A comparison between traditional broadcast TV and video distribution via the Internet, that can also be considered TV in a transferred sense.
| Broadcast TV | The Internet | |
|---|---|---|
| Channels | Few relevant ones, even in the land of local and cable TV USA, and mostly with focus on broad interest; hard to find what interests you, despite the few channels, via a detached TV guide / TV set setup, where the first is not really part of the second | Millions, both with broad converage and extremely specific; easy to find what you are interested due to the mash-ups of such content with other content, and also very easy to search for via search engines; can be bewildering to navigate, e.g. when we talk Youtube, but you can search and you can follow channels etc for more specificity |
| Content | Content is regulated by strict guidelines from FCC and others, and informally due to the need for broad appeal; you don’t want children to watch violence, except cartoon violence of course; even words are regulated, like, ****, **** and **** | You’ll be able to find content that fulfills anyone’s imagination and information/entertainment needs, but as always, don’t eat the yellow snow |
| Advertising | Filled with ads, cutting up TV shows and movies in small segments | Advertising separate from the videos or only at the beginning, which is much less annoying |
| Interaction | None, except for voting via SMS in some game shows etc | Massive, via commenting, polls, separate related forums, rating via likes, ranking, recommendations, sharing etc |
| Validity | Less and less; most channels are unwatchable partly because of the deafening advertising and partly because of irrelevant middle-of-the-road content | More and more, as you can choose your areas of interest, and the choice volume is immense; content you are not interested in will not affect you either |
| Convenience | Good, through direct signal into a large-screen TV that many can watch, yet that also means you need one TV set per person if they can’t agree on what to watch; best-case: brings families and friends together | Can be watched on PCs, game consoles and increasingly directly in TV sets; this is of course the future, even though it can create increased social isolation |
| Flexibility | Mainly watched on dedicated TV sets, with content coming from a wall connector | Can be watched on almost any media-enabled device |
| Production | Usually requires a distribution agreement with any of the media companies; production is often very expensive due the bottom line requirements from the media companies and due to the to create mass appeal for generating as much ad revenue as possible | Doesn’t require any cooperation with a media company; best-case you can create videos for the world in your basement, not saying that that automatically leads to high-quality content; video productions can be easily combined with other content, interactions and revenue streams (not just ads) |
| Time dependency | As content is broadcast, you can’t choose when to watch it | Watch it anytime; Even if the content is real-time you will most likely be able to play a re-run at any time later |
It’s not a completely black-and-white situation though, as broadband providers, Netflix etc provide video content specifically for watching on a TV set too.
The TV set will simply be completely meshed with the Internet, and video content (including commercial TV shows and movies) will be possible to watch on any device, increasingly streamed. No question about it.