It seems as though TV is in a transitional state. What changes, if any, do you see in store for Television as we know it in terms of these issues:

-Poor ratings/sub-quality shows
-less network viewers/more cable viewers
-types of cable subscription/a la carte billing
-less FCC regulation for networks
-more liberties on cable shows regarding language, nudity, & violence
-the death and/or birth of more niche cable channels
-"reality" TV dying out or getting more popular
-more or less advertiser influence with 100's more channels
-influence of the internet on TV and all of the above aspects
-any other issues I forgot to mention.

I'm curious to hear everyones opinion.

I think there will always be a small demand for great dramas on HBO, FX, Showtime, etc. and it will always be strong enough to warrant at least a few shows. I think networks are dealing us too many series nowadays and the common person just got burnt out. I see a decline in viewership but it will eventually get back up there. Reality television and game shows will never die out, people enjoy watching others fail and that isn't a dying breed -- unfortunately. I see less FCC regulation for late night and cable networks, but not local channels.

Maybe all tv stations will one day have to go online and become global rather than national networks.

A couple of possibilities:
1) There will be some consolidation... the dilution of TV through the # of channels has caused more poor programming which causes advertising issues, which causes cost cutting and more poor programming and round and round we go... until the weak networks start getting picked off
2) Network (free) channels will become purely news, reality and ultra cheap programming and I think this trend started with reality TV and with NBC you are seeing the next step with the elimination of the 10 pm slot (by sticking Leno there). Even if this doesn't have the ratings, it is cheaper then putting on original programming and networks will start looking at production cost per rating point (or per advertising dollar) ratios
3) For extremely good,highly rated programming you may see a switch to a pay per view/pay per season model.
4) As always, TV will continue to look for new revenue streams - look for more product placement and potentially an expansion of the pop ups that show up already (you know the ones that typically advertise the next, or a new, show)
5) A continued migration from news reporting to news creation and using news to drive political points of view and agendas. This is already pretty bad but will become worse. You can see the trend in the US when any politician who gets in a scandal is either identified as a Republican or a politician who's party affiliation is not worth mentioning (Democrat)
6) Hollywood will attempt to eliminate TiVO/DVR recording (or get money from it)

I think the broadcast networks will survive in some form, but I see them airing programming that is not new. I think the DirecTv/FNL deal is in some ways the wave of the future. I also think the line between cable and Internet content is going to get really blurry in the future. I think there will be a lot of exclusive content deals and that those of us who don't subscribe to the satellite network/cable company/service that has the exclusive window will end up seeing that content on broadcast network TV.

I think that with this instant viewing thing, Netflix will soon enough start commissioning exclusive content. Let's take Dollhouse as an example -- if it bombs on Fox but seems to have a following, the numbers might work out in a manner that would allow Netflix to commission perhaps six episodes a year. Since their primary concern is not run time, these episodes might come in at 40 minutes or 100 minutes. Amazon might come in and underwrite Aaron Sorkin in a similar manner.

I do think national boundaries will also be blurred, though it's obvious that language boundaries will still exist. I could certainly see something like a BBC show getting picked up for a US run somewhere, for instance. It might also eventually become difficult to tell what is being produced primarily for what market.

Finally, I wonder if the TV/film like will be blurred. Could we be heading for a future where they'd make an event out of something like the series finale of LOST, airing it in theaters earlier than on TV?

This is something I see happening and I'm frankly surprised if they aren't in the beginning stages of developing "all on demand channels". Instead of having actual programming in specific time slots, they release one episode at a time on a particular day and you have one week to watch it. Example: 24 comes out on Monday on Fox on Demand, you have until the following Monday to watch it. After that it will be replaced by the next episode.

This way they will be able to eliminate DVR users and they'll be able to stick 30-60 second commercial spots in that we can't fast forward through.

Of course there are plenty of kinks in this plan. I don't know how they would handle live programming but its something I'm sure they're looking into. The networks are too smart to have DVR last too long.

13 ep seasons will be the norm very soon...

The way I figure it, there are only two real ways the movie/television industry can try and stop the DVR Industry. Either sue these companies for copyright infringement or try and force the companies to prevent their users from fast-forwarding through commercials.

The first way probably won't work because of the Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

However, the second could potentially work because the continued survival of television does depend on commercials/sponsorships, and if everyone can fast-forward through commercials, companies aren't going to pay for air-time. So eventually we will probably see a standard feature on DVRs that prevent you from fast-forwarding through commercials, unless you have already previously watched them (i.e. you watch a show with commercials, then re-watch it and can skip the commercials).

Still not sure if they could even force that though, because when people used to use VCRs to record shows and watch them later, they could skip commercials and we know that didn't die out or anything.

Less scripted shows in the 10 pm hour. The ratings already show a huge decline and I think NBC will be hailed as geniuses next year for the Leno thing.

Nice call there. This is essentially what it seems lots of the shows available online have going on. I imagine that the wrinkle will come in that they'll be happy to let you view it (heck, own it) for a nominal fee or a subscription to Fox on Demand.

I think live programming is less of a challenge than you imagine. I think you'll see a lot of there being a free tier of coverage of live events with PPV options for more extensive coverage. I'm thinking something like $50 for a Super Bowl package with the option of two different sets of announcers plus all the different camera angles or something like that.

First, we must get a sense of the big things that led to the current state of affairs, and there are three that I see. The first cause came in the 1990s, when the cast of "Friends" shook down NBC for a million bucks a cast member per episode. NBC paid them, because it was still the highest rated show at the time, but they paid close attention when CBS hit big time with "Survivor." Reality shows are in no danger of costing a network the kind of money a hit show like "Friends" cost NBC, and everyone knows it.

There were two consequences of this. First, the networks all started pushing reality shows. Secondly, as an unintended consequence, I think a lot of viewers were able to break their previous habits of watching scripted shows. Were they too caught up in reality shows, or were they turning off their TVs outright? Some of this, some of that, but the point is, the networks broke the cycle first.

Secondly, we as consumers began buying TV shows on DVD. Other than some classic shows like "The Andy Griffith Show" and cult favorites like "Star Trek," few TV series had ever warranted a home video release in the VHS era. DVD, though, afforded a much more practical and convenient way of producing TV shows for a home video format, and one thing many of us discovered is that we like watching a marathon of our favorite shows without commercial interruptions and without obnoxious graphics over our screens during the program itself. Effectively, we want the show, not the network.

Finally, independent of anything to do with TV networks, we as consumers have gotten used to having much more control over our entertainment options. The Internet, especially thanks to things like YouTube, have spoiled us. We can carry thousands of songs on an iPod the size of a cassette tape wherever we go. The idea of sitting and waiting for a network to air an episode of a TV show--buried under commercial advertisements--is simply unattractive to many younger viewers.

The most recent strike gave many viewers a chance to further break from their TV viewing habits, and for the younger viewers who weren't as enslaved to begin with (and whose attention spans are harder to capture), this could have been a turning point. How do you get younger viewers interested in scripted TV again?

Well, either you pander to them via on-demand marketing or you find a way of enslaving them the way you'd enslaved previous generations. I don't think this generation coming up can be captivated in the same way the rest of us were. One thing the networks are going to have to decide for themselves (the same way record labels are in the process of discovering) is that their pie is being cut too many ways for them to expect the same sized slices they're accustomed to eating. That means the guys at the top, too; just cutting middle-management jobs isn't going to save a company. The only thing they can realistically do is get used to not making as much money personally as they had been making.

Simply put, there are too many competitors vying for the youth dollar. Music is discovering that they're best off pushing singles and digital EPs, rather than extorting entire album sales built around a popular single. Movies have increased their home video release schedule from more than a year after theatrical release to just a few months, to catch the "skip the theater, wait for the home release" demographic. TV has to adjust, and part of that adjustment will be TV realizing its own role in breaking many of the habits they're now wishing we still had.

3-D. The future is 3-D.

i rarely watch sitcoms or even most scripted shows on TV anymore. it's like they reuse the script but the people look different.

my wife DVR's a few shows and mostly watches american idol and the dance reality shows.

the food network is a lot more interesting than most scripted shows

Thinking a bit long-term here but, very simply, I think the current network TV model is just about dead. Just like the internet destroyed the need for record companies to deliver music, the internet will also destroy the need for network television to deliver TV content.

TV shows will be delivered directly from producer to viewer using service providers and video-on-demand. Internet Service Providers, Television Service Providers, and Telephone Service Providers will cease to exist as separate entities and merge into one to create Media Service Providers (MSPs). Producers will deliver their shows to MSPs who in turn deliver this content to their subscribers using their network (whether cable, satellite, telephone wire, or whatever). The need for PVRs will be obviated by a high-speed VOD service with full pause/rewind/FF capability built right into the network. (Note that this will also kill DVDs and all physical video media). Once on an MSP's network, a subscriber can easily watch any content on his/her television, PC, cell phone, or any other mobile device. And at any time he/she wants.

MSPs will become the new networks and they will distinguish themselves from each other by locking in exclusive content deals (like DirectTV is doing). As such, I can foresee a day when you will probably have to subscribe to multiple service providers. Either that or a new entity will be formed that will act as a middleman between local MSPs and producers. An Uber media buyer -- sort of like a DeBeers for TV content -- that acts as a clearing house for all producers' content which is then made available to all MSPs on an equal basis.

Advertising will be bought at the MSP level (the MSP will embed locally themed advertising into the show's video stream) and so will be better tailored to the viewer. As technology evolves, this tailoring will get more and more granular until it will inevitably occur at an individual viewer's level (as in "Minority Report").

This will also effectively emasculate national regulators. Since there will be no more broadcasting on publicly owned channels and everything is effectively viewer-optional private "narrowcasting", the FCC will no longer be required. Maybe just a TV version of the MPAA to set ratings.

Also, this model will be global and span national borders. There's no reason why an MSP in Spain or Australia can't provide the same content as an MSP in the USA. Sure, there are language issues but that's just a detail.

This is going to be our Brave New World of television. People will be able to view exactly what they want, exactly where they want, and exactly when they want. No more bitching and whining about networks cancelling your favourite TV show because of bad network promotion or scheduling; no more bitching and whining why a network has so many reality shows. The only thing that will determine a show's future is whether the producer thinks enough of us are watching it.

And the only ones crying will be the fat cats who run the networks. But I'm sure they'll land on their feet. Cats always do.

I think all of you need to read one chapter from Alvin Toffler's highly-prophetic book The Third Wave.

In the chapter "De-massifying the Media," Toffler makes this assertion: as communication technologies improve, the day of the mass media will come to an end. Toffler wrote this at the time when things like home video recording of TV shows, the home computer, online services and even on-demand video were at their infancy; since then we now have:

60+ channel analog cable TV
120+ channel digital cable TV
200+ channel small-dish satellite TV
Various methods to record TV shows using videocasettes, blank DVD discs and hard disk drives
80+ channel satellite radio
Powerful modern desktop and laptop computers
Public Internet
Cheap methods to print magazines even in small printing runs
Ability to read downloaded text and even live videos on a cellphone

All of which gives us a HUGE choice of what to watch, hear and read that even our parents could not imagine even 20 years ago outside of a science-fiction novel.

The problem is, the old-time media companies are unable to step this massive sea change in media consumption habits, especially over the Internet. However, some companies have realized this and have embraced the change. The success of Hulu.com has resulted in a lot of TV shows we've missed in the past now available on-demand over the Internet, even highly niche shows like anime. The adult entertainment industry has really embraced the Internet, what with many, many adult video web sites opening in the past 12 years, doing well especially with broadband now available in most major metropolitan areas in the USA.

Whoever said that the next sponsors of TV series are NetFlix and Amazon may not be far from the truth, because both of these companies have a vested interest (not to mention a huge, loyal customer base!) they can tap into for customized distribution of new TV series.

We are beginning to see the death throes of network television as we know it. The business model they developed over 50 years does not work when a solid percentage of your audience skips commercials via the DVR and they have other options for home entertainment like cable, dvd, the Internet, and Blu-ray. The only things that really work anymore on network television are live events that have little viewing value once they happen like sports and news.

-Poor ratings/sub-quality shows - Define "sub-quality". Given the endless number of them, the reality drek that passes for programming on VH1 must be quality programming for somebody. I think it's safe to say if you don't like television now, it's only going to get worse.

-less network viewers/more cable viewers - I think the networks will hold their own for a while yet.

-types of cable subscription/a la carte billing - Good luck with that.

-less FCC regulation for networks - Unlikely.

-more liberties on cable shows regarding language, nudity, & violence - Since cable networks are self-censored, look for less and less of it in the future.

-the death and/or birth of more niche cable channels - Maybe someone will finally start a real sci-fi channel, but I doubt it. You'll just get more channels from the same big companies like USA Networks marketing to narrow groups, but somehow always showing the same stuff.

-"reality" TV dying out or getting more popular - It's going to become even more prevalent, and less realistic, as time goes on. Look for "scripted" reality shows to start showing up in a few years.

-more or less advertiser influence with 100's more channels - Absolutely more influence. I'm honestly surprised we don't already have a Sony Channel.

-influence of the internet on TV and all of the above aspects - Hopefully free streaming of programming will become the norm, but that will only cause the competition (cable companies) to start setting more bandwidth limits. Like everything, it's a no win situation for the consumer.

In my opinion, the arrival of widespread use of cable TV in the middle to late 1980's changed the entire TV viewing model, with audiences increasingly niche in nature.

What I do find interesting is even the cable news channels have done fairly well, despite the recent retrenchments at CNN. They can tap into the ability to do news around the world live 24/7, something that regular over-air networks can't do easiy without losing a lot of advertiser dollars.

Why do you think channels like Discovery, History, and the ESPN channels have been really raking in the money? Mostly because they can produce programming that niche audiences like. (For example, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, well-known for their special-effects work for TV and movies, became superstars when MythBusters on the Discover Channel became a huge hit. )