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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Government Power Hardware Technology

Americans Have Fewer TVs On Average Than They Did In 2009 (arstechnica.com) 164

Posted by BeauHD from the parlor-walls dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015, according to survey data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). The data comes from the agency's Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which has been conducted periodically since the 1970s to understand American energy use. The 2015 survey included 5,600 respondents who were contacted in person and then given an option to follow up by mail or online. A fine-detail report on the survey results is due to be released in April 2017. The latest data shows that in 2015, 2.6 percent of households had no TV at all, a jump from the previous four surveys in 2009, 2005, 2001, and 1997 in which a steady 1.2 to 1.3 percent of households didn't own a TV. The 2015 data also showed that the number of people with three TVs or more dropped in 2015. That year, 39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009. Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Have Fewer TVs On Average Than They Did In 2009 More

Americans Have Fewer TVs On Average Than They Did In 2009

Comments Filter:

  • Buggy Whips (Score:3)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:34PM (#53951051)
    I have it upon good authority that they also have less buggy whips.

    • If 97.4% of households own a buggy whip, that's news to me. I got rid of my TV around 2006, but I don't see many people doing that. More likely TVs will decline as baby boomers die off and are replaced by a generation with more pirates.

    • I don't have any buggy whips, but I was No TV Guy(TM) for over a decade. These days it is obvious to have a TV, because they all have inputs that match on of the outputs on a computer!

      They make a useful media screen, and there is even a TV tuner if I need broadcast emergency information! Of course, in an actual emergency the info feed will be looped on weather band radio, so it is minimally useful, but still.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      People watch on phones, laptops, computers, etc. and stream without having 'Cable TV'

      Not only that...but another angle to this. Around 2009 I believe was when cable companies had the switch to digital in full swing...thus requiring a cable box per TV nationwide. I presume a number of people decided it wasn't worth $xyz/month for that extra TV to have a box attached so just gave up.

      I have two TVs technically but not a single one is attached to cable TV service. A computer and a media player for netflix, e

  • Basic math is "interesting"? (Score:3)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:34PM (#53951055)

    FTFS:

    Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

    How is that interesting. The whole article is that the 3+ television category went down. How is it interesting, or even not tautological, that the other two categories (0, 1-2) go up?

  • As people have bigger TVs I suspect they want to watch primarily on the one big one if they're watching on a full fledged TV, and portable devices like phones and tablets (and to a lesser extent laptops since battery life has gotten so good) have killed the idea of having a smaller TV in other rooms: Why bother when you can just carry your iPad in? I suspect the same effect has killed TV ownership completely for a lot of people who don't have room in their house for a large TV (or don't watch it enough to d

    • I see plenty of people watching their phones, Computers, and iPads instead of a TV. I would think that number would reconcile the difference much more than bigger screens.

      That all said, disposable income for lower and all ranks of middle class is considerably down over the last decade. That means less toys and gadgets around those same houses. The Middle class has always been the source of fluid income in the economy, and starving those people has caused a big stagnation in the country.

      • I did actually say smaller too, though it's late here and I may be as coherent as I think :p

        Agreed on the disposable income connundrum too, especially when you consider how many people are already shelling out for a smartphone that's quite capable for their media consumption as both of us have noted

        I'd also add thag the decline in home ownership may controbute too, a TV is one more large object to move if you don't expect to stay in the same place for a long time. At the very least only having 1 TV ma
        • And I typed that on my phone, between watching tv on it in bed, so I apologize for the spelling and prove our points at the same time

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by s.petry ( 762400 )
          You are correct, I'm tired also so skimmed a bit too quickly :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jabuzz ( 182671 )

        Disposable income may well be down but the price of a TV is down by a *LOT* more both in real terms and absolute price.

        • Disposable income may well be down but the price of a TV is down by a *LOT* more both in real terms and absolute price.

          Cost of a TV is *down*? That's news to me.

          We purchased our last TV for mid-range $150 - a 24" CRT back in 2006; it died in 2011ish. A mid-range today is considered 40" and is around $400-500. I would be surprised if the average TV price was below $500 as most sales are listing over 500.

          Yeah, the tech has changed but the cost is definitely higher.

          Now, if you're comparing a 40" TV in 2006 to a 40" TV today, then yes the cost is down. But that's different from the average cost of TVs sold.

  • Upgrade from older TVs? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mhatle ( 54607 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:38PM (#53951075) Homepage

    I know when I upgraded from pre-digital capable TVs to the new HD TVs... I went way down in TV ownership. I disposed of 5 older TVs, and replaced it with one new TV. Once the last 5 years, I've since upgraded that new TV, and put the older one in a second room.

    My parents, and many of my friends are the same way. They went from a TV in every room, to one main one... and as the main one was upgraded the others have slowly moved to other living spaces.

    • That's pretty much what I've done. When I lived at home with my parents I had a 32" in my bedroom that I used a good deal. 32" to me is about as large as you can go in a bedroom setting.

      I bought my own place about 5 years ago and continued with that 32" in the living room for about 4 months before I bought a 46" and the 32" TV went back to the bedroom again. Truthfully though since it's went to the bedroom I have barely used it. For a while I hooked up my PS4 and played upstairs but I've taken to connec

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        I have a big bedroom. And a 120" TV 'screen'. Screen is quoted, because it's a projector aimed at a blank wall. I can actually put the TV set in my pocket.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      I started my married life in 1980 with a 12" black and white TV which got little use. A few years later I got a 19" color set and when my kids were toddlers I got rid of that and got a 27" model. When the kids were in middle school that died and I got a 32" model. My kids howled about TVs for their rooms and I told them if they got straight A report cards they could have one. Never happened. Finally my kids left home and now I have 2 TVs. I don't know why, we almost never watch the one in the bedroom.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by trawg ( 308495 )

      My anecdata: I went down to zero TVs!

      I watch all my media either a) on my desktop PC if it's something I don't care too much about, usually in a small Netflix window while I mess around elsewhere on the Internet or b) on my phone or laptop in bed/on the couch.

      I sometimes miss having a nice big TV in the lounge room on the few occasions my partner & I want to watch something together. But it's also nice not having a TV being the centrepiece of our living room.

      I kind of miss the ability to watch sport but

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      Plus media can now come easily on computer monitors, tables, and cell phones.

      My parents' house currently has 4 TVs, with 3 that get used frequently even with them being empty nesters.

      I have just 1 tv in the house, in the main living room, and it probably only gets used 4 days per week, mostly on the weekend.. and that's just so our 4 year old can watch a movie or two.

      We'll never allow him to have a tv in his room. If we're going to be anti-social, it's at least going to be in the living room which i

  • First they mention a decrease of in households that have 3 TV. Then:

    Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

    What we learned today is that over a period of 5 years, some people sold an extra TV and others bought an extra TV.

    • Percentages do not work like that. Over 5 years, some people through out a TV --- and are now counted as in the 1-2 range.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lucm ( 889690 )

        What are you talking about? The fact that people threw away a TV or sold a TV doesn't change how "percentages work".

        The point here is that there is no significant change over 5 years, especially given the unreliable polling method they used.

        • The 3+ range went down. It's not amazing that the 1-2 range went up and the 0 range went up. In fact, that's exactly how percentages work if some TVs simply disappeared. And in direct contrast to what you said in the OP:

          What we learned today is that over a period of 5 years, some people sold an extra TV and others bought an extra TV.

          • I am totally unsurprised by this.

            People don't chuck out all their TVs and buy a whole new lot. When they bought nice, cheap full HD LCD screens, the old CRTs still worked, so they kept them - probably in the kids' bedroom. As soon as they could, while still respecting their parents, the kids chucked the old fashioned junk in the skip, and watched what they want on their big screen phones.

            Some people, like us were conned into/bought "HD Ready" (720p) junk - which went the way of the CRTs, producing a thir

            • I am totally unsurprised by this.

              People don't chuck out all their TVs and buy a whole new lot. When they bought nice, cheap full HD LCD screens, the old CRTs still worked, so they kept them - probably in the kids' bedroom. As soon as they could, while still respecting their parents, the kids chucked the old fashioned junk in the skip, and watched what they want on their big screen phones.

              Some people, like us were conned into/bought "HD Ready" (720p) junk - which went the way of the CRTs, producing a third TV in the mix.

              I don't know any families that had kids and did not follow this pattern, even if the kids are in primary school. The ones without kids gave their CRTs to relatives, who promptly put them in the skip and went back to their Ipads.

              In the long run, the 720p kit will be binned too, and most families will have between 1 and 2 HD screens, probably a big one and a smaller one.

              Having a TV does not mean using it with the tuner much of the time. We have a "smart" TV (Dumb as shit in reality) and often use it to share what is on our phone or tablet's screen with the assembled friends and relatives - even if it is a TED talk.

              (Mapouka on Youtube is worth a search or too) NSFW.

              There is a difference between a TV (viewer+tuner) and a monitor (viewer only). With CRTs being dropped, prices have gone up, so fewer people have replaced the CRTs that died. Cord cutting has become a big thing - and that typically means moving to online stuff using computers/phones/tablets and not having a TV (with tuner) or necessarily a big monitor used like a TV with an external tuner (Roku, etc).

              Personally, my kids won't have a TV in their rooms period. We don't have cable, don't watch OTA, etc. The

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lucm ( 889690 )

            In fact, that's exactly how percentages work if some TVs simply disappeared. And in direct contrast to what you said in the OP

            No it's not, and no it's not. I get it - I deal with many aspies at work so I know how you think - you're being obsessed with the "sold" part as if it meant the people from group A were selling them to group B. But see, the interpretation in your head is just in your head.

            What I meant was essentially the same thing you meant in your post, which came up just a few seconds before mine: there is nothing surprising to see one group getting bigger and the other getting smaller since it's a same population. If I

  • The HD screen on my smartphone held 12" from my face is about the same size as my 55" TV, and I already have the smart phone in my pocket virtually everywhere. I can stream and watch most content on it. Why would I need more TVs? To watch cable TV that is chock full of commercials and forces me to watch what they want me to watch on their schedule? The entire cable TV industry is dying a slow death. They would be dead already except for the fact that they are a monopoly and they also have a monopoly on

    • Don't confuse a TV with "TV" the service.

      A TV is just a display device, and IMHO though I don't subscribe to any cable or satellite services, I still find kicking back on my couch a LOT more comfortable than trying to hold up my smartphone in front of my face (much less 12" away - the eye strain from that would be horrible).

      Probably 90% of the video I watch these days is Youtube (with the reamining 10% Netflix) but I still do so on a Roku stick on my TV downstairs.

      • Fair enough, but more and more people (myself included) consume online media on our tablets and smart phones, as it is more convenient in many respects than a traditional TV.

        BTW, there are only about 3 million Roku total sold on the planet. It seems like there is about 1 smart phone for every human on the planet...

        • As with most things, it's a tradeoff. If I'm in the living room, I usually watch on the "big screen". But I sometimes watch in the bedroom or kitchen, and the iPad works fine for that.

      • Don't confuse a TV with "TV" the service.

        A TV is just a display device, and IMHO though I don't subscribe to any cable or satellite services, I still find kicking back on my couch a LOT more comfortable than trying to hold up my smartphone in front of my face (much less 12" away - the eye strain from that would be horrible).

        Probably 90% of the video I watch these days is Youtube (with the reamining 10% Netflix) but I still do so on a Roku stick on my TV downstairs.

        If I can, I watch it on the computer, but I'll put the phone/tablet down some where - on an arm of a chair, on the back of the couch (while standing to fold laundry), propped up on the counter (while washing dishes), etc...I don't hold it 12" from my face, but it's highly portable so I can keep watching as I move around.

  • How much video is consumed? (Score:3)

    by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @11:53PM (#53951139)

    I'd love to know how much video is consumed per household? Back in 2009, you had a TV in the family room and then probably one in the master bedroom and one in the kids' bedroom(s). Now if you've got a family of 5, you've probably got 5 devices that can all stream video (phones, tablets, tv, roku/chromecast... ).

    I'd be American's are watching far more video today than ever before. Very few parents advocate having their 2yr old watch TV, but plenty of them believe $kids_app will make their 2yr old more successful in getting into Stanford or MIT.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      The volume and the content consumed changes with time.

      Most of us can recall a time when we were couch potatoes, flipping channels and drinking beer. Looking for something interesting on TV, but not too complicated. I imagine that many of us now are more discriminating about content, repulsed by commercials, and often looking for something that will challenge our mind.

      The volume of consumption is probably higher than ever but that's not bad. The video screen has displaced newspapers, magazines, broadcast rad

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lucm ( 889690 )

        I gave up my TV many years ago but spend more time than ever in front of my screens. Quality time.

        And how do you do that? Sitting on an office chair in your den while watching a computer monitor? Or sitting on a couch holding an iPad? That doesn't look like quality time to me.

        I have an immense TV in my living room with all the apps built-in and yet I don't have cable. And I can cast stuff from the couch. Now THAT is quality time.

  • Everyone has one or two personal screens on top of the TVs in the house, less need for so many TVs

  • What we're really seeing here is the real life long-term damage of Wii Sports. People got it Christmas of 2006 and immediately destroyed their TVs by accidentally chucking the controller at the TV. Everyone saw the pictures, had a good laugh and Nintendo covered it all up by muddling search results by naming their new controller attachment the "Wii Nunchuk" which they knew would be dubbed the "Wii Chuck" and thus misdirect everyone looking for information about chucking their Wii controllers at the TV. S

  • watching tv is stupid (Score:3)

    by fubarrr ( 884157 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @01:23AM (#53951401)

    watching tv is stupid

  • Hmm (Score:2)

    by sims 2 ( 994794 )

    I have a tv in the living room that gets used every day and a tv in the bedroom that hasn't been used in several years.
    It's an old CRT type tv I don't really have any need for it anymore but it's a TV/DVD/VCR/FM radio combo unit and surprisingly all the functions still work (the tv too w/ a converter box) so I haven't been able to convince myself to get rid of it since it all still works....and it happens to have the last known working VHS player in it in the family.

  • Americans have gone from an average of 2.6 to 2.3 TVs in a six year period but what kind of error bars are on that?

    Let's think this through...
    - TVs last a long time so even though someone might upgrade on a TV the old one might still be working when it's replaced.
    - That TV that's moved from the primary viewing location to it's new home might not even be used, or not used enough to matter. I've seen people put TVs in basements, garages, and spare bedrooms just because they wanted a new TV but didn't want to

    • Perhaps some TVs died and were thrown out, which cuts back on the number of TVs. If LCD TVs do no last as long as CRT TVs did this could permanently depress the average amount of TVs somewhat.

  • I suspect that is going on here is that with the advent of Netflix and tablets we now have most people using tablets as nothing more than a small portable TV that will also show them their Facebook feed. For the average suburbanite slob it has it all, your trashy, fake TV and your trashy, fake friends!

  • I think that people didn't throw away older analogue TV sets until the switch off . So older TV with only a RF antenna input so almost all of black and white TV sets where thrown away. I remember stacks of b/W and older TV at the recycle factory.
    So people kept say a b/w TV set in guests rooms and when the TV became useless they didn't bought another TV set because was not really necessary.
  • haven't read the article, but did they take smartphones and tablets into account which replaced a lot of tv's (I would never watch a movie on a tablet/smartphone, but I know a lot of people do that). So TV's have just been replaced with tablets/smartphones/laptops/computerscreens.

  • That's basically what you get when the quality of the junk you produce is LOWER than what amateurs on YouTube crank out.

    What do you get on TV today? Pseudo-reality soaps that are way more pseudo than reality, about forgettable idiots that can't even act, let alone be interesting. Reports and even more soaps about the life of wannabe-celebrities nobody with more than a brain cell could give a shit about. Now mix into that some other kinda-reality shows, from court TV to high speed chase TV and you know what'

  • In 2009, most of us still had working CRTs. Now we have replaced old sets with, typically, one bigscreen that we splurged on.

  • I guess I'm below average as we only have two: one in the family room and one in the bedroom. Technically we have a third one in the game room, but it's not hooked up to cable so you can't watch TV on it and it's just for playing games. We used to have one in each room, but we realized that we rarely watch TV anymore so we just got rid of them to make more room and we haven't bought a new TV in almost ten years. Heck, the one in the family room is a 36" HD CRT and it works great. We just don't see the
  • Take that figure with a pinch of salt. Many you tube videos automatically load and play the next stream. So many hours of it are played on monitors that have gone to sleep or played on monitors no one is watching.

    But still, most of the streaming is done to handheld tablets, or phones or laptops or netbooks. My 14 inch chromebook screen at 3 feet covers the same range as the 42 inch across the room. Unless there is more than one person watching the same thing, it does not make sense to cast anything to the

  • Digital encryption (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @09:56AM (#53952905)
    Ever since my cable provider moved from ananlog to digitial and then to encrypted digital, I've reduced the number of TVs in my house by 3. Once digital encryption arrived, I had to start paying each month for one "digital outlet" and one set top box for each and every TV. That came to a charge of $25+ per month per TV, just because digital encryption was initiated.

    .
    I had to cut back on the number of TVs because of those increases due to digital encryption. $20+ per month for a set-top box, what a rip off.

  • Back in 2009, I had 4 TV's hooked up in my house. Now I only have 3, and just two of them have cable boxes attached to them.

    The big reason for this was the increase in fees that the cable and telco companies charge for "HD" cable boxes. The old SD cable boxes only costed about $3 a month each, but the HD ones cost about $9 a month. If you want an HD DVR, that's more like $12 a month. The price inflation on the rental prices for this equipment is insane. You don't really have a choice about getting them, eit

    • You don't really have a choice about getting them, either, as almost every channel over the cable line is encrypted now.

      You can buy one outright if they still support CableCARD - but they likely charge almost as much for the card as they do for the whole tuner/DVDR. SDV doesn't work with CableCARD, which seems to be more about blocking CableCARD than freeing up unused channels for Internet.

  • There is less and less difference between a TV and a monitor nowadays.
    A modern TV can make a decent computer monitor and a computer/tablet/smartphone can be used the same way as a TV.

    That people buy less screens with built-in tuners doesn't mean much.

  • I have a good friend who's wife is proud to say they have no TV in the house.

    That being said, they stream so many TV shows that it's not funny.

    Not having a TV has gone from being a stigmata in the 60s to a sign of arrogance in the 90s to being a sign of penny pinching in the modern age.

  • I honestly got tired of being lied to.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close