As a side note, the term Old people Media gives me gentle, warming thoughts of a crisp backhander - It's a smarmy, arrogant, bullshit term thrown around far too indiscriminately, most often by (not including yourself) elitist, arrogant people who want to feel justified in putting themselves on a pedestal, just because they've had a few less birthdays than someone else, because they've got a chip on their shoulder about being dismissed in the past for being young.
I agree, in that if I slip into the ways that I so complain about in my old age, any criticism of me will be fully warranted.
But "television" and "radio" as they are regulated in your context are relics. They're regulated in a way that is irrelevant to the upcoming generation. "Television" to these kids is the Internet, or in the very least cable shows where they can time-shift them with DVRs and there is all the swearing/tits they could ever desire. "Radio" is something they stream on the Internet.
The meaningful future of media in the US is barely regulated if at all from a "free speech" perspective, and the restrictions on archaic media are increasingly irrelevant.
Well, that would be useless. Also, that guy cites completely the wrong reason for Australia going into Vietnam(He says Gulf of Tonkin, it was actually the US asking us to come along, two years prior to the Gulf of Tonkin), just to make a point, which I think is a little bit off.
I agree, in that if I slip into the ways that I so complain about in my old age, any criticism of me will be fully warranted.
I think we've established by now that being warranted doesn't always restrain me from criticizing you at times.
But "television" and "radio" as they are regulated in your context are relics. They're regulated in a way that is irrelevant to the upcoming generation. "Television" to these kids is the Internet, or in the very least cable shows where they can time-shift them with DVRs and there is all the swearing/tits they could ever desire. "Radio" is something they stream on the Internet.
Yes, this is true, but you're missing the point. The way they are REGULATED CURRENTLY is a relic, but that doesn't mean that you throw out the whole thing a relic, it means you Update the bloody regulations.
See, This is one of my problems with Yourself and Scott, or at least one of our common differences in opinion - I still see value in using things which are older, or you'd consider obsolete, if they can be fixed to keep up with what's new, or to take advantage of new technology, or to provide things that new tech cannot yet - a situation where I can do on a lathe things you cannot do on a computer-controlled 3d printer.
I mean, down here, I can watch some TV shows on demand from my cable provider, buy individual TV channels, and both the ABC and SBS stream content online and leave it available later - Fuck, ABC even has an ever-expanding youtube archive of old and new content, in the best quality they can realistically manage. You can Ask questions directly to politicians, Ministers, Pundits, and so on using Twitter, on a show here called Q&A; - a show run and paid for by the government, every Monday. It's what you would declare as obsolete old media, but being fixed to keep up with the new age. Sure, You can't just jump on the SBS or ABC sites and watch our shows along with us, but hey, reap what you sow.
I see value in the newspapers - and moving them over to a digital format for the most part, using traditional techniques to provide something useful in the digital age - Because I'm sorry, but Johnny Q blogfucker still can't replace an actual, experienced journalist for quality of reporting, only speed - and it's speed that comes at a cost of everything else that makes it useful - not that papers always follow a terribly high standard on this score, but I digress. I'm sorry, despite what you'd like to hear, some people still just prefer newspapers because they like them, and that doesn't make them stupid. It's okay to like different things, you know this as well as I do.
Radio is still useful, because not everybody wants to sit around and pick songs for a playlist, or bother with music only, or go to the effort of finding podcasts, or any of that shit - but down here, at least, Radio stations are somewhat keeping up. I can listen to all the major radio stations via my phone, plus a number of their specialized stations that I can't normally get via a regular radio, such as Triple J's new unearthed station, which is streaming and DAB only. We have specific streams and stations that go to different events - such as covering football games for particular areas, or being able to know what's playing at a festival, or tune to different streams to get different stages. And of course, all the major networks have podcasts for every show, and many who have extra podcasts editing together content throughout the day, like the Spoonman podcast, which edits together all of Brian Carlton's news reporting through the day. It should also be noted that satellite radio isn't as popular here, because we already have DAB radio commonly in use - Instead of using satellite radio to replace Muzak, as the US has done, for example, many businesses instead use DAB, and have their own internal radio stations.
It's not a matter of Obsolescence, it's a matter of you failing to do anything else but throw out the old in exchange for whatever is the new shiny toy, because your nation can't seem to get a handle on not fucking it up.
The meaningful future of media in the US is barely regulated if at all from a "free speech" perspective, and the restrictions on archaic media are increasingly irrelevant.
The only reason it's irrelevant is because you've got no sense of a broader picture. You watch all your TV online? Great! Where does the majority of that come from and for what market is it made?
And this is a low blow, I know, but Tell me, Rym, Where do the ponies come from, and in what format were they made to be shown? Lemmie give you a hint, it's not the internet. That's right, without "Old people Media", no ponies to begin with, let alone season 2, or three.
You seem unable to face a particular truth here - that the majority of professionally produced content - in the sense of shows, music, animation and the like - was made for Television and put on the Internet later. Shit, the Majority of legitimate Internet Television, no matter if you like it or not, is run by the TV networks, and the ones that don't run it with their permission.
Though, I'd hardly give up the wonderful irony that the majority of people who love to crow about how they never watch TV and only use the internet to see shows use things like hulu or Netflix, upon which they watch the same "Old media" shows they decry, made and sponsored by the same old media they call obsolete, and only there because of the old media that they call clueless gave permission.
I know I'm not getting it across as well as I could, but I'm sure you see my basic point: To discard these things as obsolete just because - in the form that you are familiar with in your area - they have fixable but present problems is foolish in the extreme. Fix the problems, don't just throw it out, man, that's what I'm asking you to do. Change the old, incorporate the new, recreate both, and make the fuckin' future. Fuck the ship of Theseus, use all the bits you can to build a sweet fuckin' boat!
The way they are REGULATED CURRENTLY is a relic, but that doesn't mean that you throw out the whole thing a relic, it means you Update the bloody regulations.
Our government is incapable of that.
However, cable, satellite, and Internet distribution channels can get away with what terrestrial broadcast can't, and regulators will never be able to control them enough to matter. Terrestrial broadcast of audio and video is a relic partly because the regulation on it makes no sense and can't actually be changed due to political bullshit.
I'm not saying "television" as a format for media is dead. I'm saying push distribution of fixed content over the air to dedicated display-connected devices is dead. I'm saying that push audio over the air is dead. The technology itself, not the content, is dead.
It's what you would declare as obsolete old media, but being fixed to keep up with the new age.
Why not just make it fully online? They'll have to in the end anyway.
I see value in the newspapers - and moving them over to a digital format for the most part, using traditional techniques to provide something useful in the digital age - Because I'm sorry, but Johnny Q blogfucker still can't replace an actual, experienced journalist for quality of reporting,
Newspapers are pointless and dead. Journalism is necessary. I couldn't care less that dead trees are dead as a means of news distribution, but I do want professional journalism to continue in different media. I would even be willing to pay for it. All that's dead is the dead tree model of distribution and the fail-ready model of re-re-re-syndication of AP-wire style fact reporting.
The only reason it's irrelevant is because you've got no sense of a broader picture. You watch all your TV online? Great! Where does the majority of that come from and for what market is it made?
How "TV" shows are made is irrelevant to the medium itself. In fact, the more popular "TV" series lately are shown on "private" television networks and are able to circumvent the pointless and ancient regulation on terrestrial broadcast media. If anything, alternative distribution channels (cable, satellite, Internet) allow MORE creative freedom and better content.
Though, I'd hardly give up the wonderful irony that the majority of people who love to crow about how they never watch TV and only use the internet to see shows use things like hulu or Netflix, upon which they watch the same "Old media" shows they decry, made and sponsored by the same old media they call obsolete, and only there because of the old media that they call clueless gave permission.
The content is fine: the distribution model (push at set times) is stupid. When people say that they don't watch "TV," they usually mean they don't have to deal with the shitty distribution means of traditional television: they're not referring to the content itself.
And this is a low blow, I know, but Tell me, Rym, Where do the ponies come from, and in what format were they made to be shown? Lemmie give you a hint, it's not the internet. That's right, without "Old people Media", no ponies to begin with, let alone season 2, or three.
If the only way to see even Ponies was to have a cable subscription and to watch/record it at a specific time, I wouldn't have watched it in the first place. The distribution method itself is the problem, and I can't be assed to watch ANYTHING that makes me deal with it in any capacity. If it's not on the Internet, and can't be bought for a reasonable price standalone, it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.
To discard these things as obsolete just because - in the form that you are familiar with in your area - they have fixable but present problems is foolish in the extreme. Fix the problems, don't just throw it out, man, that's what I'm asking you to do.
I'm only talking about the physical delivery technology. Terrestrial broadcast is dead to the future, especially since our government is incapable of updating its regulations regarding it.
If there were no podcasts and no audio streams anywhere on the Internet, I still would not listen to terrestrial radio.
Ahh, I don't drive. But when I do, I stream podcasts.
;^)
I do that a lot but I sometimes like to do the "Lets see what NPR has on" and then I a lot of times learn about something I wouldn't hear about if I stuck to my own stuff. So I tend to make a point to spend a little time with push content since if you hang with the right stuff (like NPR) you'll usually encounter stuff you wouldn't normally.
Why not just make it fully online? They'll have to in the end anyway.
Simple preposition, really - a better question to ask yourself is Why would they make it fully online, when that currently would put a big dent in their viewer/reader/listenership numbers? They will, in time, but as it stands, the business model of having both is more appealing - Think about it, If you have a massive, massive market that makes you hundreds of millions of dollars, would you toss it away to explore a new market? Especially if you had to answer to shareholders. While it's easy to predict what they will do in the future, that's not always a good reason for doing it right the hell now instead.
Our government is incapable of that.
Currently, I sadly agree.
I'm not saying "television" as a format for media is dead. I'm saying push distribution of fixed content over the air to dedicated display-connected devices is dead. I'm saying that push audio over the air is dead. The technology itself, not the content, is dead.
Again, I disagree, but I can see where you're coming from - it's a problem that needs to be fixed, but it doesn't make obsolete the technology. For example, channel diversification - Down here, we have digital TV broadcasting, leading to more specialized channels in the same manner as cable, freely available, and we've got the analog turn-off coming soon(77 days, to be exact). It allows for Multiplexing(aka, different shows on the same channel at the same time), datacasting, and some real fancy stuff like on demand high-bandwidth one way data broadcasting - and unlike the US, we don't have hundreds of broadcasters, so we have a much greater amount of bandwidth available to each broadcaster allowing for a much larger number of individual feeds per station. It's not Perfect, but it's a long stride from before.
How "TV" shows are made is irrelevant to the medium itself. In fact, the more popular "TV" series lately are shown on "private" television networks and are able to circumvent the pointless and ancient regulation on terrestrial broadcast media. If anything, alternative distribution channels (cable, satellite, Internet) allow MORE creative freedom and better content.
I know you believe your government to be incapable of this, but still, I see this as far more of an argument for changing the archaic regulations, rather than dismissing TV generally.
Newspapers are pointless and dead. Journalism is necessary. I couldn't care less that dead trees are dead as a means of news distribution, but I do want professional journalism to continue in different media. I would even be willing to pay for it. All that's dead is the dead tree model of distribution and the fail-ready model of re-re-re-syndication of AP-wire style fact reporting.
I think this is a difference in terms. If, say, the New York Times went All-digital tomorrow, and entirely ceased to produce paper copy, I'd still call it a newspaper, because I don't consider the word "Newspaper" to really be a function of the physical object anymore. It's a question of style and method over physical medium, sort of like how we tend to call image manipulation Photoshopping even if it's not done in photoshop - HOWEVER, the confusion arising from my use of the term is my fault, not yours.
The content is fine: the distribution model (push at set times) is stupid. When people say that they don't watch "TV," they usually mean they don't have to deal with the shitty distribution means of traditional television: they're not referring to the content itself.
I'm not saying about people who say "I don't watch TV", but specifically people who carry on about "old media", a term which would include the very people who produce the shows they're consuming. I know you can watch things without TV. Come on mate, don't take the piss, I'm the village idiot around here but even I'm not that stupid.
If the only way to see even Ponies was to have a cable subscription and to watch/record it at a specific time, I wouldn't have watched it in the first place. The distribution method itself is the problem, and I can't be assed to watch ANYTHING that makes me deal with it in any capacity. If it's not on the Internet, and can't be bought for a reasonable price standalone, it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.
I have this odd warm Feeling...like you're pissing in my pocket. I'm pretty sure you watched an unauthorized broadcast when you first watched it, and let's face it, one of the strengths of the internet is that practically everything is on the internet, via official sources or unofficial. Fact is, if I remember your own telling of events right, you were watching the ponies at a point where they wanted you to deal with it, but you dodged it by checking it out illegally.
As for watching and recording at specific times, these are not a huge problem - I don't watch a huge amount of TV in the traditional sit-down-go-channel-surfing sense, or the sit-down-at-the-appointed-time sense. I don't have to. I have a fuckin' DVR, and I can record anything I like whenever it's on and watch it at my leisure, as I tend to do - After all, I can't be arsed sitting about on a Sunday waiting for Dr Who to come on. I don't want to be hanging around on a Friday switching around between the AFL Premiership, the Rugby Final, and Better homes and gardens, because I don't want to miss any of them, I've got fuckin' drinking to do. With what amounts to a clever signal receiver and a hard-drive, I have defeated at least 3/4 of the problem, and down here, Cable is alright, but it's mostly good for watching foreign shows as soon as they come out, or for the broader range of specialty content - For example, one of our government channels, ABC, shows Dr Who ASAP after it's been aired in the UK, and SBS shows Mythbusters ASAP after the US airing, but if I want to watch a lot more discovery channel stuff, I have to pony up to get discovery cable, and that only really counts if the huge amount of good programming on the regular channels isn't enough for you.
Again, solving problems rather than discarding the whole thing. Titanic doesn't sink when you don't steer it into a fuckin' iceburg.
If there were no podcasts and no audio streams anywhere on the Internet, I still would not listen to terrestrial radio.
*Laughs* I was actually about to say "You wouldn't listen to Triple J, Triple Zed, or Triple J unearthed?" and then I remembered that's not terrestrial radio for you, and remembered that from what I've heard of US radio - admittedly quite a bit of it from people making fun of it, but I still have heard quite a bit - You're quite low on good stations there.
Ahh, I don't drive. But when I do, I stream podcasts.
Triple J or Triple M for me, and if they're shite...well, I'm a bit fucked, the radio in the van isn't exactly the newest thing in the world, all the money went into the running gear rather than the entertainment system.
NOW FOR A LEFT TURN COMPLETE SIDE NOTE Found a show I think you're going to like, Twentysomething. Here's the wiki link, and I'm sure you can figure out how to get a hold of it.
I admit I may be a bit old fashioned, but I still prefer "real" TV to watch my TV shows as opposed to internet streaming or whatever. Then again, I own a DVR and typically only watch live TV when watching live sports or when I just need some background noise when doing something else where I don't want to focus too much on the TV show (cooking, folding laundry, cleaning. etc.). I certainly will not be shedding tears when the time comes that internet distribution can fully replace standard TV, but I don't think it's quite there yet -- at least for my personal usage model of TV.
Now terrestrial radio, however, I hope it doesn't go completely internet -- mostly because the power demands of a traditional radio are much less than that of a smart phone or any other device doing internet streaming. NPR and the like will almost certainly live on as internet streams, but it's nice to have a traditional radio broadcast that you can listen to on a $20 radio that can run for a week or two on 4 AA batteries when you're going through a blackout.
Generally, I also listen to podcasts when driving, but I'll flip the radio over to NPR or the least douchey sports talk station in the area when I'm all caught up on my favorite podcasts.
Now terrestrial radio, however, I hope it doesn't go completely internet -- mostly because the power demands of a traditional radio are much less than that of a smart phone or any other device doing internet streaming. NPR and the like will almost certainly live on as internet streams, but it's nice to have a traditional radio broadcast that you can listen to on a $20 radio that can run for a week or two on 4 AA batteries when you're going through a blackout.
It's trivial to include the capability into phones, and they've been doing it for years - In fact, the last two nokias I had(before I switched to iphone), every phone in the last ten years my parents have had, have all been capable of picking up regular and DAB radio. Even the Galaxy S2 has an FM receiver, as did it's predecessor, and a few other android phones.
Now terrestrial radio, however, I hope it doesn't go completely internet -- mostly because the power demands of a traditional radio are much less than that of a smart phone or any other device doing internet streaming. NPR and the like will almost certainly live on as internet streams, but it's nice to have a traditional radio broadcast that you can listen to on a $20 radio that can run for a week or two on 4 AA batteries when you're going through a blackout.
It's trivial to include the capability into phones, and they've been doing it for years - In fact, the last two nokias I had(before I switched to iphone), every phone in the last ten years my parents have had, have all been capable of picking up regular and DAB radio. Even the Galaxy S2 has an FM receiver, as did it's predecessor, and a few other android phones.
I've heard about many phones with FM receivers. However, you still need the FM transmitters to make it work and that's what I'm arguing on keeping (okay, AM also works reasonably well enough for purposes of getting news, at least). I also don't know what the power drain is on a phone with FM receivers -- again, it's hard to argue against having something that runs for a week on 4 AA batteries as a last ditch backup.
I've heard about many phones with FM receivers. However, you still need the FM transmitters to make it work and that's what I'm arguing on keeping (okay, AM also works reasonably well enough for purposes of getting news, at least). I also don't know what the power drain is on a phone with FM receivers -- again, it's hard to argue against having something that runs for a week on 4 AA batteries as a last ditch backup.
Well, FM or DAB signals, anyway, which I doubt will be going away anytime soon - consider, most people in the populace, average people, will still use the radio more than MP3 players or podcasts. Most workplaces will use FM or DAB rather than recorded radio or Podcasts - shit, I've hardly been on a worksite that doesn't have a radio blaring Triple M somewhere around.
As for battery use by FM receivers, it's not so bad, has no serious increase in battery use VS just playing audio from the device, at least by my observation.
As for battery use by FM receivers, it's not so bad, has no serious increase in battery use VS just playing audio from the device, at least by my observation.
Well, when we were without power for nearly a week after Tropical Storm Irene, local health clubs, schools, etc., that did have power were opening their doors and telling people they could recharge their cell pones for free even if they weren't members. My cell phone, even when idling, could only go about 24 hours on a single charge at best and maybe half that, tops while playing music. I was lucky in that I could still charge it in my car, at work, or even optionally at one of these locations. However, if the power outage was more widespread such that I couldn't charge it in any of these locations, I'd be out of luck.
FM radio on a cell phone? Definitely a good idea as an option (not a requirement, as some in the radio lobby have tried to push through here). However, it's still not a replacement for a battery powered stand-alone radio in emergency situations.
FM radio on a cell phone? Definitely a good idea as an option (not a requirement, as some in the radio lobby have tried to push through here). However, it's still not a replacement for a battery powered stand-alone radio in emergency situations.
Agreed, not at this point - but that's less a function of the FM radio itself, than all the other shit people tend to do with their Mobile phones, let alone the fact that smartphone battery life is already abominable compared to older phones, even my nokia smartphone would last for two weeks, if I used it as normal - three weeks minimum, if I just used the FM bit.
My old Creative Labs Nano had an FM radio and record-from-radio built in. I loved that thing.
I had and maybe still have an old iRiver, the ones with the belt clip - it was fucking excellent, lasted forever on a single AA, and had a radio built in.
Sony mp3 players have excellent battery life and offer FM listening, though I think only the S Series players have recording. All recent Sandisk mp3 players have FM listening and recording, though from what I can tell the recording is broken on the Fuze +.
So, I remember you guys (that's Scrym, not all of you, natch) talked about how Know Your Meme wouldn't work as a TV series. So today I ramdomly came about this channel on YouTube. I know I'm already embedded in the culture (and so would possinly be a poor judge of usability), but I found these informed and requiring no prior experience to get into.
I know I'm already embedded in the culture (and so would possinly be a poor judge of usability), but I found these informed and requiring no prior experience to get into.
So imagine someone who isn't quite clear on what Youtube is.
I meant: "If there was a will to put it on TV, it's all but ready for syndication" . And I know it's a big "if", but the claim was (I'm paraphrasing) that KYM is about as useful as a tool to teach Internets, as the OED is to teach English-as-a-Second-Language. I think we don't give people enough credit.
If you are on Android, I recommend checking out LIFTTT, which essentially does the same thing. Came out 2 days ago and I am quite pleased with it so far. It uses geofencing to send custom emails to your IFTTT trigger address, which can then kick off any recipe you'd like. I use mine to turn on my house lights via Belkin Wemo switch if I get within 250m of the property after sundown.
If you are on Android, I recommend checking out LIFTTT, which essentially does the same thing. Came out 2 days ago and I am quite pleased with it so far. It uses geofencing to send custom emails to your IFTTT trigger address, which can then kick off any recipe you'd like. I use mine to turn on my house lights via Belkin Wemo switch if I get within 250m of the property after sundown.
I think the point is that IFTTT just made LIFTTT completely pointless.
If you are on Android, I recommend checking out LIFTTT, which essentially does the same thing. Came out 2 days ago and I am quite pleased with it so far. It uses geofencing to send custom emails to your IFTTT trigger address, which can then kick off any recipe you'd like. I use mine to turn on my house lights via Belkin Wemo switch if I get within 250m of the property after sundown.
I think the point is that IFTTT just made LIFTTT completely pointless.
Comments
But "television" and "radio" as they are regulated in your context are relics. They're regulated in a way that is irrelevant to the upcoming generation. "Television" to these kids is the Internet, or in the very least cable shows where they can time-shift them with DVRs and there is all the swearing/tits they could ever desire. "Radio" is something they stream on the Internet.
The meaningful future of media in the US is barely regulated if at all from a "free speech" perspective, and the restrictions on archaic media are increasingly irrelevant.
See, This is one of my problems with Yourself and Scott, or at least one of our common differences in opinion - I still see value in using things which are older, or you'd consider obsolete, if they can be fixed to keep up with what's new, or to take advantage of new technology, or to provide things that new tech cannot yet - a situation where I can do on a lathe things you cannot do on a computer-controlled 3d printer.
I mean, down here, I can watch some TV shows on demand from my cable provider, buy individual TV channels, and both the ABC and SBS stream content online and leave it available later - Fuck, ABC even has an ever-expanding youtube archive of old and new content, in the best quality they can realistically manage. You can Ask questions directly to politicians, Ministers, Pundits, and so on using Twitter, on a show here called Q&A; - a show run and paid for by the government, every Monday. It's what you would declare as obsolete old media, but being fixed to keep up with the new age. Sure, You can't just jump on the SBS or ABC sites and watch our shows along with us, but hey, reap what you sow.
I see value in the newspapers - and moving them over to a digital format for the most part, using traditional techniques to provide something useful in the digital age - Because I'm sorry, but Johnny Q blogfucker still can't replace an actual, experienced journalist for quality of reporting, only speed - and it's speed that comes at a cost of everything else that makes it useful - not that papers always follow a terribly high standard on this score, but I digress. I'm sorry, despite what you'd like to hear, some people still just prefer newspapers because they like them, and that doesn't make them stupid. It's okay to like different things, you know this as well as I do.
Radio is still useful, because not everybody wants to sit around and pick songs for a playlist, or bother with music only, or go to the effort of finding podcasts, or any of that shit - but down here, at least, Radio stations are somewhat keeping up. I can listen to all the major radio stations via my phone, plus a number of their specialized stations that I can't normally get via a regular radio, such as Triple J's new unearthed station, which is streaming and DAB only. We have specific streams and stations that go to different events - such as covering football games for particular areas, or being able to know what's playing at a festival, or tune to different streams to get different stages. And of course, all the major networks have podcasts for every show, and many who have extra podcasts editing together content throughout the day, like the Spoonman podcast, which edits together all of Brian Carlton's news reporting through the day.
It should also be noted that satellite radio isn't as popular here, because we already have DAB radio commonly in use - Instead of using satellite radio to replace Muzak, as the US has done, for example, many businesses instead use DAB, and have their own internal radio stations.
It's not a matter of Obsolescence, it's a matter of you failing to do anything else but throw out the old in exchange for whatever is the new shiny toy, because your nation can't seem to get a handle on not fucking it up. The only reason it's irrelevant is because you've got no sense of a broader picture. You watch all your TV online? Great! Where does the majority of that come from and for what market is it made?
And this is a low blow, I know, but Tell me, Rym, Where do the ponies come from, and in what format were they made to be shown? Lemmie give you a hint, it's not the internet. That's right, without "Old people Media", no ponies to begin with, let alone season 2, or three.
You seem unable to face a particular truth here - that the majority of professionally produced content - in the sense of shows, music, animation and the like - was made for Television and put on the Internet later. Shit, the Majority of legitimate Internet Television, no matter if you like it or not, is run by the TV networks, and the ones that don't run it with their permission.
Though, I'd hardly give up the wonderful irony that the majority of people who love to crow about how they never watch TV and only use the internet to see shows use things like hulu or Netflix, upon which they watch the same "Old media" shows they decry, made and sponsored by the same old media they call obsolete, and only there because of the old media that they call clueless gave permission.
I know I'm not getting it across as well as I could, but I'm sure you see my basic point: To discard these things as obsolete just because - in the form that you are familiar with in your area - they have fixable but present problems is foolish in the extreme. Fix the problems, don't just throw it out, man, that's what I'm asking you to do. Change the old, incorporate the new, recreate both, and make the fuckin' future. Fuck the ship of Theseus, use all the bits you can to build a sweet fuckin' boat!
However, cable, satellite, and Internet distribution channels can get away with what terrestrial broadcast can't, and regulators will never be able to control them enough to matter. Terrestrial broadcast of audio and video is a relic partly because the regulation on it makes no sense and can't actually be changed due to political bullshit.
I'm not saying "television" as a format for media is dead. I'm saying push distribution of fixed content over the air to dedicated display-connected devices is dead. I'm saying that push audio over the air is dead. The technology itself, not the content, is dead. Why not just make it fully online? They'll have to in the end anyway. Newspapers are pointless and dead. Journalism is necessary. I couldn't care less that dead trees are dead as a means of news distribution, but I do want professional journalism to continue in different media. I would even be willing to pay for it. All that's dead is the dead tree model of distribution and the fail-ready model of re-re-re-syndication of AP-wire style fact reporting. How "TV" shows are made is irrelevant to the medium itself. In fact, the more popular "TV" series lately are shown on "private" television networks and are able to circumvent the pointless and ancient regulation on terrestrial broadcast media. If anything, alternative distribution channels (cable, satellite, Internet) allow MORE creative freedom and better content. The content is fine: the distribution model (push at set times) is stupid. When people say that they don't watch "TV," they usually mean they don't have to deal with the shitty distribution means of traditional television: they're not referring to the content itself. If the only way to see even Ponies was to have a cable subscription and to watch/record it at a specific time, I wouldn't have watched it in the first place. The distribution method itself is the problem, and I can't be assed to watch ANYTHING that makes me deal with it in any capacity. If it's not on the Internet, and can't be bought for a reasonable price standalone, it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.
If there were no podcasts and no audio streams anywhere on the Internet, I still would not listen to terrestrial radio.
;^)
Fact is, if I remember your own telling of events right, you were watching the ponies at a point where they wanted you to deal with it, but you dodged it by checking it out illegally.
As for watching and recording at specific times, these are not a huge problem - I don't watch a huge amount of TV in the traditional sit-down-go-channel-surfing sense, or the sit-down-at-the-appointed-time sense. I don't have to. I have a fuckin' DVR, and I can record anything I like whenever it's on and watch it at my leisure, as I tend to do - After all, I can't be arsed sitting about on a Sunday waiting for Dr Who to come on. I don't want to be hanging around on a Friday switching around between the AFL Premiership, the Rugby Final, and Better homes and gardens, because I don't want to miss any of them, I've got fuckin' drinking to do. With what amounts to a clever signal receiver and a hard-drive, I have defeated at least 3/4 of the problem, and down here, Cable is alright, but it's mostly good for watching foreign shows as soon as they come out, or for the broader range of specialty content - For example, one of our government channels, ABC, shows Dr Who ASAP after it's been aired in the UK, and SBS shows Mythbusters ASAP after the US airing, but if I want to watch a lot more discovery channel stuff, I have to pony up to get discovery cable, and that only really counts if the huge amount of good programming on the regular channels isn't enough for you.
Again, solving problems rather than discarding the whole thing. Titanic doesn't sink when you don't steer it into a fuckin' iceburg. *Laughs* I was actually about to say "You wouldn't listen to Triple J, Triple Zed, or Triple J unearthed?" and then I remembered that's not terrestrial radio for you, and remembered that from what I've heard of US radio - admittedly quite a bit of it from people making fun of it, but I still have heard quite a bit - You're quite low on good stations there. Triple J or Triple M for me, and if they're shite...well, I'm a bit fucked, the radio in the van isn't exactly the newest thing in the world, all the money went into the running gear rather than the entertainment system.
NOW FOR A LEFT TURN COMPLETE SIDE NOTE
Found a show I think you're going to like, Twentysomething. Here's the wiki link, and I'm sure you can figure out how to get a hold of it.
Now terrestrial radio, however, I hope it doesn't go completely internet -- mostly because the power demands of a traditional radio are much less than that of a smart phone or any other device doing internet streaming. NPR and the like will almost certainly live on as internet streams, but it's nice to have a traditional radio broadcast that you can listen to on a $20 radio that can run for a week or two on 4 AA batteries when you're going through a blackout.
Generally, I also listen to podcasts when driving, but I'll flip the radio over to NPR or the least douchey sports talk station in the area when I'm all caught up on my favorite podcasts.
As for battery use by FM receivers, it's not so bad, has no serious increase in battery use VS just playing audio from the device, at least by my observation.
FM radio on a cell phone? Definitely a good idea as an option (not a requirement, as some in the radio lobby have tried to push through here). However, it's still not a replacement for a battery powered stand-alone radio in emergency situations.