[MrFoof]

Personally I've found TV watching to be borne out of some sort of inertia. There was a point where I paid for all the pre-requisite packages for the privilege of being able to add The Speed Channel and watch my Formula 1, ALMS, etc. I watched a fair amount of TV, and already had some pricey packages, so what was a bit more?

However, the time came along where I didn't have as much time to watch racing anymore. I had a TiVo, but even then, I just didn't have the time to watch the recorded races. Eventually, I pared things down to the "Expanded" package. However, the few shows of interest went away. So when I moved, I pared down to Basic, only because if I didn't, I would only save $0.80/mo on my cable bill since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package.

I think the television was on about 12 hours last year, in terms of broadcast programming. Yes, twelve. Why? I fell out of the habit of slouching in my lounge chair and sitting there for a few hours every evening. My routine changed, and there always seems to be this large amount of inertia to overcome to change my routines. Unless the content producers come up with compelling reasons for me to park myself in front of the TV again, it will probably remain a tremendously expensive paperweight.

Granted, I do occasionally play video games, and stream content from YouTube, or my transcoded DVD library to an Apple TV, but I don't do that all that much.

It's like getting someone who lives in New York City to get excited about and buy a boring midsize sedan. They ride the subway, buses and take the taxi. You'd have to overcome their inertia of not using a car, and get them over the fact of what a car would cost them. I look at TV now almost the same way (though I live in Boston) -- there's this tremendous amount of inertia you have to overcome to change someone's habits, especially when there's viable alternatives that are nearly as good and cheaper.

[rhplus]

since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package

I'm convinced that the only reason for them to do this is to whitewash the "myth" of cable-cutting. Comcast in my area has a similar deal - it's a couple of bucks cheaper per month to get Internet with "limited" cable rather than Internet on its own. To the networks and advertisers, I'm still a TV subscriber, even though the coax goes directly to my modem and nowhere near my TV.

[tareqak]

I completely agree with your inertia comment.

I stopped watching television once I got into university. Living in a dormitory-style residence, the TV was in the floor's lounge, and my room was furthest from it.

I am not exactly sure when, but I went home one weekend, and I remember thinking to myself, "Why is the TV so irritating?" It was then that I realized that I had been living without television - and I liked it.

To be fair, my viewing habits did change as well. Being a student, I looked for entertainment that fit within my schedule (on-demand). My friends introduced me to anime, Rome, and DC++. The rest is history.

I think a few people in residence did choose to get cable in their rooms in order to keep following sports. I might have continued to follow hockey myself, but the NHL lockout occurred the previous year, so it wasn't the same for me.