Comments on: Exploding TV: Who needs a tower?

By: K-Rick

K-Rick — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:28:09 +0000

Pity all the companies that just spent millions putting up digital broadcasting facilities at the insistence of the FCC while the bulk of the audience is busy getting programming off of various sorts of wire (copper or silica). They’re the ones really getting stiffed when the producers distribute direct to the audience.

By: Paw

Paw — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:43:38 +0000

Shawn-

You are absolutely right – there are plenty of good cheap analog TV’s available – all of which provide better picture quality via a cable or satellite system than streaming video does today. Of course it will improve over time, but it’s not there yet and that’s going to limit the audience potential to those streams TODAY, especially for primetime series episodes, which is the topic of this post.

Grouch-

Of course there’s a tradeoff – in this case, it’s the choice between scheduled TV viewing at a certain level of quality and on demand viewing at a lower level of quality. It’s not necessarily the controlling factor unless I choose it to be – my point is that more viewers would choose the on demand option once the image quality level is comparable. Unlike Steve, to me it matters.

By: Old Grouch

Old Grouch — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:26:25 +0000

If technical quality was the controlling factor, nobody would ever (1) listen to AM radio, (2) play their music on their iPods, (3) buy paperback books, or (4) watch movies at home on television instead of on a big screen in a theater. There’s always a tradeoff.

And as Mike said, the quality will get there faster than any of us suspect, anyway.

By: Shawn Levasseur

Shawn Levasseur — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:00:39 +0000

Paw,

There are a lot of TV’s that sell for less than $200 as well. Not everyone is looking for a Home Theater.

Many of us just want the stories, the events, the news.

By: Paw

Paw — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:29:29 +0000

Steve-

why do you say that? Don’t you believe the qualitative limitations of streaming video will also act to limit audience potential to these streams? In the age of the $1,000 42″ flat screen, seems to me that audiences are seeking a better visual experience, not a worse one.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:27:09 +0000

Mitch: The quality will get there faster than any of us suspect. I’m in the broadcast business and any of my colleagues who read this and don’t get that ’someone just walked over my grave’ shiver is doomed.

By: Steve Safran

Steve Safran — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:10:53 +0000

Mitch: Absolutely none of that matters.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:47:48 +0000

And absolutely none of that is at anywhere near the quality necessary to watch on a TV, much less an HDTV.

By: Allen Lew

Allen Lew — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:46:51 +0000

Let’s not forget that Fox affilates are streaming shows too:

http://www.lostremote.com/2006/08/15/fox-station-sites-streaming-network-shows/