>>>>>Since advertising pays for the shows' (and in some cases the channel's) existence, it would all go away... A few stations have gone off the air shortly after they first broadcast.
>>>>
>>>>Which sucks - there is no other viable model to publish anything or have a service (on either web, or TV or paper) and make money on it, but via advertising.
>>>
>>>Have you ever *heard* of HBO ? <g>
>>>
>>>As the means of distribution is more efficient viewers will be able to be more selective and buy what they want. No ads, just pay for content. The trick is to be able to make the content available to a wide enough market that highly specialized tastes can be served.
>>
>>Sounds more like the internet than any kind of broadcast TV, including HBO. HBO has a much smaller audience than the "big 4" networks but it still numbers in the tens of millions. No question the whole television model is in a period of transition.
>>
>>As an aside, I am letting my HBO subscription go as soon as "The Wire" ends in a few weeks. All the series I liked will be gone.
>
>You're just bitter because they cancelled 'John from Cincinatti' <g>
>
>I imagine there will always be some kind of advertizing funded 'broadcast' TV. But the share will continue to dwindle.

I did like "John From Cincinnati" for a few episodes but it got too weird for me. (And that's coming from someone who liked "Twin Peaks"). It never really found an audience and I wasn't surprised that it was cancelled so quickly. I suspect inheriting the Sopranos' time slot was both a blessing and a curse.