It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Keep Antenna TV Free Commercial, What?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 06:52 PM

Just seen this commercial on cable television a little bit ago. At first I was thinking to myself "huh?".

What are they trying to say here? I couldn't find anything on the NABs website.
I'm not sure if they are suggesting that over-the-air TV may become a pay to view service or what? If so that's just crazy!

Can someone fill me in?

[edit on 12/26/2009 by darklife]

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 07:10 PM
I don't know, either. Sorry.

When I was a kid, 1950's and into the early 1960's, there was talk of creating a pay as you view TV system. But in that way back time, the talk was of each consumer having a box on top of their TV that they needed to put a quarter in so to be able to view one half hour of TV. Heh. While the technology is much more sophisticated now than what was imagined 50 or so years ago, it seems minds were working, seeking a way to get more money from folks.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 07:13 PM
I am sure there has always been greedy people who are trying to do this like the cable companies. They must see free tv as a threat.

I am surprised however that we have no information on exactly who these lobbyist are.

We need more info, like who they are, have they tried to get someone to propose a bill if so, what is in the bill etc..

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 07:17 PM
Well I sure hope this isn't what I think it is. The commercial looks evil as is and seemed completely out of place for being on a regular TV channel. Looked like some NWO stuff lol.

If they are thinking of making people pay to watch free OTA television in the USA they have another thing coming! It's bad enough they forced viewers to get those stupid DTV boxes when no one really wanted them, but if they think they are going to make people pay to watch them then holy cow!

I really hope that is not what this is about. I probably shouldn't speculate until more info is in as to what this is about, but that's how the commercial came across to me.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 07:26 PM
what they are trying to say is keep free to air tv free. im not sure if they want to keep it analog or digital but im fairly sure its a community service announcement.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
If you have to pay
You have to sign an agreement
get sucked into a contract
give up some of your rights
to do so.
Some would would say
no big deal
But even I agreed to the Terms and Conditions
of this web site to even post this.
So why did I give up some of my rights to
post on this site and watch videos posted here?
Why do we agree to consent to censorship?
If you are reading this post
it means I have not violated any terms of any contract
I have signed yet!

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:17 PM
Maybe they are referring to something similar to a system we have always had in the UK - The TV licence - although it's a bit of an outdated concept now a days, now were getting more and more media channels most people don't see how t's fair that it;s a legal requirement.

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:32 PM
What they may be referring to is the usage of the over-the-air broadcast spectrum (currently used for TV) for other uses, such as broadband video sent to web-enabled cell phones. Some of the phone/wireless companies want more of this spectrum allocated for such uses. But NAB seems to feel they already have enough spectrum or can use other methods to deliver their content and opposes giving up more of the TV broadcast spectrum.

According to NAB's website "a new study that shows nearly 750 MHz of spectrum is currently available for licensed broadband use. That figure is more than double the amount of spectrum allocated exclusively for TV broadcasters, which totals 294 MHz."
"To the extent that more spectrum is needed for broadband uses -- a proposition that should be fully tested -- the Commission should not assume that broadcast spectrum is the best or even a viable place to find that spectrum," NAB and MSTV wrote."

Not sure if this is what the ad was referring to, but it's the closest I could find on their website.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:01 AM
I saw this today also... I'm pretty sure it is a commercial against the swap from analog over to digital, as it left some millions of people without access to t.v. (some can't afford the boxes, and those that simply didn't bother for their own reasons.. I think the Government ran out of the rebate coupons also for the converter box).

My first thought was "Wow, this is a bit late... heh."

So yeah, while you may be able to watch tv for "free," if you don't have a newer television or one of the converter boxes or cable, then there will be money in someone's pocket if you want to watch it.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by ganja
I saw this today also... I'm pretty sure it is a commercial against the swap from analog over to digital, as it left some millions of people without access to t.v.

No, it's not, its a commercial against cable TV charging you to view what otherwise would be a free over the air signal.

Horrible commercial, but *good* for you (if you understand it)

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by daniel_g

Hmm.. Ill have to pay more attention the next time I see it. Maybe it was a different one... meh. Either way, I think they should have left it as it was. My parents only use basic tv, and since the swap they dont even have as many basic, local channels as they used to. Hell they can't even get APT! (Public television)

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by daniel_g

Woot! First double post! Sorry!

[edit on 27-12-2009 by ganja]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:55 AM
As more and more people are turning their tv off in favour of the internet and videogames, and possibly even meaningful social interaction, I really think they will have a hard time convincing ANYONE to pay for awful television they dont want to watch anyway.

If this results in more people turning off their tvs and reading books though I reckon it's a good thing. Don't be too hasty to slam this hairbrained idea.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:42 AM
This concerns possible (broadcasters say "probable" interference with on-air broadcasts from "white space devices". In a report from Oct '08, Nate Anderson explained National Association of Broadcasters concerns on the ars technica website - ( - by saying, "the broadcasters assert that white space backers are engaged in nothing less than "euthanasia" and "a movement to totally eliminate television broadcasting."

Anderson says the fears are based on "recent comments from white space backers that they would like to "take TV off the air" in several years and comments from FCC Chair Kevin Martin that unlicensed devices might be allowed to operate at 40mW on open channels immediately adjacent to TV signals." According to broadcasters, signals of this strength would interfere with both antenna and cable reception.

Google, Microsoft, Dell, Earthlink, HP, Intel, Microsoft and Philips are backers of WSDs and want to use spaces previously allocated to analog tv for two-way high-bandwidth wireless communication.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:07 AM
Probably a bit off topic but since i am a newish member i cant start a thread. The mention of free to air tv is farely relevent to this comment though. With the uk tv licence law were if you want to watch any free tv channel you have to pay a tv licence fee to the bbc even if you dont watch the bbc channels you still have to pay a fee in the region of £120 or around $230 per year.Purely by owning a tv, radio or even a mobile phone you have to pay this fee per year. Is it only me that feels this is wrong since i pretty much watch tv very rarely even more rarely that i ever watch bbc broadcast's yet i am subjected to pay this fee BY LAW because like 99% of the population i own a tv. I can't even watch free to air tv unless i pay the bbc that i hardly watch.Surely if they are so concerened about making a profit without having to show advertisment between there shows they could easily encript there channels the same as any other non free to air tv channel without the need to prosicute people who do not pay for a tv licence. Just my opinion

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by operationnimrod

Even bbc have ads, between shows, so they are not exactly ad free.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:14 AM
Andy 1033,

Yeah granted they have ads but they are only for there own shows the main factor of how they justify the fee is apparently because they are add free which as you said isn't completely true. In my opinion the day of the tv licence is over there is no longer an excuse to force a mandatory fee on tv livence with the advent of tv signal encription.

new topics

top topics


log in