We tend to overestimate change in the short term, and underestimate it in the long term. This effect is clear and I have written about it many times before. While we can often tell that a specific change is coming, it can be very hard to say exactly when the change will happen, so we tend to get over-excited and think that it will happen sooner than it actually does. On the other hand, longer-term trends are more difficult to call because they are likely to be derailed by events that simply could not be anticipated, with those unanticipated events sending us spinning off in a completely new direction. And that is exactly what’s happening right now to television — a medium that is in such technical transition that it will soon have a completely different look everywhere, except perhaps here at PBS. You might think by this I am writing about Digital TV or maybe the Internet, but no, I am writing about TiVo.

The technical story of television starts with TV versus radio, then color versus black and white, UHF versus VHF, cable versus broadcast versus satellite, analog versus digital, and now TiVo versus all of the above. Each of these technical milestones, with the exception of the very last, tended to increase the reach and power of television broadcasters, while the TiVo revolution threatens to destroy that power completely, taking it out of the hands of broadcasters and vesting it — at least for a moment — with viewers.

Cut away all the technical trappings of television and you are left with only three basic components — the shows, the business (which usually means the commercials), and the schedule. In the minds of most broadcasters, even here at PBS, these three components are inseparable. True, as a non-commercial TV network, we don’t have advertisers per se, but we do have financial stakeholders — organizations that view their interests as encompassing the airing of certain shows at certain times to certain audiences. Well, TiVo, by which I mean all the various types of Digital Video Recorders (DVRs), changes this mix completely.

The goal of every broadcaster is to command his or her time slot, offering a show that is so compelling that everyone within range will stop whatever they are doing to watch that show. Success is measured in terms of both total viewers and total share of viewers. The difference between these two numbers is key. Total viewers is best — millions and millions of viewers — especially if the number is mainly filled with folks from 18 to 49 years of age, which alas, no longer includes me. But if for some reason people decide to go to the beach or to plant tulips instead of watching TV, then broadcasters want to have the highest percentage of desirable viewers who are choosing to watch TV at that hour. That’s audience share.

In order to maximize their audience numbers on both of these scales, stations and networks schedule their available programs with military precision, trying to attract an audience and then keep it hour after hour at the expense of other network programmers, who are trying to do exactly the same thing. This explains why the only two shows you actually like watching on a regular basis are inevitably on different channels at exactly the same time. Each is trying to lure you from the other, and each is willing to die trying.

With an ever-increasing number of broadcast, cable, and satellite channels, it is harder and harder to draw an enormous TV audience. And the likely success of Digital Video Recorders makes this even worse because now it is almost effortless to record your favorite shows and watch them some other time when you want to do so, rather than when a network strategist wants you to watch. The most sophisticated DVRs, which means TiVo itself, even record shows you haven’t asked for just because they are somewhat like shows you have watched or recorded before. In this way, DVRs take away the power of programmers and allow us to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it.

On the face of it, this is good because audiences are better served. It is also good because once DVRs become the dominant way of watching TV, which they will soon when DVRs are built into TVs themselves, then broadcast networks can begin to think more like cable networks and play the same shows several times per week in order to create an optimal recording opportunity, thus increasing the impact potential of each individual episode. Think of this as the Sopranos Effect.

But from the commercial broadcasters’ viewpoint DVRs are beyond bad. They are terrible. This is because watching pre-recorded shows allows viewers to bypass the commercials. Some DVRs even have the capability to automatically cut out the commercials for you, instantly turning television from a business to some form of charity.

If nobody watches commercials, then advertisers will stop advertising and TV networks will eventually stop broadcasting as we know it today. This is what I meant when I wrote that TiVo would change the world.

Since broadcasters will want to continue broadcasting, my prediction is that they will follow the lead of movie studios and record companies, and try to have laws passed making DVRs illegal, or at least, making illegal DVRs that can wipe out or bypass commercials. Or maybe they will try to pass a tax that will charge DVR purchasers, passing any revenue on to networks and broadcasters as compensation for lost viewer eyeballs. This survivalist approach simply will not work in the end. It is an insult to viewers and comes down to ordering the tide not to turn.

This leaves broadcasters with three survival options, all of which are being used already to a limited degree. If viewers won’t watch commercials, maybe they will pay directly for TV programming. This is happening at HBO and other premium channels, where nearly all revenue comes from subscribers and almost no revenue comes from advertising. The second thing broadcasters can do is make cheaper shows that reflect the lower revenue potential of programming in the TiVo era. That’s where all the reality shows came from because they not only draw good audiences, they are also cheap to produce. That $1 million “Survivor” prize at the end of a dozen weeks equals the pay of any one of the stars of “Friends” for a single episode, making “Friends” at least 144 times as expensive to produce on an hourly basis than “Survivor.” This means “Friends” loses money on every show, which the network and producers are willing to support because they hope to win the evening and make up the loss on other shows. It also means that reality shows can make a good profit with far fewer viewers than top sit-coms. Expect more reality shows, no matter how horrible they are.

The third thing networks can do to find revenue when viewers refuse to watch commercials is to change the definition of what is a commercial. That the judges on “American Idol” each have in front of them at all times a red Coca-Cola glass is no accident. Coke pays for that exposure, which is called product placement. Expect to see lots more of that. Expect product logos on singers and actors. Expect car rebate offers and sales to be mentioned as part of program story lines. Product placement has been here since “Hawaii 5-0” cops drove only Fords back in the 1960s, but the trend is likely to accelerate.

Commercial television will adapt or die. Maybe they’ll make commercials even more interesting than the shows themselves. Broadcasters will find ways to cope, though between now and then there will be plenty of breast-beating and tantrums. Only non-commercial broadcasters like PBS will remain unaffected and serene.

TiVo? TiVo is our friend.