[mikeybaby]

Video is next.
There is absolutely no reason to pay for 200 channels just to have access to the 5 that accounts for 90% of my viewing time.
DVR's, broadband penetration, Google buying YouTube.
The writing is on the wall, er, screen.

[CarrotAndStick]

Nope, I believe it will be telecoms next. With widespread availability of WiFi/WiMax broadband soon, practically-free-of-cost VoIP calls will be the cellphone of the future.

The telecom companies have a lot to fear.

[amchugh]

I used to think IP TV or TV on demand was the wave of the future, but what really determines price is the content providers. They'll allow you an a la carte selection of channels or perhaps programs, but bump up the price so you are paying the same as for your 200 channels. It is not what it is worth, but what the market will bear. ATT UVerse is probably going to be TV on demand eventually, bundled with your Internet connection.

[yuleeyahoo]

I concur; if I am going to be forced to purchase my video entertainment, I am going to purchase specifically what I want to watch and nothing else.

[cookcounty]

"There is absolutely no reason to pay for 200 channels just to have access to the 5 that accounts for 90% of my viewing time."

Exactly, and then they bundle. Dish sold me a plan with 180 most popular channels in America. After I got it, I found out that (sha-zamm!) National Geographic Channel is not among the 180 top US channels, but Shopping for Socks is.

I need TV and I have international satelite reasons for doing Dish that Direct can't match, but Dish is not straight up with their advertising.