The excitement is gone
 

I was in the grocery store today and while waiting to check out I was looking at the new format tv guide.

Back in the day you couldn't wait to see what new programs and specials were slated to be broadcast in living color.

In fact tv guide had a separate category devoted to what was in color for the coming week.

In fact...

TV Guide had program listings.


Those were the days....

The main thing I found useful in TV guide was the comprehensive movie listing in the back - when they lost that, they lost me. I see no reason to waste money on a celeb rag.

Instead of like what? 112 different editions? they now have one for the East coast, and the other for the West. I pick one of these new rags up and all I see are networks and cable listings. No local channel numbers or listings of any sort. If you don't go online to each TV station's website or religiously read the daily newspaper for TV listings, you can't tell what's on.
What is it, are people so lazy now that they don't even bother to see in advance what is going to be on the boob tube, and just pick the least offensive show that's on when they're sitting in front of the set? Don't people time-shift anymore? Don't they care what they watch?

What a stupid question. Of course they don't care.

TV Guide in its new, bland, useless, generic state is just one more indication of how lousy U.S. TV has become and another reason why I probably won't bother getting a new TV when it all goes digital in 2009.

Tom

The reason that TV Guide is not what it once was is due to the fact that almost all satellite receivers and digital cable boxes have some form of built in guide.

I don't get it...

I think it was Paul Klein of NBC who came up with the "least objectionable program" theory, in the 1970's. And there was Newton Minnow who described broadcast TV as a "vast wasteland" in the 1950's.

I had quit buying TV Guides years ago, when they stopped including the one thing that made it worth paying for rather than using the free guides in newspapers: Program descriptions for shows in non-prime time.

But back in the day if you had a color set, you watched what was in color!

Didn't much matter the content of the program, until later.

Isn't that a good thing?

Maybe that would explain the success of shows like "Green Acres"? :)

The same concept has worked for high-def in recent years. I watched a bunch of miscellaneous shows on Discovery HD just because they looked so clear, other than all the lousy DirecTV artifacts.

The only things I watch on TV are on Cartoon Network and Nicktoons, with the occasional foray into Discovery, Nature, and PBS when they air a BBC-produced show. I could easily forgo TV, and I have done so in the past for years at a time - not owning a TV at all. We have one now because Mrs. Wiggy likes Food Network and HGTV. Otherwise, we just use it to watch DVD's.

Me either. I already know what my local internet/tee-vee cable provider is going to do. The rates will go up and they are going to charge an additional $15 per conversion box for those with old sets. No thanks. I'll kick their service to the curb and use my set for watching rented DVD's. As far as the internet goes, I'll hook up with DSL, that is, if I even care about the internet at that point.

Pardon me for asking an off-topic question, but it's sorta related...

I haven't had internet in my house for just over a year now. Sometimes I "mooch" internet at a friend's house, or use my phone for quick replies. I dumped dial-up when I dumped my home phone. (Went out to AZ for a couple months and figured it was stupid to keep paying for a utility that only rang when somebody was trying to sell me some crap, now I'm cell-phone only)

Now winter will be setting in, TV sucks (More than ever! See the related content?) and I'd rather decompress with my world-wide old-TV friends than watch "reality" (Proud to say I've never seen an entire episode of that crap).

What would be the best route for me to get internet? I don't know anything about it, but I know a lot of you do. Cable would be a waste, I don't watch TV. Not getting a phone line just for dial-up/DSL. What kind of wireless options are there?

Cheapest high-speed is still basic cable TV with internet.

I also use Skype for free (nearly free, since I have an actual phone number) phone calls. Works well.

Wireless is available - expensive, quirky, and spotty coverage. DSL too slow.

Sorry, calls 'em like I sees 'em. You can get cable TV with internet and leave the boob tube turned off, same as not having it.

DSL ain't too slow for me... remember I came from dial-up, so DSL feels like I'm on the crack. Spotty DSL-speed wireless would be cool with me, in fact, I like the idea of being able to use a laptop on my front porch in the evening...

Makes the internet feel more like a country-time lemonade commercial.

Most cable companies provide an internet only package, IE, putting a filter on your line that blocks everything but the frequency range your modem uses.

I've never heard of such a thing... I must investigate.. Around here they (cable) are promoting the idea of $33 internet, $33 phone, $33 TV. Catch is, you have to sign-up for all three. I'll be damned if I'm gonna blow $100+ (taxes) on "entertainment". If I added $100 a month to my house payment, I could have a freakin' McMansion!

Verizon charges $50/mo for unlimited broadband to your notebook anywhere you get cell phone service. Not too bad.

Slow like one of my farts, though.

You could put a wireless router on your cable signal...poof, cable anywhere in your house :)

That's what I do. One $49 wireless router attached to the cable modem and there ya go. Some days I decide not to go into work, I just get on the VPN from my laptop and don't even put on pants all day. Which is kinda fun.

Here are a few commets on high-speed Internet access:

-DSL is not slow, unless maybe someone has a lousy provider or is in a relatively poor location (which is again just an indication of a lousy provider if they do not improve service to that location). I have had my DSL service since February 1999, and "they will pry my DSL modem from my cold, dead hands". :)

-Cable Internet may be faster than some DSL lines at some times or locations, but if you value reliability, think back on how reliable your wired telephone service was, compared to how reliable any cable-TV service you have had has been. (I suspect your phone service was far more reliable. My DSL service has had maybe four outages of a couple of hours or so each total in the last eight years.)

-Either DSL or cable Internet may be available without the associated phone/TV service; just call your local providers and ask.

-As others have said, wireless Internet service is much more expensive than the above options, and most likely has less consistent speed than DSL (though cable Internet has a reputation for speed problems in prime usage hours as well).

-The last time I asked, Verizon's high-speed cellular data service was US$80/month, unless you also have your phone with Verizon, then the data is $60/month. Verizon does, or did, also have a provision in their terms barring people from using their cellular data service as a home-based substitute (something like not allowing "substantially all data usage from the same cellular tower" or similar).

-Though I do not use either the phone or the data as my "only" source of service, I am having good luck with a Sprint service plan that is offered through employee referrals, along with a Pocket PC phone with built-in Internet browser that can also connect to my laptop computer. Search for "sero" on howardforums.com for the details. The plan is quite inexpensive.

Well, the cheapskate here gets by with the cheapest of phone plans, no options through an el cheapo phone company, and then cheap dial-up. Phone service that you don't use, without long distance, shouldn't be too expensive. I really don't mind living here in "dial-up land". I've been online for close to 10 years with the same company and can't remember the last problem I had. My stepfather, who relies heavily on high-speed internet for work, has trouble with his cable connection almost daily.

Even some local papers quit publishing the local TV listings such as the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Mom was upset at that. At least the Post Gazette still makes one. TV Guide is just a mere shadow of its former self.

====I had quit buying TV Guides years ago, when they stopped including the one thing that made it worth paying for rather than using the free guides in newspapers: Program descriptions for shows in non-prime time====

There's always the tv guide of sorts that comes in my newspaper, I've always used that for primetime. Yeah TV guide is stupid now, just a repetitive listing of show titles that is the same from day to day and week to week, what a waste of paper. As for just watching what is on instead of looking up something in TV Guide of old, I prefer just using the Direct TV guide when I sit down to watch tv, or use the DVR to find things automatically that I know I like already and record them and watch later if I want.

Now that's a show that was before my time! I used to watch that show a lot on TVLAND when I younger but I don't now because it's kind of annoying. Epecially the theme song! :yikes:

What I liked best about TV Guide was the little "R" next to a show that denoted it was a RE-RUN.

Now about Green Acres. I'd dissect that show and re-use the characters if the actors were still around. Pat Buttram's "Mr. Haney" would be waaay more entertaining than Anderson Cooper. And you'd know he wasn't being forthcoming most of the time. Oliver Douglas, whom was always a gentleman when flustered, could replace foul-mouthed Bill O'Reilly, Lisa Douglas could replace the even more foul-mouthed Ann Coulter, Mr. Drucker could replace Billy "Oxy Dude" Mays, Mr. Ziffel could replace Alan Colmes, and, IMHO, Arnold the Pig would be a most suitable replacement for Sean Hannity.

I also remember when TV guide would put a star or asterisk to show that a program was broadcast in color or as time when on, they would use a little "BW" for a black and white program.

As to your l ttle assessment there, myself, I'm burned out from politics myself.

Over the past couple years, i've had maybe 3 outages w/ our Cable (internet only) that lasted 10mins or so.

IMHO, the Cable vs DSL debate is a matter of location and carrier, not the service itself.

Basically, I only watch TV because I have a Tivo. (Tivo Brand Tivo).

I've got certain shows I record daily, maybe watch 3 episodes of each per week.

We pay ~$145/mo to the Cable Company for the TV, phone, and internet + another $20ish to Sprint for unlimited long distance.

Out of 900 some odd channels, I only watch maybe a dozen. :(