Talk:Television consumption

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Television consumption article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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)[reply]

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

.

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

resolution,

and using so much outdated video codec:

are very often encrypted and paid.

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

.

I have seen a lot of switch off to just

just recent years.

After years of availability of better quality in Free YT

.

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

And even popular "Free"

.

And there is next generation video codec available: VVC.

And there are materials in

.

You could check that on such website monitoring TV like kingofsat.
There is plenty of

in countries like:

SDTV

resolution

There are not many

VOD

service. Using low quality and outdated video codecs for first world is also used not just to promote paid encrypted . It is also done to try halt / stop/ hinder the competition on TV market. Because if 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

Language Textual Information TV Broadcast.
For example: instead bill for compatible receivers.
The same for different couples of resolutions or .

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.

. 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 receivers.

Another there are objective reasons and independent of why TV station could not switch TV broadcasting video codec easily: because in case

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

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

long before trust poles fallen so low.

Resuming,

TV station Broadcast ceased to be Top technical of quality as it always were through out history up to:
.

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

TV.
It is simply perceived that they can watch smarter, wiser and even better technical quality content on free TV.

One can argue that people need to pay for access to internet, where as

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 servers and massive ip traffic.
(When designed for low viewership can be cheaper)

==Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabellar066, Keaganr11, Krobertson00 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Isabellar066.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SlipperySpinner (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AquaticBanana.

— Assignment last updated by AquaticBanana (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]