Streaming Rebel

No, I don't want to watch Jeremy Clarkson's TV series about his pretend farm.   Nor do I want to watch various TV series ground out as spin offs from various successful film series.  I don't even want to watch the latest iterations of Star Trek.  Yet, I have streaming companies and their media lackeys constantly trying to convince me that my life is empty and meaningless without these things and I should, therefore, take out a subscription to their services.  According to their thinking, I'm some kind of weirdo for not having any streaming subscriptions.  Although I suspect that I'm not that unusual in this respect.  Despite all the propaganda telling us that convention linear TV channels are dead because 'the kids' don't watch them, I'm afraid that I don't buy the stats they always bandy about to justify shutting down terrestrial TV.  The reality is that 'the kids' have never watched linear channels in the way that older people do - when I was a child a lot of my TV viewing was intermittent, confined only to programmes that interested me or that I was forced to sit through.  It was only when I was old enough to own my own TV in my own home and therefore control the remote, that I began to watch it more.  Even then, it wasn't until I started going through my thirties and spent less time going out, that I found that I had the time to watch more linear TV.  I suspect that the same is still true and that when all these current non-linear TV watching 'kids' hit middle age, they'll start wanting the simple pleasure of just crashing on their sofas and letting an evening of pre-programmed TV wash over them.  Except that they won't be able to, because the streamers will have ensured that linear TV no longer exists.  

I strongly suspect that the real problem that the steamers and their supporters have with conventional linear TV is that, in general, it is broadcast free-to-air.  No expensive subscriptions necessary.   Which is a challenge to the streaming model - many of them already have to run commercials because subscriptions alone won't cover their costs and as long as linear TV exists, people who don't want to pay still have a free alternative.  Conventional linear TV channels are also a pretty good way of discovering new content.  I've stumbled across many an interesting show simply because I couldn't be bothered to change channels or switch off after what I'd originally tuned in for finished.  Even channel hopping between various linear channels can turn up new content - if you find yourself lingering on something as you flip through the channels, odds are that you are going to end up watching it in full and maybe become a regular viewer.  Streaming TV, by contrast, wants you simply to accept all those 'great' shows it thrusts at you - many of which don't get recommissioned, or have gaps measured in years between series, making viewer engagement difficult to achieve and disaffecting would be regular viewers.  I find it a very unsatisfactory viewing experience.  Because, yes, I do have access to on demand streaming, via my Roku box, through which I can access a variety of free, ad-supported services.  (Not to mention a fair number of highly dodgy services carrying what is clearly pirated content).  I frequently find that all the choices I am presented with freeze my decision-making processes when trying to find something to watch - just finding stuff that happens to be  playing somewhere is a lot easier, not to mention more interesting.  Indeed, increasingly I find that it is the livestreaming channels with linear schedules that I find myself drawn to on Roku.  But getting back to my original point - I could, if I wanted to, watch all that stuff the streamers want me to sucscribe for, thanks to the wild, wild world of online piracy, (the sites are easy to find and, provided you exercise caution, are mainly safe to watch).  The thing is, though, that I still don't want to watch them.  Not even for free.