Don't Netflix and other film/TV streaming app pay those TV companies money to stream their shows/films? Don't those companies also have to come to some sort of financial agreement in which the company allows them to stream thier content?

You are making it sound that TV is being strangled when that is far from the truth. The quality of TV hasn't changed over the years. Live audiences might have been lowered but so would of the viewing targets for it to get commisioned. They will have some formula that works out from the viewing figures how much money they will get from DVD, streaming etc.

Lower live viewing figure hasn't effected TV but rather the they way they predict how much revenue they pull in.

Many people have this misconception of TV ratings. 

There are 2 cases for TV shows. One where the TV network airs the show and also owns the studio producing the show. The second case is where the network airs the show but pays a studio to produce a show. In the first case, all revenue from DVD sales, Netflix, syndication etc. goes to the owners of the studio who are also owners of the channel airing the show. In the second case however, the channel airing the show only makes money from advertising revenue from the show's live airings and any repeats. So ideally every network would want to produce their own shows but this is not the case.  

Also advertising revenue from a TV show makes the vast majority of revenue for networks (even those that own the studio producing the show), so that is why live ratings are so important. 

Fair enough!

But do you think the quality/quantity of TV has changed?

We still get a lot of bad TV, same as 20 years ago. We get a lot of good TV, like 20 years ago. Personally I feel the quality has improved but that's subjective.

Do we have figures for the amount of TV show commissioned now compared to 20 years ago?

You don't defend your point. The only way to defend your point is "TV industry ONLY relies and CAN ONLY relie on advertising revenue".

DVR people are far from a majority, and netflix/hulu/whatever is a reliable source of income. If it wasn't they wouldn't be able to produce(fund) their own content (netflix exclusive content)

Well, I think the main networks in the US (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) are taking less risks now. They prefer reality TV shows, and aren't going for new ideas or shows which are different. On the other hand, cable networks are much more willing to take risks and experiment with new ideas. A big reason for this is because the costs of producing a show for the big networks is much more than for a cable network. So basically it costs less for a cable network to make the same show. And with the huge increase of cable networks in the past 30 years, we are seeing many new shows being produced. For this reason, I think the overall quality has improved, but we also have many more shows airing on TV. Its also a much more competitive viewing environment, so more money is being spent on the writing in shows.

In the UK however, you have 2 main networks - BBC 1 and ITV. BBC 1 is much less interested in high ratings and all revenue comes from the license fee. ITV on the other hand is the opposite. Their aim is to get as high ratings as possible which is probably why they cancel shows much more quickly. BBC are willing to try new things and develop and air shows which are different. The opposite is ITV which prefers dramas, soaps, and reality TV and mainly shows which appeal to young people (advertisers mainly care about people in the 18-34 demographics both in the US and UK).

Ever since I got my ps4, my tv viewing experience has been IMPOSSIBLE. I try to watch comedy central, but boom my ps4's screen is in the way, I can't even watch tv anymore because of it. What am I? Some kind of chump who picks up his remote and presses two buttons? I just sit there and yell at my ps4 hoping that it will listen to me.

As I said in my reply to Swordfish, netflix, hulu, DVD and that type of revenue goes to the studio producing the show. Advertising revenue goes to the network airing the show. When the network produces the show and airs it, then they base their renewal decision on all the revenue the show is making. But when the network doesn't air the show, their only source of income from the show is through advertising. In specific, advertising from the shows live airing, and any repeats (networks are usually allowed to repeat an episode 3-4 times if they don't own the show). They don't see any of the income made from netflix, DVD sales, syndication (this is huge! For example Seinfield has made $3 billion in revenue from repeats despite finishing 17 years ago!).So if the network is paying for a show they don't own, but its live ratings are not good, then the show is cancelled. And remember, the network always pays for the show not the studio.

Then the problem is pretty much the networks contracts policy, not Netflix/VOds/whatever.

I agree with that. But the topic is now changing a little.

The original topic of debate that TV shows were suffering from the lack of people watching them live. You kind of proved yourself wrong

Yes, there is a problem with the system networks use to make and air shows. It needs changing. Another big problem with the system today is that advertisers only care about viewers in the 18-49 demographic. A show with 5m viewers and with 3m in the 18-49 demographic, is much much more profitable compared to a show with 15m with only 1m viewers in the 18-49 demographic.