CRTs are peak steam punk technology. Analog, electric, kinda dangerous. Just totally mindblowing that we had these things in our living rooms shooting electric beams everywhere. I doubt it's environmentally friendly at all, but I'd love to see some new CRTs being made.
There's a synchronous and instantaneous nature you don't find in modern designs.
The image is not stored at any point. The receiver and the transmitter are part of the same electric circuit in a certain sense. It's a virtual circuit but the entire thing - transmitter and receiving unit alike - are oscillating in unison driven by a single clock.
The image is never entirely realized as a complete thing, either. While slow phosphor tubes do display a static image, most CRT systems used extremely fast phosphors; they release the majority of the light within a millisecond of the beam hitting them. If you take a really fast exposure of a CRT display (say 1/100,000th of a second) you don't see the whole image on the photograph - only the most recently few drawn lines glow. The image as a whole never exists at the same time. It exists only in the persistence of vision.
It's worth deep diving into how analog composite broadcast television works, because you quickly realize just how insanely ambitious it was for 1930s engineers to have not only conceived, but perfected and shipped at consumer scale using only 1930s technologies.
Being old enough to have learned video engineering at the end of the analog days, it's kind of fun helping young engineers today wrap their brains around completely alien concepts, like "the image is never pixels" then "it's never digital" and "never quantized." Those who've been raised in a digital world learn to understand things from a fundamentally digital frame of reference. Even analog signals are often reasoned about as if their quantized form was their "true nature".
Interestingly, I suspect the converse would be equally true trying to explain digital television to a 1930s video engineer. They'd probably struggle similarly, always mentally remapping digital images to their "true" analog nature. The fundamental nature of their world was analog. Nothing was quantized. Even the idea "quanta" might be at the root of physics was newfangled, suspect and, even if true, of no practical use in engineering systems.
I was on a course at Sony in San Mateo in the 1980s and they had a 36" prototype television in the corner. We all asked for it to be turned on. We were told by the instructor that he was not allowed to turn it on because the 40,000V anode voltage generated too many X-rays at the front of the picture tube.
Extra dangerous aspect:
On really early CRTs they hadn't quite nailed the glass thicknesses. One failure mode was that the neck that held the electron gun would fail. This would propell the gun through the front of the screen, possibly toward the viewer.
What do you mean "had"? I just turned mine off a minute ago. I am yet to make the transition to flat screen TVs but in the mean time, at least no-one's tracking my consumer habits.
I saw TV first time in 1957. Finland had no TV transmitters, so programs came from Soviet Estonia. I distinctly remember watching romantic Russian film with a catching tune. Perhaps named "Moscow Lights"?
How this is even possible that I remember all this, because I was 4 yrs old?
Gemini knows:
The Film: In the Days of the Spartakiad (1956/1957)
The song "Moscow Nights" was originally written for a documentary film called "In the Days of the Spartakiad" (V dni spartakiady), which chronicled a massive Soviet sports competition.
The Scene: In the film, there is a romantic, quiet scene where athletes are resting in the countryside near Moscow at night.
The Music: The song was sung by Vladimir Troshin. It was intended to be background music, but it was so hauntingly melodic that it became an overnight sensation across the USSR and its neighbors.
The Finnish Connection: In 1957, the song became a massive hit in Finland and Estonia. Since you were watching Estonian TV, you likely saw a version where the dialogue or narration was dubbed into Finnish—a common practice for broadcasts intended for Finnish-speaking audiences across the Gulf of Finland.
For what it’s worth, Philo Farnsworth and John Logie Baird were friendly with each other. I was lucky to know Philo’s wife Pem very well in the last part of her life, and she spoke highly of Baird as a person.
David Sarnoff and RCA was an entirely different matter, of course…
Whatever we all television now, television then was literally "vision at a distance", which Baird was the first to demonstrate (AFAIK).
The TV I have now in my living room is closer to a computer than a television from when I grew up (born 1975) anyway, so the word could mean all sorts of things. I mean, we still call our pocket computers "phones" even though they are mainly used for viewing cats at a distance.
You should read about the invention of color television. There were two competing methods, one of which depended on a spinning wheel with colored filters in it. If I remember correctly, you needed something like a 10-foot wheel to have a 27-inch TV.
Sure enough, this was the system selected as the winner by the U.S. standard-setting body at the time. Needless to say, it failed and was replaced by what we ended up with... which still sucked because of the horrible decision to go to a non-integer frame rate. Incredibly, we are for some reason still plagued by 29.97 FPS long after the analog system that required it was shut off.
I had a communications theory class in college that addressed "vestigal sideband modulation," which I believe was implemented by Farnsworth. I think this is a critical aspect to the introduction of television technology.
The thing is that "television" seemed like a thing but really it was a system that required a variety of connected, compatible parts, like the Internet.
Different pieces of what became TV existed in 1900, the challenge was putting them together. And that required a consensus among powerful players.
I think it would be pretty uncontroversial from the technological point of view, but then, the first "real" TV broadcast would be the 1936 Olympic games...
Philo Farnsworth invented the cathode ray tube. unless you're writing this from the year 2009 or before, I'm going to have to push back on the idea that tv's TODAY are based on his technology. They most certainly are not.
And 100 years ago my great-aunt and grandmother (both RIP) were little kids and my great-grandmother, born in the 19th century and which I knew very well for she lived until 99 years old, was filming them playing on the beach using a "Pathe Baby" hand camera.
And we converted some of these reels to digital files (well brothers and I asked a specialized company to "digitalize" them).
100 years ago people already had cars, tramways (as a kid my great-grandmother tried to look under the first tramway she saw to see "where the horses were hiding"), cameras to film movies, telephones, the telegraph existed, you could trade the stock market and, well, it's knew to me but TV was just invented too.
In a way television was kind of cool. I loved it as a child, give or take.
Nowadays ..... hmmm. I no longer own a TV since many years. Sadly youtube
kind of replaced television. It is not the same, quality-wise I think
youtube is actually worse than e. g. the 1980s era. But I also don't
really want to go back to television, as it also had low quality - and
it simply took longer, too. On youtube I was recently watching old
"Aktenzeichen XY ungelöst", in german. The old videos are kind of cool
and interesting from the 1980s. I watched the new ones - it no longer
made ANY sense to watch it ... the quality is much worse, and it is
also much more boring. It's strange.
I've sometimes wondered how things would have been different if the TV pioneers had went with circular CRTs instead of rounded rectangles.
Circles would have had a couple of advantages. First, I believe they would have been easier to make. From what I've read rectangles have more stress at the corners. Rounding the corners reduces that but it is still more than circles have. With circles they could have more easily made bigger CRTs.
Second, there is no aspect ratio thus avoiding the whole problem of picking an aspect ratio.
Electronically the signals to the XY deflectors to scan a spiral out from the center (or in from the edge if you prefer) on a circle are as easy to make as the signals to to scan in horizontal lines on a rectangle.
As far as I can tell that would have been fine up until we got computers and wanted to use TV CRTs as computer displays. I can't imagine how to build a bitmapped interface for such a CRT that would not be a complete nightmare to deal with.
For example, page 26 has directions on how to pop by the local chemist to pick up materials to make your own selenium cell (your first imager) and page 29 covers constructing your first Televisor, including helpful tips like "A very suitable tin-plate is ... the same material out of which biscuit tins and similar light tinware is made. It is easily handled and can readily be cut with an ordinary pair of scissors. It is sold in sheets of 22 inches by 30 inches. Any ironmonger will supply these."
The Baird vs Farnsworth debate reminds me of similar discussions in tech. The first demo rarely becomes the dominant standard.
What strikes me is how fast the iteration was. Baird went from hatboxes and bicycle lenses to color TV prototypes in just two years. That's the kind of rapid experimentation we're seeing with AI right now, though compressed even further.
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is the book that comes to mind with this article link. 2 years ago my wife and I took the TV off the wall. My kids don't have Bluey or the latest Disney cartoon to keep them company. I am not going back... It has been the most blissful time. Amazing that the TV is not required to lead a thriving life despite what the incessant sales-industrial-complex will tell you.
Does anyone here still have television? Ever since I moved out of my parents house (15 years ago), I never had a TV subscription. I did own a TV screen, but only to run apps like Netflix and Youtube. I'd rather have a simple monitor without the TV options to do so, but strangely that never existed or was too expensive.
Edit: to make it clear, I absolutely did not miss having TV for even a second in all of those years.
I don't care to start a debate about who first invented television when, but I remember hearing (conformed by wikipedia [1]) that Leon Theremin, inventor of the musical instrument named after him, demonstrated mechanical television at roughly the same time.
I still only have CRT, No matter how much i browse shopping sites or visit showrooms, i cannot make up my mind buying newer tv, lcd, led, plasma, oled etc, so much new technologies have arrived but i have'nt tried them for TV Yet as of today
My tv's have gone through real stress test in real life unlike factories
During childhood, we had our tv Switched on in morning 4:00 till 22:00 at night, constantly being watched 16-18 hrs a day during weekends and vacations (45 days), while least 10hrs a day during weekdays , for last 22 years
I only had 2 crt in my 30yrs of lifetime, Sansui and Samsung,
channel broadcasters being changed from Tetrestrial Channels --> FTA Antenna --> Cable Tv --> Satellite Dish from time to time
Newer tv cannot cope up with such lenghty watchtimes,
Still RCA Only, no HDMI, Tv still have its Radio Antenna port on top
I think it was because old TVs already had wide gamut, so sRGB meant a significant reduction. It never was "contrast" as such. Anything made today is vastly better than any CRT.
CRTs are a very interesting display technology with their refresh rate and clarity. I'd like to see an "HD" CRT someday, and however many tons it would weigh!
Only 100 years old.
Wow. I mean you know the world has changed rapidly but it's hard to get perspective enough to really feel that change. Something about it only having been 100 years since televsion really does that for me.
Television, arguably, can be blamed for the near-total degradation of civic life and, subsequently, human liberty. By substituting the unilateral flow of images for the dialogue of the community, television enforces a banking concept of reality where we are reduced to passive receptacles, stripping us of the bridging social capital necessary to resist domination.
This privatization of leisure generates a vicious circle of isolation, transforming the active citizen into a member of a lonely crowd. In this atomized state, we lose our mētis—the practical, situated knowledge essential for self-governance—and become vulnerable to the high-modernist state's imposition of simplified, legible grids upon our lives. Furthermore, the media inundates us with the myths, preventing us from naming the world for ourselves. To break this cycle, we must move from submissiveness to a liberating praxis that reclaims our time to build alternative social institutions and counterhegemony through direct, face-to-face cooperation.
Why, even here on Hacker News we've corroborated my position regarding the necessity of breaking the "spectacle" through direct, generative action. On a recent thread about the "loneliness epidemic," HN folks argued that the epidemic is not merely an individual failing but a structural byproduct of a "death spiral" where digital convenience and "behavior modification schemes" have cannibalized the "real world". The community identifies that the privatization of leisure—manifested in car-centric suburban sprawl and the erasure of "third places"—has stripped us of the capacity for spontaneous encounter, leaving us waiting for "nicely packaged solutions" rather than facing the "great unknown" of human connection. Consequently, the proposed remedy aligns precisely: individuals must transition from passive consumers to active "Hosts", building "alternative social institutions" like non-profit event platforms that reject "dark patterns", organizing "physical social networks" on street corners, or reclaiming public spaces through guerilla cleanup efforts, effectively proving that we must "stop waiting for someone else" to reconstruct the civic dialogue.
Having just finished my software-defined analog video decoder[0], I've gotta say, my mind is thoroughly blown by just how much of an engineering achievement television must've been at the time when it was invented. It must have also been the first ever communication system to have backwards compatibility.
> Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects.
This idea is why I always take media with a grain of salt. The decontexualization makes it easy for people to be reactive towards something, that isn’t logical
Eg “now this is why <insert person or group> is good/evil”
People call me the devils advocate when I point out these nuances but I just think we need to be much more critical when forming and holding opinions.
Isn't "now this" just a synonym for "moving on" or "next order of business" or "apropos of nothing"? I don't think the concept of jumping to a completely new topic is something TV introduced.
funny story - I had a job recently that installed DirecTV setups for mostly retirement communities. On almost every service call, I'd show up and 95% of the time, without fail, they'd either be watching Fox News, CNN, or CNBC. It was quite depressing to see 24/7 news stations had completely consumed their lives and became the majority of topics of conversation while I was there.
I eventually quit the job. I decided I didn't want to be a part of making our society worse by installing these devices that were causing manufactured outrage, hate, and selective truth telling.
Soon after I left, I found a book while thrifting that came out in 1978 called "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander. I laughed at the title and couldn't believe someone was already arguing for the detriments of TV before I was born. It's very well written and the points he makes are still relevant today.
Mander believes that "television and democratic society are incompatible" due to television removing all of society's senses except for seeing and hearing. The author states that television makes it so that people have no common sense which leads to...being "powerless to reject the camera's line of sight, reset the stage, or call on our own sensory apparatus to correct the doctored sights and sounds the machine delivers".
Mander's four arguments in the book to eliminate television are:
1. that telecommunication removes the sense of reality from people,
2. television promotes capitalism,
3. television can be used as a scapegoat, and
4. that all three of these issues negatively work together.
[+] [-] sosomoxie|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] retrac|1 month ago|reply
The image is not stored at any point. The receiver and the transmitter are part of the same electric circuit in a certain sense. It's a virtual circuit but the entire thing - transmitter and receiving unit alike - are oscillating in unison driven by a single clock.
The image is never entirely realized as a complete thing, either. While slow phosphor tubes do display a static image, most CRT systems used extremely fast phosphors; they release the majority of the light within a millisecond of the beam hitting them. If you take a really fast exposure of a CRT display (say 1/100,000th of a second) you don't see the whole image on the photograph - only the most recently few drawn lines glow. The image as a whole never exists at the same time. It exists only in the persistence of vision.
[+] [-] mrandish|1 month ago|reply
Being old enough to have learned video engineering at the end of the analog days, it's kind of fun helping young engineers today wrap their brains around completely alien concepts, like "the image is never pixels" then "it's never digital" and "never quantized." Those who've been raised in a digital world learn to understand things from a fundamentally digital frame of reference. Even analog signals are often reasoned about as if their quantized form was their "true nature".
Interestingly, I suspect the converse would be equally true trying to explain digital television to a 1930s video engineer. They'd probably struggle similarly, always mentally remapping digital images to their "true" analog nature. The fundamental nature of their world was analog. Nothing was quantized. Even the idea "quanta" might be at the root of physics was newfangled, suspect and, even if true, of no practical use in engineering systems.
[+] [-] lebuffon|1 month ago|reply
:-))))
[+] [-] itisit|1 month ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_tube
[+] [-] ortusdux|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] fecal_henge|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] kleiba|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] timonoko|1 month ago|reply
How this is even possible that I remember all this, because I was 4 yrs old?
Gemini knows:
The Film: In the Days of the Spartakiad (1956/1957)
The song "Moscow Nights" was originally written for a documentary film called "In the Days of the Spartakiad" (V dni spartakiady), which chronicled a massive Soviet sports competition.
The Scene: In the film, there is a romantic, quiet scene where athletes are resting in the countryside near Moscow at night.
The Music: The song was sung by Vladimir Troshin. It was intended to be background music, but it was so hauntingly melodic that it became an overnight sensation across the USSR and its neighbors.
The Finnish Connection: In 1957, the song became a massive hit in Finland and Estonia. Since you were watching Estonian TV, you likely saw a version where the dialogue or narration was dubbed into Finnish—a common practice for broadcasts intended for Finnish-speaking audiences across the Gulf of Finland.
[+] [-] jedberg|1 month ago|reply
Philo Farnsworth demonstrated a competing technology a few years later, but every TV today is based on his technology.
So, who actually invented Television?
[+] [-] armadsen|1 month ago|reply
David Sarnoff and RCA was an entirely different matter, of course…
[+] [-] zwischenzug|1 month ago|reply
The TV I have now in my living room is closer to a computer than a television from when I grew up (born 1975) anyway, so the word could mean all sorts of things. I mean, we still call our pocket computers "phones" even though they are mainly used for viewing cats at a distance.
[+] [-] MoonWalk|1 month ago|reply
Sure enough, this was the system selected as the winner by the U.S. standard-setting body at the time. Needless to say, it failed and was replaced by what we ended up with... which still sucked because of the horrible decision to go to a non-integer frame rate. Incredibly, we are for some reason still plagued by 29.97 FPS long after the analog system that required it was shut off.
[+] [-] chasil|1 month ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-sideband_modulation#Sup...
[+] [-] joe_the_user|1 month ago|reply
Different pieces of what became TV existed in 1900, the challenge was putting them together. And that required a consensus among powerful players.
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway_20357|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] accidentallfact|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 month ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gtoubassi|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] tehwebguy|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] reactordev|1 month ago|reply
A kin to Ed Roberts, John Blakenbaker and Mark Dean invented the personal computer but Apple invented the PC as we know it.
[+] [-] cultofmetatron|1 month ago|reply
Philo Farnsworth invented the cathode ray tube. unless you're writing this from the year 2009 or before, I'm going to have to push back on the idea that tv's TODAY are based on his technology. They most certainly are not.
[+] [-] TacticalCoder|1 month ago|reply
I still have the reels, they look like this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Films_Path%C3%A9-Bab...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%C3%A9-Baby
And we converted some of these reels to digital files (well brothers and I asked a specialized company to "digitalize" them).
100 years ago people already had cars, tramways (as a kid my great-grandmother tried to look under the first tramway she saw to see "where the horses were hiding"), cameras to film movies, telephones, the telegraph existed, you could trade the stock market and, well, it's knew to me but TV was just invented too.
[+] [-] shevy-java|1 month ago|reply
Nowadays ..... hmmm. I no longer own a TV since many years. Sadly youtube kind of replaced television. It is not the same, quality-wise I think youtube is actually worse than e. g. the 1980s era. But I also don't really want to go back to television, as it also had low quality - and it simply took longer, too. On youtube I was recently watching old "Aktenzeichen XY ungelöst", in german. The old videos are kind of cool and interesting from the 1980s. I watched the new ones - it no longer made ANY sense to watch it ... the quality is much worse, and it is also much more boring. It's strange.
[+] [-] tzs|1 month ago|reply
Circles would have had a couple of advantages. First, I believe they would have been easier to make. From what I've read rectangles have more stress at the corners. Rounding the corners reduces that but it is still more than circles have. With circles they could have more easily made bigger CRTs.
Second, there is no aspect ratio thus avoiding the whole problem of picking an aspect ratio.
Electronically the signals to the XY deflectors to scan a spiral out from the center (or in from the edge if you prefer) on a circle are as easy to make as the signals to to scan in horizontal lines on a rectangle.
As far as I can tell that would have been fine up until we got computers and wanted to use TV CRTs as computer displays. I can't imagine how to build a bitmapped interface for such a CRT that would not be a complete nightmare to deal with.
[+] [-] ofrzeta|1 month ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
[+] [-] mrandish|1 month ago|reply
For example, page 26 has directions on how to pop by the local chemist to pick up materials to make your own selenium cell (your first imager) and page 29 covers constructing your first Televisor, including helpful tips like "A very suitable tin-plate is ... the same material out of which biscuit tins and similar light tinware is made. It is easily handled and can readily be cut with an ordinary pair of scissors. It is sold in sheets of 22 inches by 30 inches. Any ironmonger will supply these."
[+] [-] augusteo|1 month ago|reply
What strikes me is how fast the iteration was. Baird went from hatboxes and bicycle lenses to color TV prototypes in just two years. That's the kind of rapid experimentation we're seeing with AI right now, though compressed even further.
[+] [-] smithza|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] briantoknowyou|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] Avalaxy|1 month ago|reply
Edit: to make it clear, I absolutely did not miss having TV for even a second in all of those years.
[+] [-] bilsbie|1 month ago|reply
Video has a strange hypnotic power over most people and messages seem to bypass normal mental defenses.
[+] [-] JoeDaDude|1 month ago|reply
[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Theremin
[+] [-] robotmachine|1 month ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
[+] [-] G_o_D|1 month ago|reply
My tv's have gone through real stress test in real life unlike factories
During childhood, we had our tv Switched on in morning 4:00 till 22:00 at night, constantly being watched 16-18 hrs a day during weekends and vacations (45 days), while least 10hrs a day during weekdays , for last 22 years
I only had 2 crt in my 30yrs of lifetime, Sansui and Samsung, channel broadcasters being changed from Tetrestrial Channels --> FTA Antenna --> Cable Tv --> Satellite Dish from time to time
Newer tv cannot cope up with such lenghty watchtimes,
Still RCA Only, no HDMI, Tv still have its Radio Antenna port on top
[+] [-] accidentallfact|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] GoatInGrey|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] zdc1|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] zapataband2|1 month ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fyrn_|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] rexpop|1 month ago|reply
This privatization of leisure generates a vicious circle of isolation, transforming the active citizen into a member of a lonely crowd. In this atomized state, we lose our mētis—the practical, situated knowledge essential for self-governance—and become vulnerable to the high-modernist state's imposition of simplified, legible grids upon our lives. Furthermore, the media inundates us with the myths, preventing us from naming the world for ourselves. To break this cycle, we must move from submissiveness to a liberating praxis that reclaims our time to build alternative social institutions and counterhegemony through direct, face-to-face cooperation.
Why, even here on Hacker News we've corroborated my position regarding the necessity of breaking the "spectacle" through direct, generative action. On a recent thread about the "loneliness epidemic," HN folks argued that the epidemic is not merely an individual failing but a structural byproduct of a "death spiral" where digital convenience and "behavior modification schemes" have cannibalized the "real world". The community identifies that the privatization of leisure—manifested in car-centric suburban sprawl and the erasure of "third places"—has stripped us of the capacity for spontaneous encounter, leaving us waiting for "nicely packaged solutions" rather than facing the "great unknown" of human connection. Consequently, the proposed remedy aligns precisely: individuals must transition from passive consumers to active "Hosts", building "alternative social institutions" like non-profit event platforms that reject "dark patterns", organizing "physical social networks" on street corners, or reclaiming public spaces through guerilla cleanup efforts, effectively proving that we must "stop waiting for someone else" to reconstruct the civic dialogue.
[+] [-] grishka|1 month ago|reply
[0] https://github.com/grishka/miscellaneous/blob/master/AVDecod...
[+] [-] Deanallen|1 month ago|reply
This idea is why I always take media with a grain of salt. The decontexualization makes it easy for people to be reactive towards something, that isn’t logical
Eg “now this is why <insert person or group> is good/evil”
People call me the devils advocate when I point out these nuances but I just think we need to be much more critical when forming and holding opinions.
[+] [-] hnlmorg|1 month ago|reply
“Now this” is just a segue between unrelated topics.
Eg “and now a word from our sponsors”.
[+] [-] burkaman|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] masfuerte|1 month ago|reply
[+] [-] marcd35|1 month ago|reply
I eventually quit the job. I decided I didn't want to be a part of making our society worse by installing these devices that were causing manufactured outrage, hate, and selective truth telling.
Soon after I left, I found a book while thrifting that came out in 1978 called "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander. I laughed at the title and couldn't believe someone was already arguing for the detriments of TV before I was born. It's very well written and the points he makes are still relevant today.
From the wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimina...
Mander believes that "television and democratic society are incompatible" due to television removing all of society's senses except for seeing and hearing. The author states that television makes it so that people have no common sense which leads to...being "powerless to reject the camera's line of sight, reset the stage, or call on our own sensory apparatus to correct the doctored sights and sounds the machine delivers".
Mander's four arguments in the book to eliminate television are:
1. that telecommunication removes the sense of reality from people,
2. television promotes capitalism,
3. television can be used as a scapegoat, and
4. that all three of these issues negatively work together.
[+] [-] empressplay|1 month ago|reply
https://paleotronic.com/2018/09/15/gadget-graveyard-bairds-m...
[+] [-] UncleSlacky|1 month ago|reply
http://www.tvdawn.com/earliest-tv/phonovision-experiments-19...