Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television The Internet Entertainment

Internet Usage Catches Up With Television In US 119

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the way-better-lolcats dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Joshua Brustein writes that, according to a survey by Forrester Research, the amount of time people spend on the Internet has increased 121 percent over the last five years with Americans now spending as much time using the Internet as they are watching television. And while people younger than 30 years old have spent more time with the Internet than television for several years, Forrester's survey shows that this is the first year that people in older age groups are doing so as well. Forrester's survey also shows a significant increase in the number of people using the Internet to watch streaming video with 33 percent of adults surveyed this year saying they use the Internet to watch video, up from 18 percent in 2007. However the rise of the Internet is not necessarily leading to a drop in television consumption because the Internet, and particularly the mobile Internet, simply creates more opportunities for people to consume media, says analyst Jacqueline Anderson with younger viewers increasingly comfortable with the Internet as the place to watch their television. 'For the younger population, the TV is still important, but where they're getting that content from is changing,' says Anderson. 'For the generations that are coming up, that's where we're going to see the cut.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Usage Catches Up With Television In US

Comments Filter:
  • by Stregano (1285764) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:15PM (#34563540)
    I am one of the people that does not even watch TV. With stuff like Hulu and even Netflix, there is no need. You can watch all of your shows online. Sometimes for free like with Hulu, and sometimes for a small fee like Netflix. Even networks themselves have been catching on and playing episodes of their own shows online. That is how I caught the first episode of Walking Dead is because AMC had it streaming on their website. Some of us have no need for a TV outside of video games. I can catch any news I want through websites that are known to have good sources, television shows through streaming services, and even movies through streaming services. Depending on the movie, I will sometimes just catch a deal on a dvd or blu-ray from whatever website is running the deal. Either way, for many of us, there is no reason to even stare at a TV unless a pc is hooked through to it, we are playing a game, or popping a movie in.
    • I'm in that category too, I use only Netflix and the broadcaster's websites to watch TV shows these days. We dropped the TV bit from our FIOS and haven't looked back. But the summary is confusing to me. I get the sense that they are saying that "watching TV" on the internet is still counted as "watching TV" with other internet activities (chat, reading, games, etc.) being the part that has seen a significant upswing.

      I could be wrong though, that's just how I read the summary. ( and no I did not RTFA! :-)

      • >>>I use only Netflix and the broadcaster's websites to watch TV shows these days

        Wow. I haven't gone that extreme yet. 99% of the TV that I watch is "live" over the antenna since it's free of charge and includes a lot of movies I've not seen in decades (or ever). The only stuff I watch online is Cable programming like syfy's Stargate, Ghostfakers, et cetera.

        Ya know - this is a prime opportunity for cable companies. I'd be willing to buy just Syfy, or the NBC bundle which includes syfy, but cabl

        • Agreed on the a la carte programming. Their loss. I said broadcasters above but I should clarify that, similar to you, I mostly hit up cable channel websites like Comedy Central (Daily Show/Colbert), History, NatGeo, Discovery, etc... Can't say I like the parent companies much in a lot of cases but some of the programming on these channels is quite good. My wife on the other hand likes the soaps so for her it's all broadcasting companies online. We get terrible reception over the air and after hooking a com

          • What's your zipcode? Just curious why you have lousy TV reception and yet have great internet connectivity.

            • I think it has more to do with my equipment then location. I use older, std def TV's, have no external antenna and the digital to analog converter + set top antenna I tried didn't do crap. It's more of an unwillingness to spend on new stuff then anything. I've got 4 kids from 6 to 18 and can't even begin to count all the money I've spent over the years on computers, games, TV's, DVD players, etc. My wife and I decided a while ago that enough was enough so we use only the stuff that we have available around

              • Sounds like you need a Channel Master CM4228.
                ----- It fits inside the TV room and receives stations upto 50 miles. If you put it in the attic, or on the roof, then the range is much longer. And cost is just 60-70 dollars.

        • by cayenne8 (626475)
          When I am home...pretty much every TV in the house is on too. However, I pretty much also have some form of computer in every room of the house, so I'm connected to the internet in every room too.

          I only pay for a business connection from my cable company, and I splice off that line to get the analog stations (extended basic), and the unencrypted HD channels. That plus antenna satisfies my 'live' TV needs. Anything else, I can get off Netflix or Usenet.

          • by rtb61 (674572)

            So from the marketdroids point of view, when you are both watching the TV and using a computer, which one do you pay more attention to. So for you has the TV just become background, whilst you a really actually focused on your computer.

            So that statistical comparison between using the internet and watching the TV could actually be much worse for marketing on the TV than they realise, if they haven't checked for people doing both at the same time and the TV just being largely ignored background.

            • by cayenne8 (626475)
              "So from the marketdroids point of view, when you are both watching the TV and using a computer, which one do you pay more attention to. So for you has the TV just become background, whilst you a really actually focused on your computer. "

              Well, likely a bit more attention to the TV than the internet...but, often, when doing stuff around the house, and going to sleep at night, the TV is just for background. I can't go to sleep very easily in a completely quiet, pitch black room, the TV is a bit of a night

        • by DarthVain (724186)

          Couldn't agree more.

          There is plenty I would get on TV if I could pick and choose what I want. Instead they want me to buy some package and pay them 120-200$ a month for the privilege. So I get basic cable that I use basically to watch news and NHL games on every now and again, and use the internet for everything else. I have my TV hooked up to my computer anyway and a remote. As much as I would like my hockey in 1080p, I ain't spending what they want me to for all the stupid package BS.

        • by poetmatt (793785)

          people (network execs) are afraid of finding out that nobody gives a shit about cnn, nbc, abc, etc and just wants sci fi and mtv.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:34PM (#34563782) Journal
      Another AOL-style post here. When you watch broadcast TV, someone else is controlling the schedule. You are not the customer, you are the product, and you are being delivered to advertisers. I'd rather pay for my entertainment and have it ad-free and on my own schedule. I no longer own a TV, and find that I enjoy watching television programs a lot more when I get to decide when to watch them and can watch them all of the way through without interruption.
      • The externally-imposed schedule is what killed TV for me years ago. When they set the schedule, and you keep track of what they're showing, you feel like you're missing things if you don't stay glued to the TV every day. When you set the schedule, you know that whether you watch it today, a week from now, or whenever you happen to feel like it, it will still be around. You also quickly see that there is thousands of times more material than you could ever watch in a lifetime, and thus accept that you will b
        • The externally-imposed schedule is what killed TV for me years ago.

          I rarely watch TV anymore, but this 'externally-imposed schedule' is what draws me BACK to the TV... for those times when I'm so bored I can't think what to watch on the pc, it's actually nice to just switch on the idiot box and be spoon-fed for a while.

      • I never watched TV on the network schedule, even before Tivo. I think my first purchase when I got my first decent job and moved out of my mom's basement was a VCR. I still haven't given up TV completely, but Netflix is looking pretty damn good to me. Even FFing past ads isn't as good as not having them to begin with.

        • by ncc74656 (45571) *

          I never watched TV on the network schedule, even before Tivo. I think my first purchase when I got my first decent job and moved out of my mom's basement was a VCR.

          This. I went so far as to pick up a second VCR so I could record two shows at once and edit commercials out of the shows I wanted to keep (mostly STTNG and B5, IIRC). I got about four years' use out of a first-generation TiVo before building a MythTV box...nothing was wrong with the TiVo (I'd upgraded the hard drive and added a network interfa

    • Same here. I have no real desire to suck down the 'package' that various networks insist on selling me--and even less desire to order a cable or satellite 'package' that contains maybe three channels I'd want to watch and 50 that I wouldn't--6% usability is not a good deal for 200% the price of my data connection.

      Add to that the single-use nature of cable and satellite (with the exception of those people with cable internet, but I have DSL at the moment) vs the multi-use functionality of a data connection,
    • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:36PM (#34563828) Homepage

      I am one of the people that does not even watch TV. With stuff like Hulu and even Netflix, there is no need. You can watch all of your shows online.

      In other words, you still watch television.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Depends. Is television the content or the delivery method?

        • Television is the commercials.

        • by xonar (1069832)
          Someone who "Watches TV" IMO means watching more than three 30 minute shows a day regularly, or if you watch more than one movie per day.

          When I considered myself completely TV free, I wasn't watching anything on any medium, whether it be netflix, torrents, or plain old TV. Now that I have become addicted like usual when I begin watching anything with any regularity, I'm watching episodes of very particular shows for 3-4 hours per night on various "watch-show-name.com" sites...

          I used to fill that time
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:48PM (#34564004) Journal
        It's important to separate the content from the delivery method, because it affects how shows are produced. There is a finite amount of space on television channels. Shows don't get cancelled because they are not profitable, they get cancelled because something else could be more profitable on the same time slot. To be profitable, they need to be able to make enough money from adverts shown during the show to fund the development. In contrast, online distribution is effectively unlimited and viewers can pay directly. Shows don't have to compete for airspace - they can be made available for download when they are finished and distributed in parallel, so as long as they are profitable they can keep being made - if something else would be more profitable then it can be made as well. They can also be directly funded, without relying on adverts, so studios only have to convince the people who like the show that it's worth funding, not an intermediate third party.
        • > if something else would be more profitable then it can be made as well

          This would be true if there were was more money, actors, studios, editors, etc... available. You said shows "get cancelled because something else could be more profitable on the same time slot". This is true, but it's actually more general than that. Shows get cancelled because the resources that go into creating some show can get a higher return if they are used to create something else. The time slot is only one of the scarce reso

          • by StikyPad (445176)

            The time slot is only one of the scarce resources.

            It is, but I maintain that it's an artificial scarcity. If networks aired anything worth watching outside of primetime (although granted, there's very little worth watching *during* primetime), it could easily achieve a viable audience these days. This is mainly due to the advent of the set-top DVR, although there are always plenty of people with nonstandard working schedules.

            As an aside, it's interesting to see how words enter our vocabulary and maintain

        • But how good a business model is the current system? How long before the prices of content and band width go up? When providers have to pay the same as cable and satellite they will have to pass the increased costs on. As bandwidth goes up, some one has to pay for it. As the load on ISPs goes up, some one has to pay for it. The Internet's huge success may be it's downfall as far as the current system goes. Add the increased cost of content to increased costs of access and bandwidth and the Internet ma
      • You're also instant messaging, talking on Facebook, or posting on Slashdot that there's nothing good on TV.

      • I am one of the people that does not even watch TV. With stuff like Hulu and even Netflix, there is no need. You can watch all of your shows online.

        In other words, you still watch television.

        This isn't really a distinction without a difference. He's watching a show but he's not watching a network. Remember that the purpose of a commercial television station is to sell a product (your eyeballs) to customers (the advertisers.) Commercials are how the networks collect their chips. The bits that go in between are how they keep the eyeballs watching. What's that again? Oh, right -- television shows. That's why the execs don't really care about art or quality and they'll air idiot reality shows as so

    • by tool462 (677306)

      I watch TV. But usually I'm streaming Netflix or watching iTunes content on the Apple TV. I no longer have cable. I have rabbit ears attached to my TV for watching sporting events and PBS stuff for the kids.

    • I don't even watch Hulu!
    • by eepok (545733)

      We have a 13" black and white TV and a digital converter box in the garage "just in case" our internet connection goes down and we can't get the news. Or if we still have a connection, but the news is so spectacular that major news outlet sites crash, we can rely on plucky tech communities to shoulder the burden (I'm looking at you, Slashdot of September 11, 2001).

      I even have a usb tv adapter that I use from time to time with some rabbit ears just to see local news. No need to pull out the TV!

      Otherwise, we

    • by Anonymous Coward

      To say that you do not watch TV is disengenuious. You do watch TV, you just do not watch it on a Television [set]. Regardless of how you control the content and/or the ads - you *do*, watch, tv.

    • I was wondering as I loaded this article "how many comments before I read 'I don't even watch TV anymore'". One. Exactly one.
    • I'd probably go that route if Hulu or Netflix had any content, but alas, it's all "not available in your country".
    • by Winckle (870180)

      Glad to hear you're ok area man! [theonion.com]

    • by Stregano (1285764)
      Hmm, I should have specified that when I refer to TV (since it is an abbreviation for television, you know, the T stands for tele and the V stands for vision), I was referring to the delivery method. The only reason why I don't own a TV is because I have a projector that aceepts the same inputs as a TV. Sorry, I would rather have 100 inch projector than a TV (don't worry, it is a Toshiba ET-10u, which is a model that was going for $350 about a year back, so it is not like I spent alot for it). Besides, I
    • by couchslug (175151)

      The shitstorm of commercials and space-filler programming made me despise most TV years ago. No wonder the "choiceful" internet is gaining ground.

    • by antdude (79039)

      I wished Netflix didn't do subscriptions and did on demand since I don't watch many movies and old TV series/shows.

      Too bad AMC didn't show the rest of season 1 online. :(

    • by Ltap (1572175)
      I think a part of their defense ("TV is still relevant!") rests on redefining "TV" as a medium and trying to "adapt" it to the internet. By trying to re-implement broadcast television over the Internet, they are trying to maintain their old content restriction techniques and paradigms rather than changing to suit the future. To most people a "television" is a device -- and it is dead. To TV and marketing executives, TV is dying and they want to stop it, to drag us back into the 20th century. It is our duty
    • "To me" watching a TV show on the Internet qualifies as watching TV. However, I send far more time surfing, doing business, and working on the internet than I do watching programs, be they on the TV set or the computer monitor. I spend a good 8 hours a day on the Net and I've been doing that was since I went to college and graduated at age 50. I retired in 97 and my Internet usage went up as did my wife's. OTOH we do have satellite TV with an HD set and the ability to watch over 20 channels off the air (O
  • Thats because the internet is something that I can control. Broadcast TV is simply not for me.
    • by erroneus (253617)

      If Wikileaks and Anonymous proves anything, it's that no one controls the internet. There are a lot of interested and powerful people unable to stop what's going on.

    • >>>Broadcast TV is simply not for me.

      Why's the subject say "VHS"? What was your point? (just curious). You're missing out with the broadcast tv, because where I live I get 40+ channels of news, sports, movies, international programming, retro-classic shows, and even a Music video channel --- completely free. Not one penny goes to the Comcast monopoly.

      And yeah I still use the VHS (to copy shows off the DVR for long-term storage). Eventually my 3 old VCRs will probably die but until then I'll ke

  • by suso (153703) * on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:20PM (#34563592) Homepage Journal

    I think 2010 has obviously been the break away year for Internet appliances like Bluray players with Youtube/Pandora/SocialFoobar built in. If the Internet is ever going to break, it might happen this holiday season with all the extra streaming.

  • Goodbye Free TV? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:20PM (#34563596) Journal

    Maybe it IS time to get rid of free, antenna-based TV (channels 2-51) and replace it with some kind of free wireless internet service. My only fear is that it won't really be free and end-up costing me ~$25/month.

    • That's my chief concern. There's going to be a critical mass going over to online offerings after which you can be damned sure the ISPs are going to put their foot down, and one way or the other, it will begin costing real bucks.

      • Good point, but I also think you're missing the parent's rather subtle and clever point - Today, you can watch TV for free (granted you are required to give up some time for commercials, but you can always mute the TV or go unload the dishwasher).

        All you need to do is put up a piece of metal (an antenna) and there's tons of content for free - In fact in many locales, "free" over-the-air HDTV is of better quality than the compressed HD service you get from the cable company. There's no 'free' internet -
        • or go unload the dishwasher

          You do THAT to your girlfriend while she's washing dishes?!

          • by vlm (69642)

            or go unload the dishwasher

            You do THAT to your girlfriend while she's washing dishes?!

            Considering most slashdotters traditionally live in their mom's basement, its actually a bit creepier than that.

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          There's no 'free' internet

          Sure there is -- it's called "unsecured wireless".

          • Sure there is -- it's called "unsecured wireless".

            Back in the good ol' days when the wireless routers shipped with security off by default, my neighbourhood was choc-a-bloc with these. Not any more...

            • by mcgrew (92797) *

              I can usually get an unsecured hotspot at home, and at the bar also. The bar's hotspot is password protected, but they don't protect the password, and there's someone in the neighborhood with an unsecured hotspot. The laundromat with its "free wifi" sign is unsecured as well.

              I guess it depends on where you are. If I see an SSID of "netgear" it almost always is unsecured.

      • No I was talking about the US FCC selling-off broadcast/antenna channels 2-51 for use by wireless internet.
        I'd be okay with that but I'd not be happy seeing my monthly TV bill increase from $0.00 to ~25 just to watch Glee and local news/weather.

    • by vlm (69642)

      Certainly it will not be free.

      Getting rid of OTA tv will make life interesting for the local stations, since there won't be any local transmitters. That makes the concept of must-carry status a bit fuzzy on the cabletv.

      Honestly, I would not miss endless daytime springer reruns and 4 hours of infotainment-psuedonews talking about cookie recipes and live onsite coverage of rain, snow, and wind. Oh and hot and cold temperatures too.

      There is a lot of money tied up in local TV stations, which will have a lot t

      • >>>Getting rid of OTA tv will make life interesting for the local stations

        They'll just broadcast their content over their websites (example: wbal.tv) instead of using a 50,000 watt antenna. And of course the FCC will require they keep their location on the local Cable lineup.

        As for the endless reruns of Springer, Judge XYZ, and so on..... obviously somebody is watching/taping those shows else they'd not be there. Those persons get their free daytime entertainment, and I get my free primetime line

    • by Idbar (1034346)
      Like, let's say for example, Google TV?
      The problem with broadcasters, is that they don't realize what Google does, they are making money from advertisers in their air broadcast, but they refuse to make money from advertisers on the Internet. I'm thinking this is more of a Cable company push, that doesn't allow TV channels of getting rid of the "middle man" (cable companies) in the business.
  • by emijrp (1754328)
    ...to control Internet is now a top priority.
  • Somewhat surprising it took until now... with our jobs often centered around working on the internet (as is the case for quite a many people even outside IT)... then of course staying in touch via personal email, facebook, etc. I could understand that the elderly had further to go, but in reality managing those things is pretty consuming (even without online gaming, etc).

    As mentioned by others, I consume 99% of my television via Netflix. Usually once a series has finished I'll watch the whole thing in a wee

    • by Anrego (830717) *

      The fun thing is to watch an entire series over the course of a month or so.

      The realization that you've just watched like _7 years_ worth of programming in a month is always awesome and scary at the same time.

      Also watching episode after episode, you notice things (some good, some bad) that you wouldn't if there was a week between each episode. For instance Babylon 5 gets very depressing for like 2 seasons. I didn't notice it as much when I was watching it on TV .. but you watch it back-to-back .. and it's a

  • Progression --- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:28PM (#34563712) Homepage Journal

    1940's person has dinner with the radio playing Fibber McGee, Jack Benny or Fred Allen

    1970's person has TV dinner, Pizza, etc., while watching Television

    2000's person has dinner at their personal computer.

    2010's person has dinner at their mobile laptop/device/tablet

    FWIW, I stopped watching TV actively about 10 years ago (excepting World Cups) The internet is far more entertaining that TV.

    • Actually, dinner time has become my only TV time. It's when I catch up on shows, but I watch Netflix DVDs 95% of the time, so does that count as internet? :-)

      Where do video games land here? My HDTV shows more video games than TV or movies.

      • by ackthpt (218170)

        Actually, dinner time has become my only TV time. It's when I catch up on shows, but I watch Netflix DVDs 95% of the time, so does that count as internet? :-)

        Where do video games land here? My HDTV shows more video games than TV or movies.

        Games are all part of whatever interaction is taking place on the device - 1.3 million (IIRC) copies of some MMORPG iteration sold the other day - how many hours does it take to get anywhere in one of these games - 70, 150, 300 or more? That time isn't spent watching ads for the new Ford, Revlon products or what Bernie Madoff & Son can do for your portfolio.

        I know people who sit around texting all the time while eating. It's so weird at work to enter the break room and see everyone on a device of some

    • I would love to see a poll (especially of Slashdotters) of how many Americans still use their dinner table for said activity. Or even if they actually have a dinner table. I suspect the rate of decline would match fairly well with the increases of US obesity.
      • by ackthpt (218170)

        My dinner table holds up my rock collection.

        I eat at the computer or while watching DVDs on my mini-DVD player.

    • 1940s many people have radios, few have televisions, neighbours still say hello

      1970s most people have televisions, neighbours watch other people getting stabbed out front on the street

      2000s many people use computers, being taken to war by a lying President seems ok

      2010s people talk Likelish, use SMS spelling (OMG LOL) in schoolwork, and Reality Television makes the challenges of scriptwriting and acting unnecessary

      2025 Idiocracy

    • by geekoid (135745)

      It became normal to eat in front of the TV on July 20th, 1969

  • Is of course how long television is going to be around.

    From my perspective, television offers no real benefit over the internet for transferring video. The same can probably be said about VOIP vs. POTS (aside from reliability I guess).

    There are of course two obstacles:

    Mass adoption (not _everyone_ has high speed internet yet.. ).

    And the big one.. the “big guys” don’t want it to happen.

    I envision a day when everyone has one line (and I hope to the fire cactus that it’s fiber) coming t

    • >From my perspective, television offers no real benefit over the internet for transferring video.

      Except, of course, for the lack of network congestion when 6000 people are either transfering 2.5MB/s total to watch an episode of Star Trek or 15,000 MB/S to watch one episode of Star Trek, all at the exact same moment.

      • by mcrbids (148650)

        Except, of course, for the lack of network congestion when 6000 people are either transfering 2.5MB/s total to watch an episode of Star Trek or 15,000 MB/S to watch one episode of Star Trek, all at the exact same moment.

        You are making an assumption that means you really, really don't get it, yet. It lies in the very end of your statement: exact same moment.

        Internet TV is *never* done at the "exact same moment". I watch Burn Notice sometime over the weekend. It's campy enough to not take itself seriously, an

        • It lies in the very end of your statement: exact same moment.

          Internet TV is *never* done at the "exact same moment".

          Right, and if everyone works 9-5 and gets home and either watches TV between 5-7 or 7-9 ("prime time"), then nobody will be watching the show "at the exact same moment," several frames to several minutes away instead; yet they will all be watching *a* show at the exact same moment, and many will be watching the same show but not at the same point, and besides-- we can't multicast effectively...

          This would or could allow shows to be cached locally within an ISP's network, preventing the un-necessary transfer of files repeatedly over the upstream pipe.

          And downstream pipe? ISP to Home isn't that big, you know. The network simply doesn't work that way; NetFlix H

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Single point of failure - Internet access goes out, start thinking again.

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        Sure, although people do that here. You can get a phone, cable, and internet "bundle" through the local cable provider (Eastlink). All comes through one wire.

        It has gone out (we had a hurricane a while back that knocked it out). People manage.. most people have a cell phone they can use in an emergency.

  • Data: I think he means television, sir. ... That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.

  • Or is this just because we all keep getting older, the oldest are dying and the youngest are learning to use a computer?
    • by vlm (69642)

      Or is this just because we all keep getting older, the oldest are dying and the youngest are learning to use a computer?

      The old quote used to be that young people always think their generation was the first to invent sex and music, and I guess we have to add "use computers" to that list.

  • It makes sense that Internet usage rivals TV watching since most of us are actually watching video (and often TV shows) via the Internet. But I find that I am watching more video overall ... DVR'd TV shows, Netflix on Roku, Hulu ... than I did a few years ago. All this competition has made it easier to find great stuff to watch. Last weekend, I read a book -- first time in I don't know how long ... and I used to be a book-a-week reader. TV has gotten better. Julie
  • I don't own a TV you insensitive clod!
  • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr AT terralogic DOT net> on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @02:52PM (#34564070)

    TV is irrelevant. It is a complete waste of time. I already know enough about soap and female deodorant products to last me a lifetime.

    They blew it. This is a one way street. There It is really nice not having a cable bill!

    • They blew it. This is a one way street. There It is really nice not having a cable bill!

      The bigger bill to be free of is the 60+ hour bill of your time every month.

    • I beg to differ; you're missing out on all the new meds you're supposed to ask your doctor about...
  • Most people I know watch tv and use the internet..at the same time. shocking!

  • I personally much prefer getting drawn into a compelling interactive story than having the story force fed to me, with no pause or rewind... esp if the story is interleaved with commercials. TV & Cinema just seem so antiquated.

    I enjoy socially interacting with friends, family, and strangers online in games or forums, IRC, etc. more than I enjoy trying to get excited about someone else's sport-game, game-show, or stale "evening news" that I've already read online.

    I stopped watching TV when I discovered

  • lots of live sports are not on line

  • If TV were to go by the wayside, probably not missing much. It can be a lot more, I remember when local stations showed old movies (in 1970s seeing Gina Lollobrigida in "Fast and Sexy" made me a fan of hers). But now it is all paid programming (why, why, why does anyone watch that stuff). Prime time shows don't do anything for me (same ol' themes: medical, law, crime, and reality shows). I used to watch Discovery, History, Sci-Fi but now they either do repeats or "ghost hunters" type of shows. So if these s
  • Just because I like to feel different I will state that I sometimes watch TV the traditional way. I learned a long time ago that there is no such thing as good TV. At some point in my life I gave up on cable and just watched Canadian network television. After a period of adjustment I found I was wasting as much time and more to the point enjoying it as much as before.

    TV is like radio. You allow others to decide what you see and hear so you don't have to decide anything. TV is for those times you are not e

  • I gave up my TV over 10 years ago and have since discovered that ...while TV and its relentless ad madness and vapid programming are soul-sucking
    like an upside-down Kansas tornado, ...with the Net you have the freedom to leap into the pit of hell from whatever part of
    the rim you choose, thereby retaining some measure of control of which rocks you
    hit on your way to rock bottom.

    Progress indeed.

  • Not in the US, but not that many weeks ago I had a door-to-door salesthing trying to sell me cable. My response was basically "Sorry, I have an internet connection." They had absolutely no response for that. Not even "If you buy cable package X, it generally costs less per month than the equivalent bandwidth would." Nuthin'.

    Honestly, broadband internet is fairly ubiquitous and mostly cheap. And if I want to watch actual TV shows, I can watch them whenever I want. I get no ads before, after, or during. I g

  • Internet use has almost completely replaced television viewing for me. I used to spend 2 hours a night watching crap on telly, now I spend 2 hours a night posting crap on the internet. It's still crap but at least I'm participating. I never watch videos over the net though, I want to sit back, not sit up like you do at a PC.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...