Cringely Predicts The End Of Broadcast TV Within A Decade (cringely.com) 171
In a new essay Friday, technology pundit Robert Cringely remembers the day he got his first home fax machine in 1986, arguing that broadcast television is like a fax machine -- in that "they are both obsolete."
Then he offers a quick history of television, cable TV, and the rise of Netflix, concluding "I'll be surprised if broadcast TV in the U.S. survives another decade" -- also predicting the end of cable TV packages: 5G wireless networking, as I've written here before, has pretty much nothing to do with mobile phones. It has to do with replacing every other kind of data network with 5G wireless. No more land lines, no more cable systems, no more wires. Going all-wireless almost completely eliminates customer-facing labor. No more guy with a tool belt to keep you waiting for service. No more truck rolls. There will be 5G and there will be content, that's all.
Content can mean a phone call or a movie, a game, or anything else that involves electrons in motion. And given that we'll all have voracious and completely different demands for high-resolution content, 5G will suck-up all available bandwidth and then some. Legacy broadcast license holders like broadcast TV and radio stations will sell their airspace to 5G carriers and retire to Florida. They'll get offers they can't refuse....
Cable TV packages will fall apart with every network fighting for itself in an a la carte programming world.
"There's nothing sacrosanct about a broadcast network paradigm that we've been riding for a century," he concludes. "This too shall pass."
Then he offers a quick history of television, cable TV, and the rise of Netflix, concluding "I'll be surprised if broadcast TV in the U.S. survives another decade" -- also predicting the end of cable TV packages: 5G wireless networking, as I've written here before, has pretty much nothing to do with mobile phones. It has to do with replacing every other kind of data network with 5G wireless. No more land lines, no more cable systems, no more wires. Going all-wireless almost completely eliminates customer-facing labor. No more guy with a tool belt to keep you waiting for service. No more truck rolls. There will be 5G and there will be content, that's all.
Content can mean a phone call or a movie, a game, or anything else that involves electrons in motion. And given that we'll all have voracious and completely different demands for high-resolution content, 5G will suck-up all available bandwidth and then some. Legacy broadcast license holders like broadcast TV and radio stations will sell their airspace to 5G carriers and retire to Florida. They'll get offers they can't refuse....
Cable TV packages will fall apart with every network fighting for itself in an a la carte programming world.
"There's nothing sacrosanct about a broadcast network paradigm that we've been riding for a century," he concludes. "This too shall pass."
Re: (Score:2)
I can see wireless data pushing out old wireless broadcast (TV/radio) media by buying out their wireless spectrum allotment rights. But land lines going away? Give me a break. No way. Once all the wireless spectrum is used up, the only way to expand is to use wired land lines...
This.
Wired and wireless communications both have their strengths and weaknesses. They will complement, not replace, each other.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely is for present-day local broadcasters to lease their UHF spectrum licenses to cellular companies, in exchange for having those same companies agree to multicast their ~19mbps bitstream from all their towers simultaneously using higher-frequency spectrum.
Today: broadcaster shouts multi-megawatt UHF signal containing a 19mbps bitstream from a single tower.
Tomorrow: broadcaster lets AT&T or Verizon use its UHF spectrum, in return for simultaneously whispering their 19mbps bitstream from hundred
Fermi Paradox (Score:2)
40 years ago I heard how JPL was going to find out if there are any space aliens with broadcast UHF TV stations out to 400 light years. Those stations were blasting out enormous amount of omni-directional power. That by itself wouldn't make them detectable, but their crystal-controlled carrier "pilot tone" was detectable by the low-gain feed-horns of the Deep Space Network doing an entire sky survey. This pilot tone is not transmitting any information apart from, "Hey, I am transmitting a UHF TV signal"
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the truth is none of those broadcast TV or radio station signals will ever reach aliens. The signals will be so weak and degraded just by the time they reach the Sol system heliopause, there will be nothing at all detectable once you get out to other planetary systems. They won't hear us and we won't hear them.
There have been a handful of military radar beams sent into space and several purposeful radio telescope signals. These are the only signals with enough power to be detectable. None of them were
Detectability of a narrowband signal (Score:2)
This is the radio counterpart to having a static visual field of which you can take a very long time exposure. Because a crystal-controlled pilot carrier is very stable, you can "stare" at it for a very long time and discern it at very low levels, even from a much stronger noise background.
By tuning to a very narrow frequency band and averaging over a long time, it was calculated that the pilot carrier of a terrestrial UHF station is detectable out to 400 light years, even with a relatively low-gain ant
Re: (Score:2)
That would be in the "L" parameter, given the description "the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space". Many descriptions of the Drake equation talk of this as the "lifetime of the civilisation", but Drake and associates foresaw your question a long time ago.
Well spotted nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that OTA broadcasts and 5G operate in different frequency spectrum (at least for the higher speeds of 5G). 5G operators can buy up all the broadcast bandwidth they want but it won't be suitable for 5G (high speed) communications.I guess they could buy up the bandwidth for the slower speeds but current 4G would be able to do that too and hasn't so far.
since we are at that... (Score:1)
I predict the end of Robert Cringely in 20 years .
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you do know what clickbait is, right?
Last part is probably right (Score:2)
I don't think I agree on 5G with technical issues hampering that technology in the role he predicts.
But we are already living the dream of countless small streaming segments taking over traditional broadcasting. I don't think there's any reason left at all to go for broadcasting when you have so many varied streaming options to consider. Forget 50 channels, try 500 or 5000....
Cringely is right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in broadcast TV, and I myself predicted this 10 years ago. The main reason is people want to watch what they want, when they want. They don't want to be tied to a schedule. Streaming is not only the future, it Is now. I first saw this when Steam came about, and solidified when phone apps were the norm.
Second is local (and even national) news act like this is still 1995. They continue to run rehashed AP stories that 95% of the people have already seen on the social outlets. Local news forgets they need to focus even more on local, and forget about wasting one time use airtime being behind the ball with news that Facebook Twitter has already disseminated days previous.
As I said, I'm in broadcast TV, and I know my job is not safe. I'm already looking for an out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Would it please... (Score:1)
...if I posted as my SlashdotUser5553479764 account? Would that appease you as to who I "really" am? Would you recognize me if you saw me on the street, if I slept with your spouse?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I just use a video recorder (Score:2)
Can rewatch it later, years later even, can edit it for just the good bits only, no fees at all, and the best part is no tracking.
Now you can choose though (Score:2)
I already have access to 200+ channels. And it is all garbage.
See, but these days that is on you because you could be subscribing to something that is NOT garbage.
Even if that means dropping the realm of entertainment and seeking out educational video streaming.
It's not making it wireless that is better. It's that you can finally have a million broadcasters sending out content to anyone, with a reach of the world - when TV first started out anyone could broadcast, but the reach was limited. Now that it's
Re: (Score:1)
5G repeater suppositories?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't go through a door or a window.
How is it going to handle trees?
5G repeater suppositories?
LOL. You just gave "dark web" a whole new meaning.
Re:5G (Score:5, Funny)
5G is obviously better. It has one more G than 4G.
Robert Cringely: One of the few tech pundits who is dumber and more pointless than John C. Dvorak.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck everything. Let's go straight to 6G.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"As someone who spends his days making wireless work for large businesses, he is right. Look at any wireless network extert's home and you will see a lot of Ethernet. Because we know how unstable it really is. And we know that "Up to 1 gig" is not 1 gig. Or multi gig, for that matter. Damn sure not 10 gig."
Exactly. Land lines to the end users will NOT be replaced completely with wireless. Not going to happen. There just isn't enough bandwidth and wireless is also subject to a lot of interference, jam
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We might have room-scale 40-80GHz wifi, but it'll still depend upon wires to connect the rooms, and ultimately fiber at some point within a few hundred feet of the home. Using "5G" to transmit 4k HDCP video any distance greater than "one, maybe two rooms away" is patently absurd. Even if we COULD make it work using lower frequencies and phased-array antenna networks... why bother? Walls, glass, and humidity do a perfectly good job of keeping 40-80GHz radio signals contained. Insofar as backhaul wir
Re: (Score:2)
Except very few homes *have* conduit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a LOT of homes have conduit... it's just that 99.9% of that conduit is currently used for wires carrying high-voltage AC, and current building/electrical codes prohibit pulling low and high-voltage wiring through the same conduit.
The thing is, fiber isn't LOW-voltage... it's NO-voltage. All it would really take to get official code approval for it would be for someone like Leviton to get thin fiber certified as nonconductive and nonflammable, and lobby the people behind the NEC to amend it to allo
Re: (Score:1)
One thing that still needs to be considered when drawing fibre through electrical conduit is how much clearance there is within the conduit along with the bend-radius of any elbow joints.
Because electrical cable gets warm when electricity flows, there needs to be a certain amount of "free" air around it to help allow heat dissipation.
20mm (OD) conduit (approximately 0.75" for the Americans) can effectively carry only one run of 2.5 sqmm 3 core flat flex (13mm wide x 7mm thick) because the conduit is only 14
Re: (Score:2)
Update. I was intrigued, and did some research.
It turns out, it's already probably (technically) allowable under the NEC for fiber to share the same EMT conduit as 120v power wires... as long as the fiber's functionality is in some way "related" to the power wires.
I am not a lawyer, but I'd argue that based upon the 2008 wording of the NEC, if you have a wifi light switch somewhere in the house that uses a wifi access point that ultimately connects to the same network as the fiber and is powered by the elec
Rumors of it's demise... (Score:5, Insightful)
He first compares broadcast TV to the fax machine to highlight it's antiquity, then goes on to make the bombastic prediction that broadcast TV won't list another decade...while apparently unaware that the venerable fax machine is still going strong, completely missing the lesson inherent in that simple premise.
Both serve a market, and both will continue to serve a market.
Broadcast TV isn't going anywhere, and he's an myopic idiot for even suggesting it.
Re:Rumors of it's demise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. Fax is a much older than a lot of people realize, dating back to 1846. Long ranged wired over dedicated cables came in a couple of decades, before the invention of the telephone. Radio transmission of faxes developed at the same time as the transmission of audio over radio. A fax machine that could transmit over standard telephone lines, however, wasn't developed until the 1960s.
Umm, no (Score:3)
The fax machine was developed in the 1840's from telegraph tech. While radio was more like the 1890's.
https://faxauthority.com/fax-h... [faxauthority.com]
https://www.timetoast.com/time... [timetoast.com]
Full circle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take the point even further. People still listen to the radio and that predates the fax machine by decades. Matter of fact, people are still reading these utterly ancient things called books. You'd think we'd have replaced those by now as well.
You can read a book, listen to the radio, or watch broadcast TV without a pesky ISP or Cell Phone provider acting as the middle man, recording everything you watch, building marketing profiles, selling your data, etc. I live in CA. When the big one occurs (massive earthquake) and it will, none of that internet or cell phone stuff will be working. For those two reasons alone, I personally hope commercial broadcasting remains viable.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have to buy a book from somewhere, and you still require a radio or broadcast tv provider. Those broadcast stations are just as likely to fail in an earthquake as the cell towers or isp.
Re: (Score:2)
Radio works well when on the move, better than mobile streaming. Eventually streaming will get that good and radio will start to go away as well, or at least most of the FM stuff will.
Re: (Score:3)
but really, nobody else is still reading those things.
I read a lot, so I decided a while ago to try consolidating with eBooks. I was quite surprised to find out how much of my stuff was not available on eBook in any format. Not even those helpful Russian sites...
Re: (Score:2)
Fax software (Score:1)
Every commercial service, and most portable fax-scanners, use tiffg3 file format, invented by Sam Leffler. Sam also invented TIFF format. He also wrote HylaFAX, the open source software used for very commercial fax service. And oh, yes, he was one of the core authors of BSD UNIX.
Some people are just *scary*.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcast TV isn't going anywhere,
I see evidence that it is going to shrink substantially, or at least the trend seems quite clear.
I don't know what you meant exactly by "going anywhere", but I hope you don't mean that it's not even going to decrease substantially compared to now, because that would surprise me.
Wrong Title/Cringley Says Broadcasters going 5G (Score:2)
I don't feel like this is a profound prediction.
Broadcasters moving to a medium which costs less to maintain than the towers & transmitters they currently have? I can see that happening.
But... Cringley must note that fax machines are still here so I'm sure that there will be some traditional broadcasters for a long time to come.
Re: (Score:2)
But... Cringley must note that fax machines are still here so I'm sure that there will be some traditional broadcasters for a long time to come.
I think when he says "end in ten years", you should interpret that as "having fallen to largely irrelevant numbers", which is where fax machines are. The only reason fax machines are still here is that it doesn't take much to maintain an existing technology when it piggybacks on other more useful tech.
Cable may have a long tail simply because it's technology is more useful for internet traffic now, and it can simply leech of content produced for streaming in the future. And, most importantly, people who s
Re: (Score:2)
I think when he says "end in ten years", you should interpret that as "having fallen to largely irrelevant numbers", which is where fax machines are.
If you really believe this, it says a lot about you professionally. You do not work in government. Nor in the legal profession, insurance, or real estate. And you to not work for any company that does a lot of work with any government agencies. Because FAX is sadly all to common there. it is actually required because a FAX has a specific legal status.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh... that's a good point. Still ubiquitous in certain businesses, and a large number of small business probably still have a fax set up simply for communication with other sectors that still rely on it, legal issues, and plain inertia, as you indicated.
I probably should have worded it like: you should interpret that as "having fallen to largely irrelevant numbers", which is where fax machines are heading.
But the larger point I was making was the "long tail", and I think you're sort of confirming that cert
Re: Wrong Title/Cringley Says Broadcasters going 5 (Score:1)
Outdated? Can you elaborate?
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, what was that? They did what? So the artist gets a big cut of that right? Oh bugger.
Sorry looks like that never happened. Yeah you're right they'll be around for a long time to come, they just might evolve into something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already have these, they are called chauffeurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sad, Oh AC, for you not to realize that drunk and reckless drivers kill people other than themselves. 1/3 of the people killed in drunk driver crashes were not the drunk driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Communication requires both sides to use the same protocol. An entire profession (namely law) traditionally prefers fax. Using something else means not being able to use the services of that profession.
Land lines (Score:1)
Land lines are going away? Given how inefficient the radio spectrum is used, I doubt it. Even if the world completely changed radio technology now, I couldn't see land lines going away, not even just being relegated to backhaul only.
More BS predictions. (Score:5, Interesting)
And for an extra kicker, I'm in a somewhat remote subdivision. The nearest cell tower is a mile away. To say my cell service spotty or unreliable is far too kind. But my broadband is fantastic.
This prediction is so pathetically bad it doesn't qualify as a bad joke.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he's right for the wrong reason. Most cable DVRs are still a box with a hard drive in it. They act like it too! How many concurrent video streams do you think you can write to disk on a shitty consumer hard drive with minimal processing power?
The on-demand stuff is more server based. There's no reason for DVRs to exist at this point, save for the mentality of cable companies that they can't have their entire catalogue available at any time, because they are "broadcasters". Yet I'd put $100 down that
Re: (Score:3)
The on-demand stuff is more server based. There's no reason for DVRs to exist at this point, save for the mentality of cable companies that they can't have their entire catalogue available at any time, because they are "broadcasters".
This is probably just as much legal as technical, I bet their royalties for video-on-demand is quite different from a broadcast license. What's sad to see for me is that there's no universal client that you buy content for, if you want to run Netflix you must have the Netflix app. For HBO you must have the HBO app. It should be more of a plug-in architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
You must live in a Province with competition, I pay $97 CDN for an LTE connection with a 250GB cap. Down the road, they have fibre, it's also $97 with, I believe, a GB cap. I'm about 40 miles from downtown Vancouver and it's LTE or dial up.
Note that the only reason I have the 250GB cap is so Telus didn't have to run fibre as they promised and got subsidies for and 18 months ago my only choice was dial-up at $39 a month +$70 for the phone line.
Re: (Score:2)
But $97 is a steal for an LTE connection with 250GB. My $38 is cable broadband. It's hard to find anything over a 10GB cap around here and that's well over $100. Bundled with cable TV and a home phone, I could get 10 GB for $78, but then I'd be paying close to $200/month for the privilege of that 10GB. I have a friend
i quit watching TV 20 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, I stopped with regular TV 15+ years ago too. When Netflix came around, I immediately jumped onto the bandwagon, but because of the limited number of titles in smaller countries like mine, I've stocked up on huge walls with DVD's, so - eventually I'll never need any other entertainment than games + news online anyway.
Internet killed the Video Star...etc.
5G (Score:2)
No more land lines, no more cable systems, no more wires.
If 5G really capable of supporting the bandwidth necessary?
Re: (Score:2)
20 years from now, deploying your own in-home wifi network will be the equivalent of cord-cutting today. Average consumers will pay companies like AT&T a few hundred dollars per month for the convenience of having devices that effortlessly "just work" everywhere, but people who are willing to deal with setting up their own home networks will be able to save a few dollars per month by using it instead of "5G" (or whatever is deemed to be its replacement two decades from now).
Kind of like how some people
Corporate sabotage (Score:1)
Biz bribery made it useless by digitizing it so poorly as to make it impractical, which reduces viewers, which big biz then uses to justify cancelling it and turning it into cell phone spectrum.
It makes me wonder what's going to happen (Score:2)
What's gonna happen when we can all pick and choose our media on the fly? As an example I always thought of Joe Biden as a left wing Union activist until I saw stuff like this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com]. That's information I wouldn't have gotten from CNN or MSNBC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll need a better journalism backbone than we have today to monitor them, I suspect.
It will happen. It is actually happening already, but it does not have enough critical mass yet to be noticed. When it does, things will change fast.
A bit optimistic (Score:2)
Many predicted the death of Radio with the advent of the MP3 player, but it is still around.
As the number of people from older generations dwindles and new generations replace them with on demand being the normal way of consuming media, TV will fade awa
You are wrong. Antenna TV is hugely popular (Score:1)
All those people "cutting the cord" are switching to antenna TV - you know - BROADCAST TV. We like that broadcast doesn't report back to the mothership what we are watching.
Remember "privacy?"
We dropped CATV after the 2012 Olympics. Back then, there were 30 channels broadcast. Now there are over 90 channels broadcast here. Why do you think that is? Because they are making money. There is a market.
5G? We only get 3G here a few times a month. I suppose people inside cities get better coverage?
I have ZER
Re: (Score:2)
Cities get better 3g coverage, but there is also more demand so it actually tends to be slower most of the time. It's great late at night when most people are asleep.
Erm... (Score:2)
Isn't broadcast TV, by definition, wireless?
This too shall pass (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/UJKythlXAIY
I refuse to pay for TV (Score:5, Insightful)
I cut cable 10 years ago and will never again pay $100/month ($12,000/decade). OTA provides me with news, that's all I really care about anyway.
I remember too. (Score:3)
I remember when Cringley claimed to be Apple employee #12. However, weirdly enough nobody at Apple remembers him, and also there was a different employee #12 at Apple. I also remember when Cringley claimed to have earned a PhD at Stanford, but actually according to Stanford he didn't. Actually, his sole basis to fame is that he had an editorial in a computer magazine 25 years ago. Why does this old hack keep getting brought up on Slashdot?
Re: I remember too. (Score:1)
Apparently he is a person of interest.
Television ends (Score:2)
Television doesn't end until the Boomers all die. In a decade many of them will be in the 80's, and still watching that damn idiot box.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely.
TV has many advantages. First, it's spectrum efficient - being a broadcast medium, one channel can reach millions of TVs without consuming additional bandwdith. This is something no current network technology can handle. Sure most networking technologies have multicast and broadcast capability, but not many video protocols are designed around it to allow users to
Re: (Score:2)
TV has many advantages. First, it's spectrum efficient - being a broadcast medium, one channel can reach millions of TVs without consuming additional bandwdith. This is something no current network technology can handle. Sure most networking technologies have multicast and broadcast capability, but not many video protocols are designed around it to allow users to efficiently view their video.
Using a community tv or computer or radio is more efficient too.
why care about efficiency when each of the 7B humans can each receive say 10Mbps? note energy supply is still close to infinity if you can tap them good.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcast is only efficient for mass market content, it is extremely inefficient for anyone who has niche interests.
Re: (Score:2)
I moved out of the big city this year. I didn't bother getting TVs. I'll just have to live with a view of forests and wildlife instead.
Meanwhile, 93 Escort Wagon predicts (Score:2)
The End of Cringely within a decade.
The biggest difference (Score:2)
between 5G and broadcast television is download caps.
Depending on your distance from the local broadcast towers, and geographical issues like hills/mountains, you can probably pick up 40 or so local channels. Most cellular contracts slow your connection to useless speed after a very small amount of GB per month.
You can inexpensively purchase OTA DVR boxes to store broadcast TV (that you care about) and save it as long as you want, and fast forward through commercials. Some of them store the (higher quality
False (Score:2)
I mean, not just the prediction itself, but the statement. Cringely isnt the one who predicted this. Lots of people have stated this. Does google not exist anymore? Literally fool dot com did an article on this topic over a year ago!
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
Not everyone has broadband (Score:2)
Loss of shared experiences (Score:3)
Streaming is entering a race to the bottom (Score:2)
Streaming "channels" provide the vital process of editing down available material, and packaging it so users can find and select what to watch. However, with no limit to the number of streaming providers, we're engaged in a race to the bottom as each provider competes to be one of the few that users will pay money for, which will be followed by lower-cost packagers that infest the material with interstitial advertising to reach the greatest number of users. Soon enough, there'll be a few packagers that corr
the three-legged stool (Score:2)
A issue of IEEE Broadcast Technology Society had an article that describes the three-legged stool of television broadcasting. The transmitter being the studio, equipment, antenna. The receiver being the TV set with all the capabilities to receive signals. The third leg is programming. Need content that is compelling for viewers. To me most of broadcast TV has nothing compelling so if that industry goes away, I'm not missing much.
I also see this as an industry that is pricing themselves out of the market.
BBC News demonstrated otherwise (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect Ctringely didn't see the recent UK 5G launch PR TV disaster, as the BBC foolishly decided to broadcast [bbc.co.uk] a live interview using 5G to "celebrate" UK 5G launch day.
Needless to say, it didn't go too well and the speed the reporter got (40 Mbit/sec) was barely any better than 3G. And that's not even considering the insane pricing that EE are gouging with their initial UK 5G plans (£54 aka $68 for 10GB of data a month, which you can use up in under 15 minutes if you transfer at a conservative 100 Mbit/sec).
5G has a *long* way to go before it replaces your home broadband. Cluestick to all 5G operators - if you achieve the high speeds that 5G is promising, then a truly unlimited/unthrolled plan is the only way to go, even if you initially charge way over the odds for it. Mind you, 5G home routers have to come down in price too - no-one's going to pay £800 for one (yes, that's the current cost)!
Poverty (Score:2)
Further, I think there are some benefits of broadcasting: more competition, intentional or unintentional failure of the cable(s) (such as during an invasion/crisis/disaster), it can be quickly (somewhat) restored in an emergency if the main broadcasting station gets taken out, it can be utilized
Wireless, schmireless (Score:2)
I can understand the point about broadcast TV. The last time I had a TV in my household was in 1997. Around 2000 I predicted the rise of TV over IP, and I argued we should skip the transition from analog TV to DVB altogether. Well, here we are, with all the naysayers hooked on Netflix.
However, I still maintain that wireless is always an emergency solution in comparison to wired. There will always be more bandwidth in dedicated cables than a shared ether, and less power wasted. Reliability is also an obvi
License exclusivity deals are killing streaming (Score:2)
Disney yanked all their content from Netflix. CBS pulled most of their content. Everybody wants to have their own streaming service these days, and people aren't going to pay for a dozen of them. The current trend of fragmentation isn't going to last. There will be mergers which bring us back to three or four powerhouses. Like Big Cable, the fees will be exorbitant and the offerings mediocre and full of advertising. Yeah, sign me up for that!
Meanwhile, broadcast TV is doing surprisingly well for all its dif
re (Score:1)
Re: I predict... (Score:1)
Cringley has been featured on /. pretty much from the start.
Re: Wtf (Score:1)
He is not the things you say. You are just crapflooding.