internet (Comcast in 'Merica if you're wondering for some reason). To add Cable to that package, it would be $60. Not only is it an extra $720 a year for me to have cable (versus $96 total for Netflix) but I have to watch what's on TV on it's schedule. I could add a DVR thingy but that adds ANOTHER $20 a month (last I checked), kicking that number to $960!

....yeah, I think I'll go ahead and be a season behind in Sons of Anarchy thank you very much

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Let's be honest here, BBC and ITV (mostly ITV) have been focusing there attention to more reality show and less drama.

Are you kidding? 90% of the stuff I see from those channels are just dramas, most of them poor quality knock-offs of each other (seriously, how many programmes can there be of a mother losing her child and having to deal with it in various horror/thriller/crime dramas?) for example Atlantis being a cash-in of Merlin, the newer doctor who hopelessly trying to reclaim the older stuff, Luther and many similar shows desperate for the success of Sherlock.
I haven't seen many internet-only shows that I like. I enjoyed the first season of Nuka Break but the later one bored me. Most regular weekly videos are ones I watch as background viewing to my gaming because I don't find them interesting enough to give my full attention to (ZP and Jimquisition in particular) and obviously there's less of a budget which, despite what people say, is a big thing.

 

[Tom_green_day]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

I heard a weird law for this one. Apparently if you watch live TV on a laptop/computer you have to pay the TV license... unless it's not plugged into the mains (for a laptop obviously) in which case it's fine to do it without. I may be interpreting this wrong but it's one of those weird little laws, just thought everyone could do with a fun fact

 

[Parasondox]

Here's the thing, television is pricing itself out of competition compared to things like Hulu and Netflix.

Give the man a prize for he nails it in the first shot!

This is basically it; I haven't had cable in three years. The only downfall I have found is that I am a season behind on lots of stuff (Sons of Anarchy, Game of Thrones, Dexter, etc.) but that's a price I'm more than willing to pay for.

I pay $65 for internet (Comcast in 'Merica if you're wondering for some reason). To add Cable to that package, it would be $60. Not only is it an extra $720 a year for me to have cable (versus $96 total for Netflix) but I have to watch what's on TV on it's schedule. I could add a DVR thingy but that adds ANOTHER $20 a month (last I checked), kicking that number to $960!

....yeah, I think I'll go ahead and be a season behind in Sons of Anarchy thank you very much

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

I heard a weird law for this one. Apparently if you watch live TV on a laptop/computer you have to pay the TV license... unless it's not plugged into the mains (for a laptop obviously) in which case it's fine to do it without. I may be interpreting this wrong but it's one of those weird little laws, just thought everyone could do with a fun fact

Tom_Green_Day is right the law surrounding the TV license is confusing which is why I found this link for you both so it helps explain it all.

https://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_bbc_iplayer/tvlicence

Hope this helps explain things.

 

[Albino Boo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

I heard a weird law for this one. Apparently if you watch live TV on a laptop/computer you have to pay the TV license... unless it's not plugged into the mains (for a laptop obviously) in which case it's fine to do it without. I may be interpreting this wrong but it's one of those weird little laws, just thought everyone could do with a fun fact

Basicly if you watch the iPlayer then you are legally obliged to pay regardless on what device you watch. The BBC, and to certain extent Channel 4, are reliant on the license fee to keep going. I doubt if they can enforce this in the future but with the vast majority of people still watching on TVs of some variety it's going to be the mainstay for the next 10 years or so. After that I think the BBC's position is going to shrink as the license fee becomes unenforceable and its income drops.

 

[Parasondox]

Let's be honest here, BBC and ITV (mostly ITV) have been focusing there attention to more reality show and less drama.

Are you kidding? 90% of the stuff I see from those channels are just dramas, most of them poor quality knock-offs of each other (seriously, how many programmes can there be of a mother losing her child and having to deal with it in various horror/thriller/crime dramas?) for example Atlantis being a cash-in of Merlin, the newer doctor who hopelessly trying to reclaim the older stuff, Luther and many similar shows desperate for the success of Sherlock.
I haven't seen many internet-only shows that I like. I enjoyed the first season of Nuka Break but the later one bored me. Most regular weekly videos are ones I watch as background viewing to my gaming because I don't find them interesting enough to give my full attention to (ZP and Jimquisition in particular) and obviously there's less of a budget which, despite what people say, is a big thing.

You are right but most of the 90% are repeats, repeats and more repeats. The new contents do often copy each other too much and makes things blah and meh cause we have seen it many times before on ITV and BBC.

 

[JoJo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

 

[Albino Boo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

 

[JoJo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

The BBC try to obscure the technicalities for obvious reasons but trust me, you can find everything I've said on the TV licencing website (See 'Check if you need a TV Licence' here [http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/?WT.ac=home_plt_check]). I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers. In-fact, unless the TV licencing people can get a warrant (can happen, but rare) they have no more right to enter your house without your permission than a milkman, so you can just turn them away on the doorstep after explaining you don't use your TV for watching live shows.

 

[Albino Boo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

The BBC try to obscure the technicalities for obvious reasons but trust me, you can find everything I've said on the TV licencing website (See 'Check if you need a TV Licence' here [http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/?WT.ac=home_plt_check]). I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers. In-fact, unless the TV licencing people can get a warrant (can happen, but rare) they have no more right to enter your house without your permission than a milkman, so you can just turn them away on the doorstep after explaining you don't use your TV for watching live shows.

As I said try buying a new TV and see what happens.

 

[JoJo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

The BBC try to obscure the technicalities for obvious reasons but trust me, you can find everything I've said on the TV licencing website (See 'Check if you need a TV Licence' here [http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/?WT.ac=home_plt_check]). I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers. In-fact, unless the TV licencing people can get a warrant (can happen, but rare) they have no more right to enter your house without your permission than a milkman, so you can just turn them away on the doorstep after explaining you don't use your TV for watching live shows.

As I said try buying a new TV and see what happens.

Uh, I did, I talked about that in my above post. Here's the sentence in question:

I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers.

 

[Albino Boo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

The BBC try to obscure the technicalities for obvious reasons but trust me, you can find everything I've said on the TV licencing website (See 'Check if you need a TV Licence' here [http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/?WT.ac=home_plt_check]). I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers. In-fact, unless the TV licencing people can get a warrant (can happen, but rare) they have no more right to enter your house without your permission than a milkman, so you can just turn them away on the doorstep after explaining you don't use your TV for watching live shows.

As I said try buying a new TV and see what happens.

Uh, I did, I talked about that in my above post. Here's the sentence in question:

I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers.

When you walked into the store did they ask for your name and address, like they are legally supposed to do?

 

[JoJo]

In the UK context, if you any device that is capable of receiving live to air tv you have to pay for a TV license of £145 a year. So if you watch anything on the BBC iPlayer, the itv player or even the eurosport player, then you are legally liable for the fee for that entire year.

Well, that isn't 100% true. I researched this a couple of years back as I was moving into shared housing with friends and you only have to own a TV licence if you watch live-to-air television. You are allowed to own a TV that is capable of receiving signals without paying a licence, if you never use it to watch live TV. Similarly, you're also allowed to watch BBC iPlayer and other online content providers without paying for a licence... as long as everything you watch isn't live.

Thats very much depends on interpretation, personally I believe the BBC's version that if you own a TV full stop then you have to pay. The license accounts for 95% of their income and they and parliament will protect that. If you buy a new TV under your own name expect a letter of from TV licensing and the you could try your theory in court but the £3 billion or so that BBC means that they would have a whole battalion of lawyers to argue a different case

The BBC try to obscure the technicalities for obvious reasons but trust me, you can find everything I've said on the TV licencing website (See 'Check if you need a TV Licence' here [http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/?WT.ac=home_plt_check]). I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers. In-fact, unless the TV licencing people can get a warrant (can happen, but rare) they have no more right to enter your house without your permission than a milkman, so you can just turn them away on the doorstep after explaining you don't use your TV for watching live shows.

As I said try buying a new TV and see what happens.

Uh, I did, I talked about that in my above post. Here's the sentence in question:

I didn't use my TV for watching live television for the first year after I bought it (only used it for gaming) and therefore didn't buy a TV licence for that year, I didn't get hauled away or sued to death by lawyers.

When you walked into the store did they ask for your name and address, like they are legally supposed to do?

To be honest I have no idea now whether they did or not, that was back in 2010. I don't even remember where I bought it from, it was one of those generic large electronic stores, maybe Comet. Nevertheless, the website I linked is very clear that you only need one if you are watching live TV and every account I've heard of or read has backed that up. Maybe there are some cases where people have been wrong convicted of not having a licence, I've never heard of one though and I doubt they're common.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

 

[Griffolion]

The whole thing is a case of "television is dead, long live television!".

The idea of TV, nowadays, has surpassed the box itself. It's a method of viewing content made in a certain way (not a film, usually). The way in which it's being delivered is evolving, we're seeing it right now.

The old guard will do all they can to maintain the status quo, but they're on borrowed time, and I can't wait.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's not so much a matter of 'surpass' as television managed to sink to some lows that puts the internet over the top. That doesn't make the internet better or worse, really. It's like winning first place because somebody shot the guy ahead of you three times.

It's more like the guy in front of you shot himself 3 times and then is standing around dumbfounded as to why others are passing him. No one is killing network television, it's killing itself by completely misunderstanding the market that it's in.