Friday, July 17, 2020

It's 2020. Don't touch that dial...

Nothing in the 20th Century really prepared us for what the illustrative dial above represents. Let's review TV history from the viewer's perspective.

In olden times - the early 1950's - Americans (including this writer's family) bought a TV with a VHF channel selection dial used to choose between channels 2 through 13. Towns were lucky to get three TV stations, typically ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates, each using one of the 12 numbers on the dial.

Later that decade came TV's with a UHF channel selection dial used to choose between channels 14 through 83. More TV stations each using one of those 82 channel numbers went into business. But they would come and go, if not completely at least in terms of ownership/affiliation.

The thing is, those channels numbered 2 to 83 theoretically represented a potential maximum of 83 programs we could select from at a given time. but only if a channel was active, which most weren't.

Of course, you had to start watching when the show began, generally on the hour or half hour. Eventually we did get various recorders and tape or disc players which allowed us to access more programming.

Without elaborating on a complex subject, at the beginning of the 21st Century conversion of analogue broadcast TV to digital broadcast TV began as the FCC recovered radio bandwidth for other uses. However the introduction of digital to broadcast TV increased the number of potential channels which in the San Francisco Bay Area has led to the single channel 36 now channels 36.1, 36.2, 36.3, and 36.5. But digital falls well short of the reception distance range of the old VHF.

Netflix triggered a revolution

In February 2007 Netflix became the first financially strong streaming service offering professionally produced entertainment. On November 12, 2007,  a six part post The Screen Writers Guild strike, technology, and the future of scripted television introduced this blog noting:

    The Television Writers Guild strike is viewed by many as just another labor dispute. It’s not. It is the first nationally significant economic acknowledgment of the transition in home entertainment that has been under way for a decade. For this industry, 2008 is 1948 all over again.
    Neither television industry executives, nor the writers, nor any of us viewers know where scripted episodic drama and comedy programming will end up within five years. We need to think in terms of media, source of funding, format or survival.
    While the home entertainment industry struggles to cope with changes over he next 5-to-10 years, viewers who want to watch scripted tv will need to adapt. That’s us, folks.

Fast forward to 2020. The 15 "channels" shown on the dial above are actually the streaming services we use. All but one are really Subscription Video-on-Demand (SVoD), an entertainment programming model where users pay a monthly fee in exchange for instant access to a streaming library consisting of movies, TV shows, and other media content, plus live content.

One, Locast, is a non-profit streaming substitute for an antenna to receive local broadcast TV channels live. It depends on donors for support. In the San Francisco Bay Area designated market area (DMA) today there are still only 46 such channels offered in different languages and/or different interest focuses.

Ignoring live content, the 14 SVoD "channels" offer 385,000± hours of on-demand viewing content options in the form of movies and TV episodic shows. That "availability" is radically different from 20th Century TV. It represents about 130 years of 8-hours-a-day TV watching and if we decide to watch a show at 8:08 pm we can start streaming the show from the beginning at that point in time.

It's cheaper than cable????

When it began streaming in 2007 Netflix on its own it did not represent a replacement for cable TV. At that time cable TV was not cheap. As reported in The New York Times, in 2007 Cablevision received from each subscriber an average monthly revenue of $75 which is $93.25 in 2020 dollars.

But today, streaming with all its content must really be expensive...except it isn't.

Comparing the cost today for streaming to to the cost for cable in 2007 is complicated. The initial question is do you count the cost of internet service?

We've had internet service since the 1980's for reasons that have nothing to do with TV. So for us internet service is not a cost of streaming TV.

If you are currently working from home using Zoom or some other similar online meeting software, the cost of internet for you is also not a TV cost. If you are a Millennial (or from any other generation) who carries around a cell phone with internet service built in, the reality for you is also "no."

The fact is for the majority of Americans access to the internet is the norm not for streaming TV but as a result of having basic communications with others.

Nonetheless, let's assign $10 a month of the costs for internet service to the cost of streaming since many providers limit data in basic subscriptions, limits which not infrequently constrain streaming data volumes.

To that $10, one must add the costs of the SVoD "channels" on that dial above. Begin by recognizing that CBS All Access (CBS), Hulu (ABC and Fox), and Peacock (NBC) have a price for content with advertising which is a constant on cable TV. Then recognize that the dial includes what are "premium add-on" channels in cable packages (Starz, Showtime, HBO). Finally recognize that the "channels" are available at a monthly cost which can be "turned on and off" monthly - you don't need to have all the channels all the time. Oh, and there are others you may want to add at times.

Comparing the cost of SVoD to that 2007 cable TV average isn't straightforward. It seems fair to use the ad-supported price for the three services that have that option. And since we're comparing average subscribers, it seems fair to assume that half of those 2007 subscribers subscribed to a premium add-on. And probably half had a package that included a channel with British TV content.

With those assumptions for the comparison, we're looking at a 2020 cost of $68 for streaming services plus that assigned $10 for internet. So today you can have on-demand television from the dial above for $78. Or less. Or more.

Some might want to argue that the dial above does not include much in the way of sports. True. So don't subscribe to MHz Choice (which is all subtitled foreign language content) and instead bundle ESPN+ to your Hulu and Disney+ subscription.

Add a preferred other sports provider.

I only explain this to provide a beginning point for thinking about the fact that you could at any one time subscribe to fewer channels, swapping in and out to give you access to scripted content not immediately when it is released but within a few months.

Keep in mind that cable service in 2007 offered a fraction of the content - mostly on a rigid schedule - at a cost of $93.25 in 2020 dollars.

We want our TV content without commercials from CBS All Access, Hulu, and Peacock.Those three channels without commercials do cost us $15 a month more. But in 2007 we were paying for Dish Network $87.91 a month which is $109.30 in 2020 dollars. And we were paying for high speed internet back then. Streaming in 2020 is cheaper than cable TV was in 2007.

About those "devices."

The real indicator that SVoD is not 20th Century television is that there is no dial anything like the representation above. Instead viewers buy a device known as a digital media player, connect it to their TV, then select and watch content through "apps" providing access to SVoD services such as those shown on the dial representation above.

In our household we have an Amazon Fire TV Cube (we paid $90, but it is also an Echo performing other duties), an Apple TV (we paid $89), and a Roku (we paid $79)...yep, one each from the Big 3. Nobody needs all three. Some TV's today have a digital media player built in, but you do need something for each TV. (To be fair, one probably should assign an amortized cost of $3 a month for the device you need because cable systems charge for their devices.)

Of course, today you can use most cell phones and tablets to watch content when away from a TV. Many do that on a regular basis if they travel for business, or if they are kids.

Revolutionary SVoD mileau changes in the time of Covid-19.

On March 12, 2008, NBC lauched Hulu. It's content expanded to include partners ABC and Fox. On  October 28, 2014, CBS launched CBS All Access. At that point, the four major networks were offering their content, aired the day after an episode aired on local channels. The advantage, of course, is that you could watch shows four months later on demand.

This year NBC launched Peacock. Disney gained ownership of Hulu while introducing Disney+.on November 12, 2019. The scene keeps changing. But the one thing Covid-19 has done has rapidly increased subscriptions for all these services because viewers can't go to work or school.

As quoted above, in November 2007 it was clear that the TV industry and viewers would be forced "to cope with changes over he next 5-to-10 years." In 2020 for as little $20 a month anyone with high speed internet can have on-demand access to a substantial trove of movies and TV shows. Subscribers can change SVoD services monthly as desired.

Nothing in the 20th Century really prepared us for what the illustrative dial above represents.

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Why I prefer scripted, episodic TV series to any other diversionary story-telling

I know some find it odd that I prefer scripted, episodic TV series to any other diversionary story-telling offerings. (Keep in mind that documentaries, reality shows, news shows, etc., are not scripted diversionary story-telling.)

Sure, movies can be great, but they tend to leave me with a feeling of incompleteness. I want to get to know the characters further, over a longer period of time, soon after I've digested what I just saw. But not all at once. (This is why I find "binge watching" unsatisfying.)

For instance, the prospect of watching The Irishman puts me  off. I have to both spend too much time with the characters initially and then I know that I will never really get to know them because it's one episode.

In contrast, most novels at least allow me to fill in blanks including the future, creatively because I can't "see" the characters. Even the simplest of words - for instance colors such as "blue" - make me wonder if I "see" what the author and other readers see. I certainly know that I don't "see" the characters physically as the same person others "see", including the author. And many novel series allow me to spend more time with the characters.

I grew up with television. I was six years old when we got our first television so that my parents and all the neighbors could, on April 18, 1951, watch live, as it happened, General Douglas MacArthur arrive in San Francisco from Korea after being relieved of duty by President Truman. All I was interested in, of course, was to watch kids shows, particularly westerns on Saturday morning.

The next 29 years of watching TV was scheduled by three broadcast networks. Effectively, I could watch no more than three hours a night of scripted TV, and many nights that turned out to be fewer hours and sometimes even none. In 1980 when the VCR entered our world, we began to miss fewer shows and fewer episodes.

Today we have video streaming. As I noted here in In 2020 thousands of scripts will be lost to each of us every night because it's wireless video streaming not television. And it seems to be positive progress!, video streaming allows us to miss thousands of episodes of hundreds of shows every year (532 active scripted shows in 2019, along with thousands of shows available from prior years).

The current situation is every bit as frustrating as it was before 1980. Not only must we choose from among 500+ active scripted U.S. shows, we now can watch hundreds and hundreds of shows from around the world. Heck, each year added to our choices are a few hundred new and old British, Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand shows which are in English. And I don't mind subtitles on shows from elsewhere.

The problem is to figure out what shows to watch. And after an episode or few, one must decide if it is worth watching more episodes given all the other options. Frankly I don't care about ratings or critics. I have my own criteria for judging shows based on a few questions.

Is this show "entertaining" meaning:

  1. Does it engage my interest and leave me looking forward to more?
  2. Do I find it either-or-both humorous and moving?
  3. Are the primary characters  either-or-both well-developed and compelling?
  4. Does it frequently offer wisdom and meaning from circumstances and discourse?
  5. Is the show's overall theme not depressing?
  6. Does the show not rely upon gratuitous violence?

Not every episode of a scripted series show can elicit a resounding "yes" answer to the first four questions.And sometimes an episode of a show can be depressing or violence in a scene may seem gratuitous.

But if the overall theme is depressing, that's a problem. One can answer "yes" to the first four questions about most of the episodes of a show, but if the theme of the show is just simply depressing...well...there are many more shows out there with themes that are not.

A good example of a show that consistently elicits a "yes" answer to the first four questions is "Breaking Bad." It is a show with excellent writing, directing, acting, etc. and an incredibly depressing theme as described by IMDb:

"A high school chemistry teacher diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer turns to manufacturing and selling methamphetamine in order to secure his family's future."

It went five seasons offering 62 episodes, winning Golden Globe, Emmy and other awards galore. Among IMDB all time Top 250 TV Shows it is #4 in viewer ratings, behind "Planet Earth II", "Planet Earth", and "Band of Brothers." In other words among IMDb viewers it is the top rated multi-season scripted live-action drama series.

We stopped watching it in its second season.

Then there is the judgement call regarding a show's use of violence. Violence is a significant problem in American society and we shouldn't take the use of violence in a show lightly, particularly when the show has a strong appeal to the under-25 audience. One could probably write deep thoughts about the relationship of the popularity of scripted series with violence to the American predilection for violence, suicide, and drug use.

Still violence is sometimes essential to present a story.  It has been argued that the violence in Lord of the Rings is non-gratuitous in comparison to "Game of Thrones." I felt that - which means the "gratuitousness" sometimes simply can be a feeling. The key question is: "Did showing that scene of graphic violence add anything to the story telling?"

"Game of Thrones" ran 73 episodes over 8 seasons. Among IMDB all time Top 250 TV Shows it is #8 in viewer ratings with extreme high ratings among those under 30.

We stopped watching "Game of Thrones" in the second season. It seemed like the basic question of the show's theme, what drove the most curiosity, was which characters at the end of the series will not have been butchered.

The highest rated live-action comedy series is "Friends" at #41, well behind murder and mayhem.

Admittedly, comedy is a tough genre. It's entirely your sense of humor that will determine if a comedy show appeals.

A good example today is "Mom", a broadcast network show which has excellent writing, directing, acting, etc. but is admittedly about reformed drug and alcohol abusers. It's overall theme is not depressing. In terms of IMDb ratings (with 10 as the highest rating) 58.2% rate it 8 or higher. I would answer "yes" to the first four questions regarding the majority of episodes of the show. But on IMDB 4.0% rate it a 1. And I can understand why many would react that way, particularly to the first couple of seasons.

"Fleabag" is another current comedy though in the streaming-only arena. I just don't get it. It's that simple. It ranks well above "Parks and Recreation" but, then again, "Parks and Recreation" which aired 125 episodes over 7 seasons on a network broadcast channel has two-and-a-half times the number of individual ratings than "Fleabag" which has 12 episodes on Amazon Prime streaming, so perhaps the top 250 ranking is meaningless.

Fortunately, as noted above there are thousands of episodes of hundreds of scripted shows every year (532 active scripted shows in 2019, along with thousands of shows available from prior years), there are more than enough dramas and comedies for every taste out there.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Peacock TV - a 15,000-pound bird just landed on your streaming video device


Waiting for Comcast/NBCU to determine the best way to deal with streaming has been tough. But now they giant has dropped his Peacock and it is big. Here's links to articles at Deadline Hollywood:
  1. Peacock Programming: List Of NBCUniversal Streaming Service’s Series, Films, Sports, News & More
  2. ‘Two And A Half Men’: NBCU’s Peacock Acquires SVOD Rights To Chuck Lorre Sitcom & ‘George Lopez’
  3. NBCU's Peacock Lands Dick Wolf Library Of 'Law & Order' And 'Chicago' Franchises In Non-Exclusive Deal
  4. NBC’s ‘Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon’ & ‘Late Night With Seth Meyers’ Get Early Streamings On Peacock Premium
  5. Peacock Reveals Launch Date, Pricing And Exclusive Olympic Programming
The first four articles, along with a 15,000-pound shrubbery and lights tower bird, make it clear the huge investment in content that is being made by NBCU, The fifth article outlines the service and pricing strategy which includes three tiers that will be made available:
  • Peacock Free (with commercials)
  • Peacock Premium (with commercials)
  • Peacock Premium Commercial-Free
Peacock Free will be free to everyone. It will offer 7,500± hours of programming with commercials, including a selection of classic TV series and movies, next-day streaming of some broadcast shows, Spanish-language content and a curated collection of news and sports programming.

Peacock Premium will be free to Comcast and Cox cable TV subscribers and $5/mo for everyone else. It will offer 15,000± hours of programming with commercials and early access to late night talk shows.

Peacock Premium Commercial-Free will cost $5/mo for Comcast and Cox cable TV subscribers and $10/mo for everyone else. Content will be the same 15,000± hours of programming and early access to late night talk shows, but all without commercials.

Regarding the rollout associated with the Olympics, the fifth article says:
"Peacock will offer extensive coverage of the Tokyo Olympics, some of it exclusive. Peacock will feature live coverage of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies before they air on NBC in primetime. It will also stream three daily Olympic shows. That lineup includes Tokyo Live, with live coverage of one particularly compelling event from the day; Tokyo Daily Digest, with midday highlights; and Tokyo Tonight, a complement to the primetime show that is designed to help audiences catch up on the day’s events."​
This Comcast-owned NBCU creature can't be ignored and should not be taken lightly. Scroll carefully through the lists in the first article linked above. Not only will they have all the old “Law and Order” shows and the Paramount Network hit “Yellowstone,” they will be offering new versions of “Saved by the Bell” and “Battlestar Galactica,” the true crime “Dr. Death,” featuring the actors Jamie Dornan and Alec Baldwin, and an adaptation of “Brave New World” with Demi Moore.

How this mixes in over the next decade with Netflix, Amazon Prime,Disney+, Apple+, HBO Max, Acorn TV, CW Seed, YouTube TV and the gazillion other streaming services out there is going to be interesting.

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

The coming decade of the Wild West of personal entertainment video streaming. It's subscriber economics not ratings.

In the previous post we explored the 21st Century technology shift that has changed the home entertainment industry "television" to the personal entertainment industry "video streaming." What was not explored was the impact on the economic context.

For the past 50+ years, the economics of the home entertainment industry "television" has been portrayed with tables that looked like this:

The 2020 reality is these numbers don't matter in the personal entertainment industry "video streaming." In 1968-69 an average of 21.7 viewers watched ABC's  "The F.B.I." in its hour as opposed to programming on the two other off-the-air networks, NBC and CBS (Fox did not launch until October 9, 1986).

In 2018-19 an average of 7.9 million viewers watched CBS's "FBI" ...uh, well, that's not really true. Some folks actually watch it when it aired via a TV antenna or cable. Likely more watched a "recording" within the next week. They were all measured by the Nielsen folks.

Not reflected in those numbers were
  • those who watched it when it aired via the CBS All Access streaming service,
  • those who streamed an episode later - even a couple of months later - via CBS All Access, and 
  • those who watched their recording weeks later.
But it doesn't matter to viewers because the ratings are important only to advertisers. And in the 21st Century advertisers are being rejected - we don't want to watch ads.

And then there is the Netflix effect. Netflix cares only about how many subscribers it has. And not just couch potatoes in the United States. Consider this from The Hollywood Reporter:

    In July, Netflix launched its first mobile-only plan, rolling out a $2.99 (199 rupees) a month offering in India to help boost its reach in a country boasting 478 million smartphone users. In October, the company launched a similar plan in Malaysia at $4.
    This year, the streamer is expected to test lower-priced plans in more markets to attract price-sensitive customers in locales where its regular offerings are already available.
    While addressing a conference in the capital, Delhi, on a recent trip, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings talked about the company's India strategy, saying that the streaming video giant would spend more than $400 million (30 billion rupees) for the years 2019 and 2020 on local content.
    The India plan, which became available in July, is the fourth option from Netflix in India. Its basic service costs $7.27 (500 rupees), which goes up to $11.50 (799 rupees) per month for its most expensive premium service. Netflix is still expensive compared to Disney's Indian OTT service Hotstar and Amazon Prime Video. Both services are offered at an annual rate of $14.50 (1,000 rupees), or about $1.20 per month.
    While addressing a conference in the capital, Delhi, on a recent trip, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings talked about the company's India strategy, saying that the streaming video giant would spend more than $400 million (30 billion rupees) for the years 2019 and 2020 on local content.
Simply put, Netflix and other streaming sources which offer original content without ads measure their economic success on monthly subscription revenue. The issue for them is will folks around the world watch what they have to offer. And don't get confused. The Netflix cheap smartphone only plan involves comparatively low resolution video (standard definition, 480p) which cannot be cast to TV's.  It is the ultimate personal entertainment and content can be downloaded, thereby separating the signal source presence from the viewing opportunities.

Representing the epitome of confusion between ratings and subscribers is the streaming service Hulu, (though likely to alter its model somewhat since Disney became its sole owner and also owns Disney+ and ESPN+). For years, along with Disney/ABC, NBCU and Fox had financial interests in Hulu, their programming (along with some cable channel programming) was available for streaming a day after it aired with or without ads, and Hulu has original programming. They also offer programming from foreign sources and old U.S. programming. And while rats ings are not irrelevant to ABC, NBC, and Fox, the only thing important to Hulu is their 28± million U.subscribers.

Netflix, of course, has 68± million U.S. subscribers, Amazon Prime at 100+ million, CBS All Access at 8+ million,  Then there is the new Disney+ at 10+ million and Apple TV+ at 10+ million. Coming to the internet near you this year will be the new HBO Max, NBC's Peacock, Quibi, etc.

What makes this all confusing is that Nielsen tells us there are 120± million U.S. homes with televisions and there are 270 million Americans over the age of 14 almost all of whom are smartphone users. Only Amazon Prime has a significant market share, but that is not exclusively because of its personal entertainment offerings.

Some have called the personal entertainment industry economy a wild west. It is likely to take most of the coming decade to sort itself out.

Friday, January 3, 2020

In 2020 thousands of scripts will be lost to each of us every night because it's wireless video streaming not television. And it seems to be positive progress!

On November 12, 2007, this blog began with a series of posts that offered the following conclusion:

    While the home entertainment industry struggles to cope with changes over he next 5-to-10 years, viewers who want to watch scripted tv will need to adapt. That’s us, folks. And that’s what this blog about.

It's 12 years later. Television technology, video content quantity and sources, and viewing habits all have changed radically.

Whether you think it's the end of a decade or the start of a decade, 2020 is the year to acknowledge "video streaming" as the medium that has replaced "television." Simply, with apologies to HBO, the truth is "it's not TV, it's streaming."

Well, sort of....

The technology shift from television to video streaming

Let's begin with a review of the video streaming technology most all viewers use and the television technology those of us who are "elderly" grew up with.

January is the month for the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. According to the experts:

    Ground zero for new TVs is CES 2020 this January in Las Vegas.
    Prepare for more 4K, 8K, HDMI 2.1, HDR, 120Hz, OLED, QLED, ULED and ZLED than you can handle (I made the last one up, but it's probably coming soon, too).
    In 2019 8K televisions hit the market from the likes of Samsung, Sony and LG, but they remain ridiculously expensive (the cheapest, a 65-inch Samsung, is $3,500).
    I don't think 8K TVs are worth buying, but OLED TVs are another story. They're my favorite high-end models.
    TVs are a mature technology but that doesn't stop big screens, think 75 inches, from remaining remarkably popular.

Hmmm. Why did I think more and more viewing...


...was done by individuals using "devices" (aka smart phones) about 6" wide such as pictured above? Was I mistaken?

Of course not. In 2017 Adweek noted "consumers are flocking to smaller screens." And this year the LA Times headline was People spend more time on mobile devices than TV, firm says:

    The change has been years in the making, as smartphones have become more ubiquitous and the ways people use their devices has shifted. Phones now let you do more than steal quick glances at social media, and streaming shows and movies on the smaller, portable screens has become commonplace.
    The gap between the amount of time spent on mobile devices and TV has narrowed dramatically over time. Last year, American adults spent nine minutes more watching TV than looking at their phones and tablets, eMarketer said. But TV watching used to be more dominant — just five years ago, adults spent two hours more watching TV than using mobile devices, the firm said.
    The difference in time was even more pronounced for younger Americans, with people 18 to 34 spending 1 hour and 51 minutes on live and time-shifted TV and 3 hours and 25 minutes on the web or apps on smartphone and tablets in the third quarter of last year, Nielsen said.

Television technology has radically changed to the point that the word "television" should be removed from our jargon. A generation is coming of age that has only a vague idea of what "cord-cutting" means, while the majority of the generation immediately ahead of them, the Millennial Generation, has rejected "the cord" in favor of streaming.

And for them "television" can never refer to the device they stare at. We of older generations remember "watching television" on a 'television set", say, a fancy console we called the television or "TV" that looked like this...


... which got its content through something on the roof that looked like this...


Today, streaming video viewing looks like this...


 ..but with a heavy emphasis by content providers making the hand-held-device streaming experience pictured on the right the best possible experience because the results will also pass to that 75" TV streaming experience such as that pictured on the left.

One thing becomes clear while reading the CES stories - "TV" and "television" now refer to the large "devices" we hang on walls to view streaming content. In olden times, we referred to those "devices" as "TV sets." Curiously, those small hand-held devices in the picture on the right are called "phones" which used to mean something that looked like this:
Yes, things have changed. Today the term "video streaming" refers to "a system used by content providers for transmitting electronically.a visual image with sound which is reproduced on devices with viewing screens and speakers, providing to individual viewers in separate locations on demand content predominantly for entertainment but also for education."

The devices have no "cords" connected to them. In the early part of this decade I rejected the use of the terms "cord cutter" and "cord never" which were being used to describe people connected to the internet "cord" instead of the cable TV "cord." But times are different now.

More and more viewers, particularly GenZs and Millennials, rely on devices with no cord attached. They access the internet for video viewing through a "phone company" wireless signal or a local wifi signal. Obviously, at some point down the line there is a cord feeding whatever generates the signal. But the viewer's device is cordless and the viewer may be entitled to either the label "cord cutter" or "cord never" as no cord is directly involved.

In many homes, even though the signal comes to a modem/router through a wire,all viewing devices use wifi. Ironically, also many of those viewers are reverting to OTA live/recorded TV viewing in addition to their wireless/wifi streaming. In terms of "cords" it is like it was 60 years ago in 1960 when we watched TV coming across the airways by radio signal.

In 2013 we noted here:

    Broadcast TV is still around. So are "land lines." In fact, they have something in common - they are attached to a location and were designed to be used with a television set and a telephone.
    Smart phones and tablets and the related YouTube and Netflix apps are not attached to a location but to a person, a subscriber.
    It's not a new Golden Age of Television. It has been the Era of Television. and it seems to me its headed for retirement. Now its the Era of Mobile Diversion with completely different perameters and effects. Find or create your own word - something like "modiversion." After all, "television" is a created word for a technology: "Other proposals for the name of this then-hypothetical technology were telephote (1880) and televista (1904)."

In truth, today we know it is not "television" but rather "video streaming." And the content is provided by "video streaming services" not "channels."

The proliferation of streaming services and content choices

In 2015 Chairman of FX Network and FX Productions John Landgraf infamously noted “There is simply too much television.” He coined the term "Peak TV." He predicted a decline from the 409 scripted series offering new episodes that year. But three years later, there were 495. This year Landgraf's FX research team reported the number at 532 for 2019.

In 2019, despite the fact that Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Acorn TV, and literally dozens of other streaming services existed, Apple launched Apple+ and Disney launched Disney Plus. Both offered new scripted series. But Disney Plus includes many thousands of titles from the Disney brand itself, plus Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars and National Geographic content. It will also integrate programming from Fox.

In 2020 AT&T's WarnerMedia will be launching HBO Max. In addition to streaming the content from premium cable channel HBO, it will offer its own exclusive shows and movies, and content from WarnerMedia properties such as Warner Bros., The CW, DC, New Line, and Turner Classic Movies. It will allow access to 10,000 hours of content versus the paltry HBO Go and HBO Now's 2,000+ hours of programming.

Also in 2020 Comcast's NBCUniversal will be launching Peacock which will be the streaming home of popular NBCUniversal properties (think NBC, USA, SyFy, Bravo, E!, Oxygen, Universal Kids). In total, there will be more than 15,000 hours of content available on Peacock. In addition, a big attraction will be sports - think NBC Sports, Golf Channel, Olympics, etc. And early discussion has raised the idea that Peacock could be offered free with commercials.

The point here is that in the foreseeable future we're likely to have available 500± scripted series offering new episodes plus have access to tens of thousands of hours of programming in the form of thousands of old series (we used to call them reruns) and movies.

Back in 1960 at best we had available about 75 TV scripted series offering new episodes and no access to reruns. We had to watch TV live. And we had no recording capability, which meant within a year at most we could only watch new episodes of about 30± shows including Summer reruns.

Of course, most of us can watch only about the same number of hours of streaming video. All we've really gained is more choices. Not that it is entirely a gain. Back then we looked at the TV schedule in our newspaper or TV Guide magazine and chose from three or four viewing choices at any one time. Now you must literally choose from thousands of options.

Perhaps Landgraf was right. There is simply too much television. In terms of this blog, there are now many hundreds more lost scripts. No one viewer can possibly access all the available creativity because there are only 24 hours in each day. Few can allocate more than 20% of them to viewing streaming video.

So we choose. All those other scripts are lost to us.

Oh well....

What about those internet signals after 2020, wired or wireless?

While in the past decade technology shifted to take advantage of cellular wireless access from a device to the internet (which was created for purposes other than video streaming), the fact is AT&T and Comcast are the only internet service provider (ISP) conglomerates involved in providing significant content.

Today the competition is confusing. Nothing is settled, particularly the technology.

On the horizon are newer wireless signal technologies. You may be aware of 5G cellular wireless which is being implemented in a limited way in the U.S.  And in anticipation of the new decade, we must acknowledge a new wireless signal source - low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites.

The curious reality for 5G is that there are no manufacturers of 5G equipment in the U.S. which has led to a dispute over the use of Chinese equipment which is available and plentiful with the alternate being European company equipment. And even the Europeans are still looking at the Chinese equipment. In any event, 5G implementation will be expensive and likely will not easily be offered in rural areas.

The low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites could provide service in unserved and underserved areas, but it has its own complications. Those involved in implementation are not currently internet service providers. We should note that astronomers are alarmed because these satellites will interfere with scientific observations of the universe.

In  the early 1920s radio broadcasting became a household medium. By 1960 television became a household medium. Another 40 years later, in 2000, the internet was serving households and it has effectively become the replacement for television in 2020. It has led to the availability of tens of thousands of hours of video, both for entertainment and education.

It boggles the mind. The most comparable historical human experience would seem to be printing. There was a time when one could have read every book in print. Now one could not even imagine such a possibility. Yes, you could probably buy most of the available books on the internet as 48.5 million books are available to buy on Amazon, about 20% of which are available to download as e-books. But in one lifetime no one has the time to read them all.

Yes, there are a lot of scripts lost to every one of us. And yet, more people than ever do get a chance to express themselves to the world. That must be good. Right???

Now what the heck are we going to stream on the TV tonight?