You make a great point, and that is definitely where we are headed, but it will still be a long time before we can get the laggards up to speed and do away with tv channels.

Heck, they even have channels on YouTube. =^)

Are the current TV media providers doing too little, too late?

It may definatley benefit the consumer in the end but the cost/benefit ratio is way to high for most of these old media companies.

How I'd like to see it happen: an improvement in the network infrastructure in the USA/Canada. Naturally followed by a large increase in movie/tv show downloads since they no longer have to wait over night for the videos to download or get throttled by ISPs. Plus better content will be aviable, to download unlike todays low quality output. Next you push that to your tv wirelessly with appletv. Than the old media companies can play catch up like their doing in a few other industries.

Theft seems to be a more effective, yet unethical, motivation that can barely compares to a response to consumer demand.

The ISPs may be whinging in the UK, but remember some of these guys thought there was no demand for high-speed broadband (just as the telcos thought there was no consumer demand for internet connection). Now they complain when there is (as many commentators have noted, the issue is really that they can't deliver continuous performance at the levels they're advertising, because they invested heavily in a stop-gap solution).

Along with poor 'up' bandwidth, this could be the driver needed towards a proper infrastructure rather than one hacked over existing phone-lines.

>For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would watch TV >in their home without a DVR. I just don't get it.
In which case, you don't know how the MAJORITY of people watch TV. It's quite often something that is on, passively, in the background. Talked over. Often ignored. 'What's on the other side'. A bit like how people listen to commercial radio despite the fact they could listen to music of their choice using records, CDs, etc. The 'passive' model of consumption will always have an audience. (And even in the Web 2.0 world, a lot of us turn to things like Last.fm to provide a 'broadcast' or passive experience).

I also suspect that there is still a model for 'channels' in much the same way as there is for record labels - a sea of content is difficult to navigate, while channels and labels provide filtering - at the mainstream end through promotion and advertising, and at the small end through things like genre focus.

The key point will be when we have the first 'direct to web' show that is as successful as one that originated on TV first (so I'm discounting, say, a hypothetical release of new Futurama episodes on web only).

Maybe the 'tv' part (linear, time-schedule, device-restricted) is dying, but the 'channel' part (production & aggregration of video content) is definitely not.

To the contrary, I think there is an absolute explosion of channels taking place - not unlike the explosion of channels that happened when cable came along and we went from handfuls to hundreds.

Now I think we will go from hundreds to thousands where most of that increase comes from organized 'channels' on video aggregators (like YouTube, Heavy, et al) and highly specialized niche channels that are produced and delivered online (e.g., Webb Report, Cycling.tv, Vator.tv, Current.tv, ...). Plus I don't think we are far from seeing things like online 'Law & Order' or 'CSI' channels, either.

So in my view, it is not really the TV channel that is dying, but rather the linear, fixed time, fixed device model of traditional TV channels. That model is being compromised by any number of forces. How that will play out is open for considerable debate, but I doubt that the outcome will result in fewer 'channels'.

as for tv channels, i think they will turn into cluster of content that is similar.

What it conveniently does not address is TV news, which is all the TV many of us ever watch (okay -- sports, too).

Of course, TV channels have long had their news on their web sites, and are getting better and better at that. I was very impressed with the coverage here in Minneapolis of the bridge collapse, for example (see my Aug 3 post and the first comment here).

In increasing numbers, we're watching TV channels on the web, as well as via the boob-tube. But note it doesn't seem to be affecting viewership of the latter -- as the web is surely doing to newspaper readership. Rather, it appears to be additive for the TV stations.

Check out the traffic numbers of TV channel web sites sometime -- it could shock you. And that traffic continues to grow from everything I'm hearing.

it's TV news where the action seems to be -- and not just the networks, but the local affiliate channels. I actually plan to be writing more about this topic. I especially like what I'm hearing about Internet Broadcasting, one of the largest operators of those local news channel sites in the U.S.

cheers,
Graeme

Sanctuary is a broadcast quality show, exclusively released on the web (in both SD and HD). I don't work for them (though I'd love to), I just like the show.

They're struggling with infrastructure an distribution bandwidth, but they're definitely on the cutting edge. I hope they succeed, because they will help spell the doom of "regular" TV.