TV Today
The entire TV-watching ecosystem today is wildly different than it was just 15 short years ago. Indeed, the TV landscape has undergone numerous dramatic changes since the those first mid-20th century live broadcast only days.
A lot of people today are having quite a challenge trying to really understand it all. From horribly designed TV menu interfaces, countless streaming providers, roiling churn, spying, and enough advertising to make you want to swear off the whole thing.
In this article, we'll take a deep dive into all things TV, how it's changed over the years, how today's TV ecosystem works, and how TV is, like so many other things in modern life, becoming enshittified, and finally ways you can regain some control.
Let us walk thru the eras of TV. Some of this is geeky but I do make it understandable.
1st Era: Live, on TV
Late 1930s to early 1960s
During earliest years of TV, shows made for TV were all live.
This was ephemeral appointment-only television. If you missed the program then that's it. You'd never have another chance. The earlier shows of this era felt more like radio or live theater. TV studios were in their infancy, just learning how to properly stage for this new medium.
Shows made for TV were not recorded for re-airing until later in this era. The idea of reruns had not yet been "invented". Studio execs had not yet fathomed that re-airing a program might be a pretty good idea, cost wise. And because it was live, viewers got to see all manner of bloopers from flubbed lines, equipment malfunction (which happened quite a bit), visible crew, missed cues, prop failures, etc.
At times, it was like watching an elementary school play, full of eager but inexperienced kids, trying their best. And that characterization isn't too far off, either. Early TV actors were experienced artists, but they were technically inexperienced in the ways of television production and it showed.
These early TV shows did not feature commercial breaks in the same sense. Instead, entire shows were sponsored by a particular brand, the advertising baked in, and it was often titled that way. An example of this, a show I watched as reruns later on, was Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
There were also a lot of boxing matches broadcast in TV's early years. Boxing was already pretty big entertainment in its own right in mid 20th century. Since the sport was confined to a limited space (the boxing ring) compared to other sports, was indoors, and was well-illuminated, it made for a great ready-to-air event at minimal cost.
More scripted programming began to appear as this era marched on and TV proved its staying power. There were game shows and sitcoms. I Love Lucy was not the first sitcom but its fair to say it was one of the most successful in this early era of TV. e.g. Today, most people have heard of I Love Lucy even if they never saw the show.
The Wrap: TV was an infant but growing fast. Most people still did not have TVs but that would begin to change toward the end of this era. Nobody really knew what TV's full potential would be since this industry was still pretty young.
2nd Era: Network Television Heyday
Mid 1960s to Late 1970s
The big three commercial TV networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC were all well established by now. This was probably the big three's biggest decade in terms of owning the TV experience. PBS also existed, but as a non-profit that did no advertising, it was a distant 4th in market share.
Pretty much all scripted TV in this era (and to present day) was prerecorded (filmed or taped*), edited, then broadcast. Live TV was more limited to news programs, sporting events, and some game shows. It's hard to overstate how important this development was -- it was a tectonic change on the industry side of things. Prerecording separated program creation from airtime -- no longer were these two things locked together.
Shows could be developed and shot, edited (no more bloopers), and placed into the airing schedule of one of the major networks. Each step of the way was timing independent. That gave showrunners a lot more breathing room. More elaborate sets could be built, studio blocking more deliberate, retakes were possible, non-linear storytelling became possible, and many other techniques could be employed to create a realistic, polished, and believable program. Something that is far more difficult or even impossible on live TV.
It also meant that the TV broadcast day could last longer, with more programming available because talent and production were no longer tied to a realtime broadcast schedule.
And, critically, this also meant that reruns could become a widespread thing. As people's lives got busier and they missed the first airing of a program, a rerun meant the network could still keep their eyeballs to catch a missed episode of a favorite show. That means more advertising, which by now has become independent of most shows. And that rerun costs essentially nothing to air, outside of a performance royalty.
Black and white TV was still common at the beginning of this era, but by the early to mid 1970's, color TV was becoming commonplace. And that, too, opened up entirely new opportunities. TV shows, no longer in old-fashioned black and white, were more stylish and fresher looking -- like the movies.
In this era, which still predates the massive uptake of cable TV, everyone was pretty much watching the same thing. Yes, we had three network channels to pick from, but it didn't often make sense for network A to deliberately counterprogram a hit show against network B's hit show unless they were sure it would kill it -- and that surety was scarce. That would have pissed people off and less money was made all around. Hence, everyone really was watching the same thing. Woe be to whatever slop was counterprogramed -- it was sure to die.
So, far more people were on the same page, culturally speaking. To the extent that TV was discussed, we all shared a more common bond. I mean, everyone was watching All in the Family or M*A*S*H. We all laughed when we heard Archie Bunker flushing the toilet or losing an argument with Meathead (R.I.P. Rob Reiner) or when Hawkeye was up to something to bring levity to war.
It's fair to say that the 1970s was the golden age of network-based broadcast TV -- at least on the industry side of things.
* Film and tape is a big topic with regard to making old shows available in high quality today. I'll discuss this in detail further down toward the end of this article.
The Wrap: Television matured rapidly during this era. As color broadcasting became standard and color sets became affordable, households replaced their primary (or only) TV with a new color set and demoted the black-and-white TV to being a second, lesser used TV.
This era felt like a creative breakout for TV. There were far fewer shows than today, but a much higher share of them actually worked. With limited slots and real gatekeeping, weak ideas rarely made it to air, and good shows were given time to find an audience.
3rd Era: The Cable Cafeteria
Early 1980s to late 2000s
Cable TV may have been born in the mid 20th century, but it grew up in the 1980s. Finally, we had more choices, not just the three networks, which by now were showing their age. The three networks were becoming increasingly cautious in their approach to broadcast television. What seemed daring and cutting edge in the late 60s and early 70s was by now boring and staid.
Cable TV was going to change all that.
There's no single reason why cable TV kicked the big three's collective ass. It was for a lot of reasons.
A list, in no particular order:
"Decency" Legislation
Remember George Carlin's seven dirty words that could never be said on TV?
But it wasn't just dirty words. There was a broad federal regulatory framework on the use of public airwaves that covered a wide range of expression and content. Violating that was a very serious matter. TV producers could not afford a slip-up. That, as you can imagine, limited script-writing and story ideas.
Cable TV had no such prohibitions. The government tried to enforce existing regulations, but the cable TV industry successfully argued that since they weren't using the public airwaves and they were a voluntary subscription service then such prohibitions could not apply to them.
That meant content that no one had ever previously seen or heard on a TV set was now allowed. Every dirty word, nudity, highly realistic violence, subversive ideas -- pretty much anything -- was allowed, so long as it wasn't illegal.
Choice, Choices, Choices
Over-the-air (OTA) choices were -- and still are -- poor because of limited spectrum allocation. There is only so much space in the spectrum and many services competing to use it.
Cable TV doesn't have that problem.
Cable systems in the early 1980s offered far fewer channels than what most people can get today, probably only 30 or so. But that was still a huge increase in choices of what to watch. There was also a now-playing directory, usually on channel 1, that displayed a slowly scrolling list of what was presently on each channel and was scheduled within the next two hours. Cable program listings started appearing in local newspapers and in the "TV Guide" -- that weekly Sunday insert that was arguably the most important part of the paper. Well, the Sunday comics were pretty important, too.
OK people, lighten up, the paper was obviously a lot more important than that 🙂
Advertising
While the local network affiliates had all the same commercials that you'd see over the air, a lot of the cable-only channels had no advertising at all -- at least at first. That was one of the carrots to entice people to sign-up for cable TV.
Think about it this way: Before cable TV, no one paid anything to watch TV beyond the cost of the TV itself and the electricity it consumed. So trotting out the insane idea that people should pay for TV was going to be a hard sell. The cable companies had to make their offer as attractive as they could. Limited or no advertising was one of these many ways to do that.
Signal Quality
Good broadcast TV reception even in the best of conditions often wasn't great. There was usually one or two channels that were fuzzy and staticky, no matter how you adjusted the antenna.
Cable TV, on the other hand, (almost) always looks good. That's because the signal comes into your home (or office) through a shielded cable that prevents interference. Every channel looks and sounds good no matter how far away from a TV transmitter tower you happen to be.
On Demand and Premium Channels
Some cables systems offer premium sporting events for a one-time fee and pretty much all of them offer premium channels like HBO, etc. that offer an ad-free experience. Can't do that with OTA.
-----
Before streaming took over, most people watched all their programming via cable TV, even if they had OTA options available.
Party Petering Out
As everyone saw, cable TV prices continued to rise. And rise. And rise. And all without any compelling improvement in service except high def. Indeed, it seems that most cable cos favorite enticement is how many channels they offer.
Thing is, no one cares that their cable co offers 187 channels -- 170 of which are shit. (heh, that's one of Carlin's seven dirty words)
Cable TV had a pretty good and long run before the tide started turning -- probably 30 years, depending on which numbers you look at. But the decline today is clear and unrelenting. Cable TV is bleeding customers. It may level out at some point with a remaining base of customers that won't leave but it'll be far weaker than it is today with a very uncertain long term future. Consolidations and mergers are sure to be part of that future.
The Wrap: Television shifted from the network broadcast heyday to Cable TV, ushering in more channels, a lot more programming that could also move past broadcast boundaries, and gave viewers their first hint of power.
4th Era: Streaming Ascends
Mid Aughts to Present Day
What's killing cable TV? Well, a couple of things, really.
Cable TV shot itself in the foot, taking itself out of race, by endlessly hiking prices. Granted, this isn't all cable TVs fault, It's not even mostly their fault. The major share of fault lies further up the food chain. e.g. Big Entertainment: That's the studios, networks, the sports-industrial-complex, and rights holders.
Cable TV got the blame because they're the publicly-facing party that collects all the money. That's who the people pay their four figures per year to. Not to some sports league. Not to a studio. But to a cable company.
It's a tough spot to be in when you're the paymaster, collecting from each subscriber, and funneling the majority of that up the pipe, never to be seen again.
The more corporately charitable among us might pour one out for the cable cos.
The other thing that's killing cable TV, as you've certainly figured out, is streaming and the new options it brings. Heck, there's a good chance you have several streaming providers and quite possibly don't have cable TV.
Streaming represents the most dramatic changes and complex machinations yet in the TV viewing landscape. We're going to split this up into several subsections, each exploring a smaller part of the arc of streaming since the mid aughts when streaming was just starting to catch some wind.
2007 to 2012
When Netflix launched their streaming service in 2007, they had very nearly the entire streaming customer base all for themselves -- there weren't any other serious contenders. Not too unlike Apple having the entire smartphone market all to themselves when they introduced the iPhone in that very same year.
Of course, that exclusivity did not last long. Other streamers like Prime Video, Hulu, and YouTube started TV streaming shortly after, but the field was still pretty sparse. These players had the business savvy to establish themselves early and still remain highly relevant today.
These were the (relatively short) golden days of streaming for subscribers. With just 2-3 major providers, you had access to nearly everything that was available for streaming.
These early adopters usually weren't usually cutting the cord. Streaming was an additional way to watch TV. But it wasn't really a cable-TV replacement just yet.
It was glorious... But it wasn't ever going to last. More on that below under "Give Me the Money"
2013 to 2018
Streaming hits it big. More streaming providers are coming online, offering far more programming, and streaming itself is becoming the primary delivery method, starting to eclipse cable TV. People are realizing they don't need cable TV anymore and some are cancelling. Cable companies are starting to see the writing on the wall.
Importantly to this transition, TVs made during this era pretty much all have network capabilities and include streaming software. So they don't need a cable box to work. For people with older "dumb" TVs, there are appliances like Apple TV, Chrome Cast, Fire Stick, etc. that provide streaming capabilities.
Big Entertainment has by now realized that streaming is the future and are gearing up for it. Some are slower than others and there's a ton of roil in the industry. Many more streamers are coming line, splitting up the pie, making everyone's piece smaller.
They need to bake a bigger pie. How to do that?
2019 to Present
In this era, subscription TV has become a chore. TV interfaces are abjectly terrible making them confusing and difficult to navigate, there's far more advertising, too many must-have streaming services, and many more ills. It's a consumer-hostile hellscape compared to cable TV and even early-era streaming.
This era represents the enshittification stage of streaming.
I'll expand on these points below:
Give Me the Money
Some facts:
- A household's average yearly cost for cable TV today is around $1,000. Some less, often more. But let's just call it $1,000 to keep it simple. That's around $83/month.
- An estimated 77m (million) households have cut the cord (cancelled cable TV) by the end of 2025.
That's $77b (billion) of lost annual revenue and that number grows every year. Your cable co kept some of that obviously. But as discussed above, most of that money was going to Big Entertainment to pay programming/licensing costs. Your cable co was simply the collection agent -- the paymaster.
There was no way in hell that Big Entertainment was going to accept the loss of all that revenue.
Of course, cable-cutters aren't giving up TV -- they still needed programming, so they are turning to the streaming providers. But they aren't (yet) paying the $83 per month, give or take, that most cable subscribers were paying. So Big Entertainment is still losing tens of billions per year compared to the prestreaming days.
Obviously that cannot stand.
There are numerous ways Big Entertainment is trying to recoup that lost revenue. Let's flesh out that earlier list.
Balkanization
One of the ways Big Entertainment is fixing that revenue decline is balkanization. That is, splitting up into numerous smaller streaming companies and not cross licensing their content to any other streamer. If you enjoy a variety of shows then you might have to subscribe to numerous streamers in order to watch them all. Keep that up and you'll be paying cable-TV rates, or worse, before too long. What wants that?
More Shows
Choice is good, right? Yeah, well, consider that the vast majority of shows that are greenlighted (never mind the ones that die before ever seeing light) are dreck. Stupid ideas that never should have come this far.
Why so much crap? Because many streaming providers are run by studios -- and they want original content that will only run on their service. The belief is that the show will be good enough to attract enough subscribers to make the gamble pay off. Usually it's not, as they are quickly learning.
More Advertising
Most people dislike advertising. Streamers love advertising money. What to do?
So as to not lose people that, like me, detest advertising, most streamers offer a more-costly ad-free tier. But that extra cost, especially given the balkanization today, means people are busting their entertainment budgets sooner.
So now, lower cost, ad-included tiers are a thing. And with every passing year, more and more ads are larded into the stream. Pre-roll ads, and even program-interrupting ads. People, fed up with ads, but can't or don't want to pay for an ad-free tier, are cancelling.
Streamers still haven't cracked that code. It's one of the most sensitive topics in the industry and probably has no single solution.
Drip Drop
Bingeing didn't start with the streaming services (people binged DVDs long before streaming), but that's where it found its groove. Usually when a streaming provider drops a new season of a show, they'll drop the whole thing at once. If that one show was the only reason a person subscribed to that streamer, then they'd often subscribe for one month (or even a free trial), binge the show, then cancel. When the next season drops the following year (assuming it wasn't cancelled) then rinse and repeat.
That's bad for the streamers and they want to fix it.
One way to do that is to drip-release new seasons one episode at a time -- usually weekly, like in the old days of broadcast TV. If you aren't in a hurry and can wait for the entire season to drop, one ep at a time, then you can still do the binge thing after all the eps have dropped. But it does add friction, especially if your friend group is actively watching the show.
Commitment
Another tactic streamers are considering are annual subscriptions to reduce subscriber churn. They generally offer a discount in exchange for that one-year commitment. Sometimes the year is paid upfront, other times monthly -- but still with a one year commitment.
This practice isn't widespread at the moment. For one thing, it brings no compelling value to a subscriber that is signing up just to binge that one show, even if they do so each year. And it's highly unlikely that annual subscriptions would become mandatory, especially ones requiring upfront payment. No one would stand for that.
The Wrap: Cable TV is in a steep decline and streaming has taken over as the main source of programming. As with many other things in modern life, moving TV to an internet-connected online experience opens up the experience to endless enshittification. Now it's just a matter of how enshittified it can become before the people push back.
When, or if, that push back comes to pass, it won't be just for television. The enshittocene is its own epoch that we'll hopefully escape one day. If that happens, TV along with everything else, will improve immeasurably.
These next few sections will cover adjacent ideas and aspects of television's evolution. These, too, are important parts of television history but don't really fall as neatly into a chronological telling.
Film vs. Video Tape
We discussed, in the 2nd era up top, how made for TV shows went from being live to being prerecorded and the massive change that introduced to the era. Namely, decoupling production from airing. Again, that alone was tectonic.
But what the studio execs did not know during this era was how incredibly valuable those programs would become decades in the future. Indeed, their ignorance led to lost film due to careless archiving practices and reusing magnetic video tape in the earlier days of prerecording.
Within any given time frame -- a given era of television -- video tape was never as good as film, especially 35mm film. This is important because it would foretell how successful transfers or remastering older content to modern high definition media would be decades later.
Movies, fortunately, we always shot on film. If for no other reason, it was the only way to screen movies to a public audience. TV shows didn't always get the same treatment.
But, ironically, earlier scripted TV shows, like those shot in the 1960s and 1970s, fare much better today because they were (mostly) shot on film.
That's why shows like Star Trek (The Original Series) and Mission Impossible (two shows I like) look so absolutely fabulous on today's high def screens. Most of those shows were shot on 35mm film which has a rough analog resolution equivalent to today's 4k! When watching those old shows today, remastered in high def, I see crisp detail that I never saw before.
Eventually, video tape become "good enough" to record a show that was expected to be watched on an analog TV. Those programs are hard capped at analog TV resolution, which isn't great as we know.
The mid/late 80s and into the mid 90s was the worst possible time technically for being a sitcom that we'd want to watch decades later because many of them were shot on video tape. Things started to improve in the late 90's because studios knew that HD was on the way and they wanted their shows to be future proof.
So if you're perplexed as to why a favorite popular show from that time never made it to 2k or better, there's a strong possibility that it was shot on resolution-locking video tape. If the studios had it to do again, they'd certainly choose film in more cases. But at the time, who that the mid aughts would introduce high def screens?
VHS Home Recording
You might be surprised to learn that home video (the VCR, and later DVDs and Blu-ray) likely would not exist for consumers without a pivotal Supreme Court ruling known as the “Betamax case,” which established the legality of VCRs for private-use "time-shifting" purposes. That is, recording a show that you would have otherwise missed for later playback. In IP law, that's called "fair use" -- a term you've probably heard.
When the first consumer VCR became available, the studios had an existential crisis. They were convinced the VCR would spell their ruin, and so lobbied congress hard to ban them. How utterly short-sighted they were.
Because just scant years later, the home video movie rental market was born and, over the years, produced over a hundred billion dollars of additional revenue that would not have happened if Big Entertainment had "won" the Betamax case.
And that's just the rental market -- e.g. visiting a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video store and renting physical video cassettes. Without the precedent-creating VCR ruling, the chances of DVD and Blu-ray coming along later would have been far less. All told, these home-viewing technologies made many hundreds of billions for Big Entertainment.
DVD and Blu-ray
By the late 90s, DVDs began to take off. They still weren't high def, but because they were digital, the playback yielded much better picture quality compared to VHS video cassettes. They were also far cheaper to manufacture in bulk. Video cassettes were bulky, heavy, fussy, and prone to failure. DVDs, on the other hand, were more like music compact disks -- elegant and high quality.
All those video rental stores like Blockbuster, Hollywood video, and others, that existed because of the supreme court ruling in the Betamax case, are now transitioning to renting out DVDs instead.
At the time, the DVD player set the record for consumer uptake of a new device. Hundred of millions of DVD players were manufactured and sold. The groundbreaking, hit movie The Matrix is often credited as a pivotal title that helped drive sales of DVD players.
Big Entertainment saw the potential and quickly started producing DVDs of their back catalog of movies and TV shows. This was easy money because all the original production expense had been paid. They just needed to remaster/transfer video tape and film to DVD, throw in some extras like director notes and outtakes, and they had a valuable product to sell that cost very little to produce.
Blu-ray followed a broadly similar path to DVD, but with far less favorable timing. Its main advance was true high-definition at 1080p, replacing DVD’s 480i/480p limits. However, Blu-ray launched just as consumer demand for physical media began to soften due to streaming taking off. As a result, while Blu-ray succeeded as a premium format and remains widely available, it never generated revenue on anything like the scale DVD achieved.
Your TV is Spying on You
Spying is a heavily loaded word. So first and foremost, let me clarify exactly what I mean by "spying" as it applies to watching TV.
Spying, by definition, is the non-consensual and (usually) covert monitoring the actions of, say, a person. Any party can be conducting the spying, it's not limited to a government agency or law enforcement, etc. It can be a corporate interest instead.
In the context of watching TV, it is spying if you are unaware that it's happening. e.g. You did not knowingly consent.
Big Tech has a lot of expensive lawyers on staff to help keep them out of trouble. They're going to make damn sure they get legal informed consent from you. But legal consent isn't the same as knowing consent, as I'll describe.
When you setup pretty much any consumer device today, including a new TV, any streaming services you subscribe to, whatever -- you are going to encounter a novella-length wall of inscrutable legalese text. Adjacent to that wall of legalese, you must check a box or click a button that says that you read, understand, and agree to all the terms in that wall of text. That's the legal cover the device maker or service provider needs.
Buried in there will be a clause detailing how your activities are monitored and details shared/sold with 3rd parties. That's the informed part of "informed consent". The consent part happens when you click the "I agree" box or button.
I know darn well you didn't read all that legalese. Nobody reads it (except for watchdog groups). That's the device makers and service providers intention -- it's designed to fatigue and to not be read. It's bad faith.
So from a moral or ethical perspective, you have not given informed consent to anything. But from a legal one, you have. And that's all that counts. What a thing that is!
Congress has made some noise about fixing that, but alas, little progress has been made. Big Tech and Big Entertainment have deep pockets. You don't.
Roving Narcs
There's nothing new under the sun and TV-spying is no different.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, broadcasters knew that television tuners leaked small amounts of RF energy, making it possible to determine what channel a TV set was tuned-to from outside a home by using a directional "beam" antenna. This sparked discussion and limited experimentation with passive measurement ideas, sometimes imagined as mobile receivers in trucks that might roam the streets. While it technically worked, in practice it was never viable at scale due to numerous practical hurdles, and cost, so this particular idea quietly died.
But the idea of monitoring TV watching habits was very much live.
Nielson Families
A major ratings firm of the day (and even today to some extent) was/is Nielsen Ratings. So called "Nielsen Families" agreed to have a device installed on their TV that monitors what channel they were watching and, via a button selection or a diary entry, who in the family was watching at the time.
In the public mind, being chosen as a "Nielsen Family" was somewhat of an honor. It was deliberately framed as you having influence over what would and would not become a popular TV show and that you, personally, were directly affecting television programming. That's pretty heady stuff.
Because it was all done with your consent, then it would be incorrect to characterize this as "spying". It's true that Nielsen was selling the program ratings to the studios so to some extent, Nielsen Families were influencing programming. But the (not discussed) equally if not more important part of the business was ad measurement. Families were instructed to record all kids of things in their diaries, and their observations and feelings regarding advertising was very much a part of that.
Over the years there were other attempts to figure out what people were watching, even without their consent. Most of these technologies were not widely deployed because of the necessity for two-way communications. e.g. There had to be a way for the viewing data to get back to the collector. For Over The Air (OTA) broadcasts that simply wasn't possible. For cable-TV systems, it was possible, but only on systems that supported two-way communications. Most did not.
TiVo
TiVo was a relatively short-lived alternative to the VCR for time-shifting playback that was quite popular in the late 90s into the mid aughts. Instead of recording on tape, TiVo recorded onto a hard disk that was inside the TiVo box -- a VCR-sized appliance that sat on a shelf under the TV. It was called a DVR (Digital Video Recorder)
The hard drive could hold dozens of hours of programming. You'd watch the show then delete it -- or not and watch it again. No more tapes. And you could skip commercials with a magical feeling 30-second advance button. That alone made TiVo worth it. Advertisers hated it and tried to sue TiVo to make them remove it, to no avail.
How did TiVo spy on you? For TiVo to work, it required a connection to TiVo's scheduling service. Early TiVo devices would contact the service via dial-up telephone modem. Later models used an internet connection. But either way, TiVo had to know where you lived so it could download the programming schedule for your area.
As you chose programs to record and watch, TiVo would report all that back to HQ. Also monitored was use of the remote control, such as whether and how often you skipped past commercials.
Modern TVs
What if TV programming were distributed on a highspeed two-way network and was played on a network-aware device? A device that has software built-in to play programming from all these various streaming providers?
And that also monitors your every action, every click of the remote, what you're watching, what you're doing even on local devices like a gaming console, and reporting all of that back to the TV maker and sold to any interested party. And you are individually identifiable. Neat, huh? /s
The internet, being a two-way communications medium, makes all that comically easy. So-called "Smart TVs" are called smart because they have this software built-in and connect to the internet.
You might already expect that a streaming app like Netflix knows when you are watching Netflix. But so does your TV aside from that.
Most TVs today contain software called Automatic Content Recognition (ACR). This is a bit of spyware that can see what's on the screen regardless of where it came from. e.g. Maybe you're not even watching a show. Maybe you are playing a game on a local gaming console like Playstation or WII. Or maybe you're casting vacation photos and videos from your phone to the TV. And maybe some of those photos are risque.
With ACR, your TV can see all of that and provide it to the TV maker via the internet. That's next level spying and it's real.
Because the TV maker has your informed consent, they are free to do very nearly anything they want with your data as long as they said-so in the TOS (Terms of Service)
I have to say, it's a pretty insane world we live in when a pedestrian device like a TV can monitor your viewing habits to the extent it does. I would not want that!
It's About the Ads
Advertisers are voracious consumers of data -- telemetry, metrics, etc. They're the ones who find this data valuable. All the spying is in service to present you with ever more frequent and personalized ads. To push your buttons and manipulate you.
How can you stop all this? We'll focus on mitigating measures in the section titled "Retaking Control" further down.
Streaming, What's Really Happening?
All this talk about streaming and I didn't even address what streaming is technically and how it's different from older broadcast and cable TV.
When you are streaming a show, what you are actually doing is downloading it, not too unlike any other file that you might download. Of course, streaming is usually to a TV set while downloading is to your computer or phone. But it's actually the exact same thing. Your TV is just a specialized computer with a really large screen. Nothing more.
But with streaming, instead of saving what's being downloaded, it's instead shown to you on the screen in real time, then deleted, as you are watching. The just-viewed frames of video (and audio) are deleted from memory shortly after you see them, and never saved on your TV or other device. It's similar to broadcast or cable TV in that way.
The key difference with streaming is everyone has their own copy of the stream. The stream you see is just for you.
Let's step back a bit and compare the two.
Broadcast and Cable TV
When you're watching a show, movie, sport, whatever, it's like being in a public theater. There's lots of other people who are watching the exact same thing at exactly the same time. You have to be seated on time to see the program, otherwise you miss it. You cannot start it when you want, you cannot pause while you go to the restroom or to the lobby for a snack, you cannot replay the last few seconds because you missed some dialog. You sit and watch, nothing more.
How Streaming is Different
On the internet, everything you see is directed specifically to you. As I said above, streaming is like downloading. It's coming to you and no one else. Now, many other people can also be watching that same show, but they each see their own individual stream -- their own copy. Someone else might be an hour farther into the movie or show than you, someone else five minutes behind, and yet someone else might have paused while making a snack. It doesn't matter because everyone sees their own copy.
Streaming thus affords a lot of cool possibilities we didn't have before.
- Start the program whenever you want, it's not appointment viewing.
- Pause while you fix a snack or whatever else you need to do.
- Replay a few seconds -- although this often doesn't work well. It's clunky.*
- Watch that show again or any other show in the streaming providers library, subject to the terms of your streaming plan.
* Reasons are uber-geeky! If you are really curious (good for you!) see the easy-to-digest discussion at end of this article.
Retaking Control
Here we discuss the single, best way to avoid being spied-on by your TV.
Access to the internet is key to enabling your TV to spy on you. Yes, it's also key to watching content but there's another solution for that.
Steps:
- Keep your TV set offline. Don't connect to the internet. If already connected, then disconnect.
- Buy an Apple TV streaming device. This one with 128 GB Storage, Wi-Fi + Ethernet -- not the cheaper one. The $20 difference is peanuts.
You could buy pretty much any streaming device that plugs into the TVs HDMI port. But do be warned, most streaming devices also upload various telemetry to their cloud servers for 3rd party sale. That telemetry is a little more limited. e.g. ACR won't work. Lesser streaming devices also aren't much better than the TV itself, performance wise. These cheaper streaming devices are just a "stick" version of the same crappy software that's in your TV.
My Recommendation: The Apple TV streaming devices are widely considered the best of the lot. First of all, Apple doesn't skimp on CPU performance or storage. It's fast, snappy, has a clean and uncluttered interface, and provides a great experience. Secondly, Apple isn't really invested in advertising except for their own products. They may collect telemetry but they aren't sharing it with anyone other than what's technically necessary to provide the service. They are not selling your data to 3rd party data brokers, advertisers, etc.
Most TVs, on the other hand, have substandard CPUs (to save a few bucks), the software is slow, bloated with promos and ads, and difficult to navigate. That's because all this user-hostile crap subsidizes the cost of the TV. It's a genuinely horrible experience.
But by foregoing the TV's software and using only Apple TV, you won't see platform-level ads (you may still see ads inside the various streaming apps but that's not Apple's fault), no unnecessary telemetry, and generally a far superior experience.
Unsurprisingly, Apple TV costs a bit more than competitors such as Firestick, Chromecast, Roko, etc. The foregoing explains why: Much better hardware, no selling of data, and no ad-tech bullshit.
Apple TV is a little bit bigger than a hockey puck and gets along fine even if you have no other Apple devices. There is zero reliance on iPhone, Mac, or any other Apple gadgets. If you do have an iPhone, then Apple TV does have some cool features such as screen casting, but those are all extras -- not needed to enjoy Apple TVs primary functionality.
Geeky Stuff
Warning: This section will get into some seriously geeky territory. But I will strive to explain in a way that makes sense. This is the last section so feel free to bail out if this isn't your jam.
When streaming, trying to replay a few seconds is often clunky or just doesn't work.
Most of us have tried to replaying a few seconds of a program because we missed some dialog or want to see that funny scene again. But that often freezes the video, or misses some video when the stream restarts. It's not smooth, at all. Why is that?
Let's lay out some facts and info on the mechanics of streaming...
As mentioned earlier, streaming means content is slowly downloaded to your TV in real time while you are watching. It's not downloaded all at once beforehand.
Occasional and brief hiccups (network latency and throughput issues) may occur and can't be helped. This is simply the nature of a packet-switched network, like the internet. So, by maintaining 15 to 30 seconds of future unwatched video in a forward buffer in your TV, the likelihood of these brief networking issues affecting your playback experience are dramatically reduced. Usually there's none at all.
Frames of video are downloaded in short clips called segments.
This forward buffer of unwatched video is comprised of several segments. The length of a segment can vary, but it's typically five seconds or so.
Digital video, like movie film, is really just a series of individual pictures (called frames) strung together and replayed quickly enough to trick the brain, making it appear as smooth continuous motion. Cinematic motion pictures in the US are 24 FPS (Frames Per Second). TV today is to 30 to 60 FPS.
Video Compression
Let's take an aside here to discuss video compression. Understanding what compression does (not how which is crazy complicated, but simply what) will help you understand things as I continue. This is a simplistic aside but it's good enough.
Before video compression was invented, digital video, like a two-hour movie, would take up enormous amounts of storage and bandwidth when streamed. So much, in fact, that streaming wouldn't be practical at all. It wouldn't exist as a consumer product.
Modern video compression works by compressing individual frames much like how still images are, and then aggressively compressing changes across time (subsequent images) using motion prediction.
e.g. A five second clip of an overall scene of two people dining will require 120 frames of video at 24 FPS. Unless the couple is wildly flinging food and wine at one another, then the motion or action in this five second clip will be quite minimal -- mostly subtle head movements and arm motions bringing food from plate to mouth.
Without compression, all 120 frames will be fully detailed, complete, standalone images. The difference between any two consecutive frames are nearly indistinguishable. That's a lot of redundant data that could be harmlessly discarded if only there were a way.
Well, there is a way. The very first frame of that five second clip is the only complete image and all the subsequent frames only include what had changed from the preceding frame. Since our dining couple is sitting, not moving much, then very little new image data is included on the subsequent frames. That can reduce the amount of storage needed by two or three orders of magnitude. In other words, less than 1% of the uncompressed clip. That's a massive reduction and is what makes streaming possible.
Algorithmic prediction errors accumulate over time, so this technique has to be periodically reset by inserting a fully detailed, self-contained frame that stands on its own.
Now you have a basic understanding of what video compression does. So let's continue...
In digital video compression, there are three types of frames.
- I-Frames, contain a complete, stand-alone, and fully detailed image. Sometimes called a "Key Frame".
- B-Frames, contain only the changes from the previous and next frame.
- P-Frames, contain only the changes from the previous frame.
A complete grouping of exactly one I frame and several B and P frames are collectively called a GOP (Group Of Pictures). A GOP always starts with an I frame and it's several seconds long, usually no more, like our dining scene above. Thus, a full video is simply a whole bunch of GOPs, thousands, all strung together.
A series of video frames might look like this.
I B B P B B P B B I B B P B B P B B
^ ^
Keyframe Keyframe
GOP #1 GOP #2
Depending on how much action (motion) there is in a given GOP, the compression algorithm may adjust the number of B and P frames it contains.
The GOP is the smallest unit of useable video. The next unit, the segment, contains at least one GOP but may contain several if the GOPs are shorter.
Video, again, is downloaded in segments and buffered, waiting their turn to be played.
When you press replay (or whatever it's called on your device) on a streaming device, you trigger a process that streaming systems are not designed to handle efficiently.
Video "beyond the play head" (that is, already played) has already been discarded, so the player cannot simply "rewind" locally. Instead, it must abandon its current decoding state, discard much or all of the forward buffer, request earlier segments from the server, rebuild the forward buffer, and restart decoding at the nearest keyframe. That's a lot of work including out of sequence requests made to the streaming server.
Repeatedly tapping replay will repeatedly cancel and restart this process, often destabilizing the player and sometimes forcing a full restart of playback. This is a structural limitation of segmented, compressed streaming video, not a bug per se'.
TVs and streaming devices with slow processors and poorly written decoding and rendering software are less able to cope with the demands required by a replay. That's another reason to purchase an Apple TV streaming device. The process is the same, but the far more capable Apply TV device is less likely to suffer indigestion.
Final Thought
If you made it this far then thank you for reading! I hope you enjoyed this tour through the ages of television -- how it affected the industry and everyday people.
You now know more than most people about the evolution of TV. Even though this was really long, it barely scratched the surface of television's evolution through the years and the gigantic effect it has on culture.