I think you and the user you're replying to are both right. To expand upon that, for most of the 1900s, there was a dominant culture (as you pointed out, fewer

I think you and the user you're replying to are both right. To expand upon that, for most of the 1900s, there was a dominant culture (as you pointed out, fewer than 10 channels). For there to be a "counter" culture, there must be a dominant culture. I would posit that in the current time, we have a wide variety of well established subcultures whereas for most of the 1900s we didn't. Today our subcultures can exist easily due to mass media, whereas for most of the 1900s they couldn't - the subcultures were more "underground" - underground in the sense that you really needed to be part of a community in person to be part of the subculture. The "counter culture" was a push back on the smotheringness of the monoculture. Now that the monoculture is not so smothering and the subcultures can breath, there's less pushback - there's less "counter".