On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:46 PM, ShirleyK wrote: > And then there are those like me who have cable -- not for TV but > for internet and phone. I can't figure out when people who work > have time to watch TV and make movies and process photos and read > email lists like this :-) I've got a TV screen in the bottom corner of my computer screen. Before that I'd use the laptop in the TV room. > I do agree that many people who barely make it from paycheck to > paycheck will consider TV a necessity and will do whatever > necessary to get their daily fix. I was in the hollers of Appalachia 10 years ago (this is a very rural, very poor area of the USA), and people who were living in houses with no indoor plumbing had those huge satellite dishes. When we asked about it to some folks who worked and lived there, they said "It's all they have." Which is to say that I would not expect that the "underclass" will stop watching TV. I used to think there was nothing worth watching on TV either until we got TiVo. I haven't seen a commercial for a couple years (and although TiVo is going to try to target ads, there's still a 30- second skip button. It's one thing to flash a message before your eyes while you fast-forward... but skipping entirely is quite different. On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Brian Olesky wrote: On Jul 19, 2005, at 4:29 AM, Paul Moortgat wrote: > >BBC work without commercials. > > How does the BBC work without commercials? Somebody has to foot the > bill. Taxpayers? You have to pay an annual fee per TV in your house. When my sister lived there she said it was the first bill they received when they moved in. The idea that people are going to just stop watching TV is great. If that's your decision, great, but thinking that it's going to be a huge trend is rather laughable. TjL