TV definitely dulls the brain, and we now have 100s of channels with nothing but junk on.

That’s simply not true. Yes, 90 percent of television may be brain-dulling crud, but 90 percent of everything is crud.

The trick is to harness technology to let you watch the amazing 10 percent that is worth your time.

If you simply turn on the TV and hope to stumble across something rewarding, you’ll be disappointed. If you seek out quality, and let the DVR do the leg work, you won’t be disappointed.

TV definitely dulls the brain, and we now have 100s of channels with nothing but junk on. It is not worth it. I just can’t figure out why none of the men I know like to read. It is so much more rewarding.

Keep in mind that I dumped my cable service because the 10% I was watching lost my interest, and I couldn’t find anything from my vast selection of cable delivered content to replace them.

James

Sure, you might only watch a handful of channels but unless you are single or have no kids, it’s the best entertainment value around. The only reason you don’t watch 90% of the channels is because the 10% you *do* watch give you everything you need. If that 10% disappeared, you would happily watch a different 10%.

I have my 5 or 6 channels, my wife has hers and my kids have theirs — and they are all pretty much mutually exclusive. It is simply the best deal in town.

They’re offering products with high fixed costs but low variable costs — it costs a lot to make a show, but it costs next to nothing to let one more person watch a show — so they offer the bundle as a way to get a high price for whatever channel you do like and a low, but non-zero, price for whatever other channels you might watch once in a while. This makes particularly good sense when not everyone agrees on which channels are the must-haves and which are the nice-to-haves.

Everything everyone said about TiVo was true: no one who had it would give it up, but no one who hadn’t already tried it could see the point.

It takes a little research but the better shows are soon available on DVD. And you save 15 minutes a hour watching them without commercials.

If it wasn’t for UNC basketball, I’d drop cable like a hot potato.

Remember all the promises that were made to us by cable companies and the politicians who oversaw them? No commercials! Tons of varied original content!

Eventually, all the promises were broken. We need to buy a Tivo to avoid the onslaught of ads on every show. Cable is now dominated by infomercials and foreign language stations– because it increases their profit margin. TV drama is still dominated by a few Hollywood insiders. As for original content, I just found this cool new show – Twilight Zone by Rod Serling!

I thought that was only for people outside of North America. (Presumably to preserve DirecTV’s monopoly on NFL PPV)

The Golden Age of cable TV had to be from the mid-’80s to about 1990. In a lineup of just 60 or so channels: A&E actually showed arts-related programming, documentaries and arthouse type films; MTV, VH1 and The Nashville Network played music; The History Channel ran World War II documentaries and other historical type footage found in the public domain; the USA Network (as part of its “Nighflight” show) played cult movies, rock concerts and new wave/punk/American roots rock videos not usually seen on MTV; the Comedy Channel ran clips of stand-up comedians’ acts; and American Movie Classics showed crackly old black-&-white movies. At any time of the day, you could find a movie and any number of old TV reruns to watch.
Now, after 1 a.m., it’s infomericals, lame reality TV shows, the history of UFO sightings, the paranormal and fast food, more informercials, and, of course, “Law & Order.” Always “Law & Order.”
Sure, I could probably get much more content (old movies and the like), but I would have to pay a lot more. No thanks.

When we moved in, DSL wasn’t available in our neighborhood and high-speed internet was a must. So we got the package deal with phone, internet, and cable for $90. At the end of the first year, they bumped it up to $130. Then they told us that voice mail is no longer an included option. So, now, it’s close to $140 a month.

With video on the internet (hulu, netflix, etc.), the shows we do watch are available without cable – or even without an antenna. Highest tier DSL and all-inclusive phone service (all our relatives are long distance calls) will run us about $75 a month. That’s $65 in savings.

The only real loss is the convenience of the DVR. But our disused VCR will work for OTA broadcasts until I build that HTPC I keep talking about.

The idea of networks and channels is based on the reality of TV in the 20th century. Local channels to provide national coverage. The technology has changed, though, and TV should not be tied to the legacy of TV’s early history.

The thing about this video appliance is that it is simple to use. There’s a little bit of setup, but once you have the microwave set for the popcorn, or the radio set to the channels you listen to, that’s the end of that.

I do not see how internet based video has reached the appliance stage. Maybe I just don’t know enough about it, but it seems to me that it involves a greater degree of interaction with the machinery involved.

Let me compare the video situation to the audio situation for my wife and me.

I have a mac, itunes, emusic, and routinely locate & download things like Theme Time Radio Hour. I download cds into itunes. I also record radio broadcasts off the air or from streaming sources, using RadioShark or AudioHijack. I have an Airport Express hooked up to the stereo, and can sit in my easy chair and play, through the stereo, anything on my computer. If I’m surfing the net, & find an audio file, I can use Airfoil to direct the audio through my stereo.

My wife turns on the radio or plays cds.

Now, as you can see, I have a much more complicated audio life than my wife does. I put much more effort into my audio life than my wife does into hers.

But the point is that my wife could not use my audio approach to achieve her audio objectives. It’s just too complicated for what she wants to do, and requires too much interaction with the computer and the internet.

I think it’s the same thing with video. For a person greatly involved with video, internet based video services are worth the time & attention required. But for those of use with limited video needs, we just want to turn on the tv or play dvds.

Only… I don’t have an XBOX 360. I have a Playstation 3 and still manage to stream it. It’s probably not as refined as the 360′s solution, since I’m just using what I use to stream all my other videos, but the PS3 has that Blu Ray drive, which is awesome for watching films.

Sony has a video download service too (shows and movies), but I have netflix so I haven’t bothered to check it out. Clearly, though, this stuff is taking off. How long before Playstation Home has live NFL game parties with live broadcast coverage (or simulated attendance at the stadium!).

Once live sports can be conveyed well over the internet, and fast internet becomes universal and cheap, I expect to see network television and cable TV have some serious problems.

My argument has been: (1) I don’t really watch TV except for the local broadcast channels; (2) our two kids (ages 3 and 5) only watch kid shows, they don’t care if they are repeats, and you can get them cheap or free online, and the money we’d save each month from not having cable could be used to purchase 5-10 new shows each month for them to watch; and (3) the only thing the Mrs. watched is HGTV shows, and honestly, is it worth that much a month to watch the umpteenth episode featuring the young couple with no kids who love to entertain, looking for a 3000 ft^2 house in the suburbs that’s beyond their means?

Wish me luck.