Talk:Television consumption

Untitled

 * Further detail as to why television consumption has changed from live tv to other forms is encouraged. — WikiUOttawa (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to point out for some additional researcher:

Free To Air Mainstream TV were leading in technical image quality up to MPEG-4, HDTV and BluRay times designated for mass market.

And when BluRay was novelty screen size were still small, and big size were expensive.

Nowadays even big 8K resolution screens are sold.

However since a lot of TV broadcasting station are trying to force or coerce viewers into paid subscription.

Commercial Free To Air DTTV is available in a lot of countries only in SDTV resolution,

and using so much outdated video codec: MPEG-2. Whereas many private and commercial HDTV are very often encrypted and paid.

And on contemporary Big screens you can notice much more easily flaws of SDTV.

I have seen a lot of switch off to just MPEG-4 on Free to Air Satellite TV from MPEG-2 SDTV just recent years.

After years of availability of better quality in Free YT VOD.

Where as even mobile phones have capability to capture film in 4k UHD resolution.

And even popular "Free" VOD service YT offers films in FHD and 60Hz fps which is using latest AV1 video coding of the same efficiency as HEVC/H.265.

And there is next generation video codec available: VVC.

And there are materials in 4K UHD and 8K on YT and 60Hz fps.

You could check that on such website monitoring TV like kingofsat. There is plenty of Free To Air Satellite TV in MPEG-2 in countries like: UK, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine,RAI Italian Public Broadcaster still broadcast in MPEG-2 and SDTV resolution

There are not many Satellite TV Broadcasting HEVC/H.265 or AV1, and they would need to broadcast in at about 10Mb/s in order to have comparable quality to free YT VOD service. Using low quality and outdated video codecs for first world is also used not just to promote paid encrypted HDTV which are also broadcast in old MPEG-4. It is also done to try halt / stop/ hinder the competition on TV market. Because if Satellite TV would use newest AV1 or HEVC/H.265 or VVC there would be even 16x times lower market entry cost in for of contract per 1Mb/s per years on Satellite operators and it would mean 16x times greater competition and 16x times better image quality.

MPEG-4 AVC H264 is 200% more effective as MPEG-2 H262, as it give 50% saving in bandwidth AV1 or MPEG-H HEVC H265 is 400% more effective as MPEG-2 H262, as it give 75% saving in bandwidth MPEG-I VVC H266 is 800% more effective as MPEG-2 H262, as it give 87% saving in bandwidth 400% ^= 4x times as much competition in quality or number of Stations 800% ^= 8x times as much competition in quality or number of Stations

Combining those video codecs with MPEG-5 part2 = LC EVC could give even further 2x times effectiveness or 50% savings. However this is only reserved for savings on simulcast for different resolution or fps or at least different On Screen Language Textual Information TV Broadcast. For example: instead bill for SDTV and HDTV, one can broadcast SDTV with MPEG-5 part2 = LC EVC layer that can be decoded as HDTV on MPEG-5 part2 = LC EVC compatible receivers. The same for different couples of resolutions or fps: HDTV, UHDTV, 8K resolutions.

Some would argue that plenty if most of viewers does not care for image quality, that may be true. However even if you (contemporary mainstream TV station) would increase quality by changing video codec to the newest, there would be plany of low quality of SD, thanks to lower TV Broadcast market entry level cost. Watching TV would be still popular and viable, however it could mean it would not be watching your TV. And for you (contemporary mainstream TV station) it is all that count.

However there are objective reasons and independent of why TV station could not switch TV broadcasting video codec: Due to many TV station viewership is counted in %, so you may not know if all your viewers are using old reception receivers with only old codecs. However I suppose it is not true for a lot of Western markets like: Germany, Swiss, Austria, UK, USA, Italy. FTA DTTV Station in these countries can broadcast several Satellite TV broadcast for different Designated Television Market Areas. I suppose they could diversify video Codecs for different Designated Television Market Areas. That would be most doubtful for USA. They had money for separate TV Broadcast bandwidth streams, but they had not for separate video codecs. I am speaking about situation Germany DTMA could broadcast in MPEG-2, Swiss DTMA in MPEG-4 and Austrian DTMA in HEVC/H.265. This would allow a little bit more competition, but could potentially increase client based of paid HDTV compatible HEVC/H.265 receivers.

Another there are objective reasons and independent of why TV station could not switch TV broadcasting video codec easily: because in case DTTV there is law who decide for example once in decade about video codec standard on DTTV, because there is limited bandwidth for OTA Broadcasts. In case of Satellite TV there is not as much limited bandwidth, but the bandwidth just as mentioned before bandwidth is more expensive for competition the older video codec is commonly used. However in case of Satellite TV no collusion of competing companies is allowed as it would be seen as decreasing competition price /trade collusion against clients market: viewers wallet. However if Satellite TV were allowed to publicly decide which video codecs used to what point they could do it and adopt newest codecs much faster.

Other arguments are protecting poor. This could be valid argument, but not for Western countries, where receivers cost about 1day of work of minimum wage worker. Even in poor countries such receiver does not cost too much due to global minimization of prices, much when the consideration is taken, that for vast poor areas of: Russia, China even USA there is no High Speed internet to compete. However news about newer receivers could be mainly distributed by available Satellite TV or DDTV which are interested in maintaining status quo of their market share.

And there is falling to ground public rating in TV news service trust.

And you can not have inferior technical quality and no trust.

In order to compensate for lack of trust a lot of news channels would need to broadcast in 4k UHD Resolution and even 8k resolution. And such lack of trust can not be fully compensated. It could have been prevented or just only slowed down if the better technical quality was available FTA long before trust poles fallen so low.

Resuming, FTA TV station Broadcast ceased to be Top technical of quality as it always were through out history up to: MPEG-4, HDTV and BluRay times designated for mass market.

And TV is socially viewed down and disregarded as dumbing down, and is first time in lower quality than free VOD who are looked up. It is independently of objective reality, it does not need to be so, that people look wiser content on free VOD that on FTA TV. It is simply perceived that they can watch smarter, wiser and even better technical quality content on free VOD that on FTA TV.

One can argue that people need to pay for access to internet, where as FTA can be free indeed. However most people would pay for internet access just like pay for phone, and other stuff independently if they would use it for media consumption. (Yes media consumption can make them pay more). However FTA DTTV & Satellite TV is cheaper in broadcast for massive market than VOD servers and massive ip traffic. (When designed for low viewership VOD can be cheaper)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
— Assignment last updated by AquaticBanana (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Other effects of Television Consumption
Hello. Working on this, I'm planning to categorize the body-attitude, crime, and obesity sections under an umbrella category of Effects of Television Consumption. I was wondering what other effects could be included? Perhaps a decrease in recreational activity? Also, I thought it might be good to point out how television tries to help the audience, content like Sesame Street and PBS Kids. With kids watching, at least they're learning and taking in good lessons and info. What are your thoughts on adding this info? Thanks! SlipperySpinner (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)