It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

watching tv-- it should be free

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rimkunw
 

oh i hear ya...im an avid reader...i read at night when i go to bed helps me nod off..mostly horror, but in the evening i socialise with my family which involves us all sitting around the tv....same memories i have when i was a child....something...comforting about it




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by brindle
 


lol yes it was...but lets not milk it shall we?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

I am finding it funny, and maybe a bit painful, that it seems many people aren't old enough to remember a simple fact... TV used to be 100% free. In fact some of it still is. The business model used to provide free TV was pretty simple - advertisers paid premiums to get their ads on whatever show they wanted. The better the show, the better the ratings, the more expensive the commercial time.

This was a win for the consumer because it motivated television networks to strive towards having the best programming. Of course they dropped the ball often, but at least they were trying.

Then, one day, cable came along... The premise? Pay extra to watch premium programming WITHOUT commercials. Let's say that again... WITHOUT commercials. And, as a bonus, we had the option of subscribing to movie channels... Something rather mundane these days; but in a world where the war between Betamax and VHS hadn't even started yet... movie channels were a dream come true!


Wrong. Cable started to provide people with channels that were not able to receive them over the air.




Cable is unregulated - meaning that they can jack up prices as they see fit. Most cable providers have little to no competition in most markets. We have the illusion of choice, IE we can choose "cable" or "satellite" but, when it is all said and done, the reality is that it all just about equals out. Price fixing, admitted or not, legal or not, is obviously part of the game. The major differences are all involving "introductory" offers... But once that first 3 or 6 months is over - well, it's back in the grinder for you, Mr. and Mrs Consumer.


Wrong again. Cable is regulated and even has minimums they must charge for packages/install fee's by a local area. This is dictated by franchise agreements and is also why you have public access channels. Its not even close to price fixing because they don't have a monopoly and they don't control the price of content. Your complaining that a company gives you a price break to try its products and then charges you its normal rates? Do you complain when items go on sale?




Cable now has commercials. Oh dear God do they have commercials... Even the stations that swear they are commercial free have commercials about their own station and their own programming. The model that cable was initially based upon is now broken. We pay for "premium" service and then receive, basically, what TV used to be, once upon a time, for free. We pay AND they show us commercials.


If you want what tv used to be then just get a free digital box and get your signals over the air. Cable providers dont get revenue from all commercials on the air and they have huge costs in their network and manpower. They also pay to get channels so that you will want to have them as a provider. Again, the content providers are the ones driving prices.




But, like every other damned business in the west, these days, the culprit ends up being hidden within this fact. Networks are no longer about programming - they are about stock returns. They are about inflating the value of stocks as a means of furthering one of the illusions of our false economy... our little "produce nothing - create revenue from thin air" tactics. Oh, and also to the pay the exorbitant salaries of modern day alchemists, that we call CEO's, COO's, and CFO's.. .wizards who know this magical formula for turning nothing into gold. To create wealth from thin air.


Companies were never about programming it was about money, it always has been. It sounds like you would do better in a communist country.



Don't fool yourself kids... paying for TV is not about buying product from a legitimate vendor at a fair value that is supported and sustained by an open market... Paying for TV is all part of your enslavement.

So... sit back, enjoy your favorite show, complete with helpful and informative commercials designed and tailored to your specific interests and weaknesses, and live the American dream.


Nobody says people need to have TV, its entertainment and if you don't want to pay for it then don't use it. Just like any product or service. If you think that its such a highly profitable business then you need to learn more about the industry. Many cable providers have gone under and many companies that come to the table to try and get in the industry go under. Verizon didn't sell off FIOS because it was making them to much money.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If you slow alot of tv shows down to 1/100th of a second you can see a man dart on to scene carrying a sign saying buy snickers bars or drink miller light-it will make chicks think your sexy, they should stop that too.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


Rock on rebel, I would refuse to pay it also, sometimes you just gotta bang your head against a firm surface and try to remind yourself your not loosing your marbles!! Look out because next tax is gonna be for your eyesight, then hearing. Suppose you had a newer t.v. and turned the color off so it was b/w could you get away with the cheaper tax!!! Or what if you were legally color blind, wonder if they offer an offset for those people?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Anybody see the movie the devils reject? what a movie



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by all answers exist
reply to post by TLomon
 


I see your point, but if all companies operated this way cars would cost ($$$,$$$), and electronics would be incredibly expensive, I think its irresponsible to create a new technology charge top dollar and never reduce the costs, costs eventually decrease or plateau most companies know this an adjust prices accordingly

one could say don't buy it if you think it cost to much, but what about don't sell it unless you can do it reasonably

some places people only have 1 choice for cable provider, but that's a different discussion altogether


You think that there has been no new technology in cable tv? Have you heard of HD/3d/ondemand or just even adding channels? How about the digital transition the government made the cable providers go through? None of that is free and its constantly being upgraded.

Number 1 cost for a cable company is its work force and number 2 is programming costs. You would be amazed the amount of money it costs to have just ESPN.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by brindle
If you slow alot of tv shows down to 1/100th of a second you can see a man dart on to scene carrying a sign saying buy snickers bars or drink miller light-it will make chicks think your sexy, they should stop that too.


Just like when you made the thread about the stimulus you got a call from a number listed gov stimulus on your caller ID and then they hung up on you?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


lol they do reduced price liscence for the elderly and the blind....ill tell u a story though. was in the news, a man refused to pay for a liscence because he claimed he didnt watch the bbc....he called his provider i think it was virgin to customise his package and asked them to remove all the bbc channels....this was b4 he refused to pay, he was then taken to court (i know right? for not funding a tv channel) and was able to prove through his provider that he didnt watch bbc channels, and he won....he didnt have to pay....so in some cases it can be worked around...but as i say im a rebel and watch bbc..but dont pay muuu aaahahahahahahahahah



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by brindle
 


lol is this still on topic?.....but yea seen it and yea i liked it...im straight but the blonde girl in it was hot!! damn gurl owwww!!!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


You really can't say wrong on the old claim from the cable tv companies claiming that it was gonna be commercial free as many of us around still remember those claims. And we are all from different parts of the country so I can't see it as being a regional scam, it was a national scam.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by brindle
 


lol is this still on topic?.....but yea seen it and yea i liked it...im straight but the blonde girl in it was hot!! damn gurl owwww!!!
She was hot, and i really liked that crazy laugh the one guy had



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


sorry you are right, I should say that wasn't the reason cable tv was started instead.

inventors.about.com...


Cable television, formerly known as Community Antenna Television or CATV, was born in the mountains of Pennsylvania in 1948.

Community antenna television (now called cable television) was started by John Walson and Margaret Walson in the spring of 1948. The Service Electric Company was formed by the Walsons in the mid 1940s to sell, install, and repair General Electric appliances in the Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania area. In 1947, the Walson also began selling television sets. However, Mahanoy City residents had problems receiving the three nearby Philadelphia network stations with local antennas because of the region's surrounding mountains. John Walson erected an antenna on a utility pole on a local mountain top that enabled him to demonstrate the televisions with good broadcasts coming from the three Philadelphia stations.

Walson connected the mountain antennae to his appliance store via a cable and modified signal boosters. In June of 1948, John Walson connected the mountain antennae to both his store and several of his customers' homes that were located along the cable path, starting the nation’s first CATV system


Its actually pretty amazing, they would remove the back of the tv and hardwire it in to the back of it as a form of a giant antenna.

My point was that cable wasn't created to bring people commercial free tv, It was created as a way to bring people signal that couldn't access it. ( and make money)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


You really can't say wrong on the old claim from the cable tv companies claiming that it was gonna be commercial free as many of us around still remember those claims. And we are all from different parts of the country so I can't see it as being a regional scam, it was a national scam.


I sure remember that. The whole point of paying for cable was so we could watch T.V. WITHOUT commercials. I remember a time when cable was commercial free and apparently I am not the only one. T.V. stations get paid insane amounts to air commercials. If I have to pay to be subjected to advertisement then I'll pass. I get subjected to it enough, just by driving down the street.

I dropped cable the same time the converter boxes came out, and I didn't buy one of those either. The only thing my television gets used for these days are for video games.
T.V. free for 2 years now and it has made such a difference. However the amount I spend on books has gotten out of hand lately.
edit on 29-12-2010 by calstorm because: spelling error



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


I wish someone would create a device that would block all bbc channels on terrestrial tv,i stopped paying mine about a year ago!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR

Wrong. Cable started to provide people with channels that were not able to receive them over the air.



Not wrong as I was not speaking to the reasons for the development of cable, but, rather to the marketing ploys that were used to lure subscribers to cable television in the early days.


There are several features of modern cable programming that distinguish it from broadcast television. Because cable television carries more bandwidth than broadcast TV (10 to 20 times as many channels), there is room for more specialized channels catering to particular demographics or interests. Also, because cable TV networks rely much less, or in some cases not at all, on revenue from commercials, they can feature programming (such as specialty sports or programming in foreign languages) that draws much smaller viewer numbers than what broadcast networks would find acceptable. And finally, since cable TV channels cannot be viewed by those (e.g., children) without the proper equipment, the FCC’s rules regarding acceptable content do not apply to cable TV networks, allowing greater freedom in the use of profanity, sex and violence.(emphasis mine)


Source

Of course now I do regret not mentioning the sex and violence in my original post, as I am a huge fan of both.


Originally posted by whoshotJR

Wrong again. Cable is regulated and even has minimums they must charge for packages/install fee's by a local area. This is dictated by franchise agreements and is also why you have public access channels. Its not even close to price fixing because they don't have a monopoly and they don't control the price of content. Your complaining that a company gives you a price break to try its products and then charges you its normal rates? Do you complain when items go on sale?


Now, now, now... Isn't the truth of the matter much more complicated than this? Isn't the above highly misleading when looking at the reality of the real world applications of the FCC rules? From the FCC:


1996 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND RULES

In adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress noted that it wanted to provide a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and the intent of Congress.


I point to the terms "pro-competetive," and "de-regulatory". The fact of the matter is that cable, much like most industries these days, seems to have a free hand, for the most part, to charge what they want.

The following is just one excerpt from the myriad of "rules"...


Rates for a cable system's service tiers and associated equipment may be regulated only if the cable system is not subject to effective competition. There are four separate tests to establish that effective competition exists: (1) the households subscribing to a cable system constitute fewer than 30 percent of the households in its franchise area; or (2) (a) there are at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors (one of which may be the cable system in question), with each offering comparable video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area, and (b) the households subscribing to all but the largest multichannel video programming distributor exceed 15 percent of the households in the franchise area; or (3) the franchising authority is itself a multichannel video programming distributor offering video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; or (4) a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise area, but only if the video programming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area. In the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, a franchising authority may presume that a cable system is not subject to effective competition.


Source to FCC for above two quotes

Nothing in this document seems to point to the structured and regulated entity that you seem to think it to be.


Originally posted by whoshotJR

If you want what tv used to be then just get a free digital box and get your signals over the air. Cable providers dont get revenue from all commercials on the air and they have huge costs in their network and manpower. They also pay to get channels so that you will want to have them as a provider. Again, the content providers are the ones driving prices.


As it so happens I do not subscribe to cable. A choice I made three years ago.

Addressing the "huge costs" for these media companies... fair enough. But they also tend to reap huge profits. This includes the content providers.


Originally posted by whoshotJR

Companies were never about programming it was about money, it always has been. It sounds like you would do better in a communist country.


Spoken like a true Republican! If you don't like Corporations raping the public and making a mockery of Democracy... well then you must be a communist.

To be clear, I am an advocate of a free market. What we currently have is not a free market, it is an oligarchy. It is what happens when Corporations are allowed to control the creation of laws and to effect the very organizations which are put into place to control them.


Originally posted by whoshotJR

Nobody says people need to have TV, its entertainment and if you don't want to pay for it then don't use it. Just like any product or service. If you think that its such a highly profitable business then you need to learn more about the industry. Many cable providers have gone under and many companies that come to the table to try and get in the industry go under. Verizon didn't sell off FIOS because it was making them to much money.


Actually it seems that Verizon simply shuffled off their responsibility to their customers with this move...


Under the commitment, the Verizon technician who installed the service will be available to ensure the customer's service is working and to answer questions from Day One. New customers get a direct phone number to reach the technician who installed their service, should they have any questions after the work is done. Verizon service employees will also check in by phone with customers within the first 30 to 45 days of installation to answer any questions, review the customers' first bill and ensure they know how to reach Verizon round-the-clock for any future needs.
Of course if Verizon really valued these customers, they wouldn't be selling off a chunk of them to Frontier Communications. Meanwhile, Verizon has an interesting habit of saving truly personal customer support until after problems arise. You might recall they began assigning FiOS customers in Florida their own "Personal Account Managers" (PAMs) -- after state regulators, local union workers and the local press had hammered Verizon for poor service.


Source

Comcast 3rd quarter profits rose 7.6% (2010)
Article oddly couched in a "Poor us, we are losing money" piece. During a recession, the likes of which have not been seen in 80 some odd years, people posting profits in the billions, in ONE QUARTER are saying "poor us, we're not getting as rich as we did last year...". Pathetic.

Time Warner profits up 7% (2010)


The New York-based parent company of CNNMoney.com and Fortune said its net income rose to $562 million, or 49 cents pare share, up 7.2% from a year ago.


These are just two examples... There are many more companies (and some info here.).

From the research I have seen, just in the last few minutes, it seems obvious to me that these companies also skew and mislead by keeping different aspects of their business separate... for example, whining about how the Internet is killing their cable business WHILE not mentioning that they are also the same companies that OWN THE ISPs.

Incredible.... I take it you work for a small cable company that isn't reaping these billions? If so the above list has some great places to send your resume'.


edit on 12/29/10 by Hefficide because: bb tag failz



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I must say I side with those that are confused by the notion that cable should be free. Cable t.v. is a service and that service warrants payment.

It is entirely possible to still receive free television from over the air broadcasts. The new digital signal offers up to full 1080P resolution with dolby digital 5.1 surround sound along with it. I fashioned an antenna out of a 2x4, some wire coat hangers (no offense Mommy Dearest) and a signal transformer that pulls these signals out of the air.

There are also websites that can help you to orient your digital antenna for maximum reception.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lektrofellon
 


now see thats where u have made the mistake...u have already bought one, so they have you on record ive NEVER bought one so they dont know who i am they just keep sending letters to the occupier hahahah i think now though that if you buy a new tv they are starting to take your details so that u will automatically be hounded for a liscence....personally i dont believe that all that money goes to the bbc.....i think our government has its hands in the pot! i mean how can a tv channel/company enforce a liscence on us, fine us, and take us to court? it obviously has the backing of the government...just another way to get money out of us.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
TV was free because of the vision of Philo T. Farnsworth, the Creator of Television.

He put it on the same broadcast basis, supported by advertising, as had been pioneered by radio entertainment.

His vision was of a humanity UNITED by television, in a country free from homelessness (he also invented the Mobile Home), powered by hydrogen fusion reactors (no joke!), which would then go Star Trekking all over the Universe.

Man Will Not Be Free Until TV is Free...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


See my above reply, I apologized and noted the difference in our wording.



Now, now, now... Isn't the truth of the matter much more complicated than this? Isn't the above highly misleading when looking at the reality of the real world applications of the FCC rules? From the FCC:

1996 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND RULES

In adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress noted that it wanted to provide a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and the intent of Congress.



I point to the terms "pro-competetive," and "de-regulatory". The fact of the matter is that cable, much like most industries these days, seems to have a free hand, for the most part, to charge what they want.

The following is just one excerpt from the myriad of "rules"...


Look up local franchise agreements. They dictate in many( almost all) areas pricing and how a provider must go about changing any rates. In my area we actually wanted to charge less for a package but couldn't based on agreements. Franchise agreements also make the cost of doing business much higher with rules like a requirement of staffing/call center locations or even how fast you pick up the phone.


Addressing the "huge costs" for these media companies... fair enough. But they also tend to reap huge profits. This includes the content providers.


The main thread is about how cable should be free. Not only do you think it should be free but a company must also not make money to you?


Spoken like a true Republican! If you don't like Corporations raping the public and making a mockery of Democracy... well then you must be a communist.

To be clear, I am an advocate of a free market. What we currently have is not a free market, it is an oligarchy. It is what happens when Corporations are allowed to control the creation of laws and to effect the very organizations which are put into place to control them.


I'm not a republican. I agree its not a free market like you say but for the reasons about how much its regulated. In my area we are required to answer all phone calls within 30 seconds of a customer calling 91% of the time. If we don't we can be fined around $250k per quarter and it escalates. Shouldn't the customers be able to decide if we are picking up the phone fast enough? How about how a cable company is required to provide public access channels or how much money the local city can take from a cable or phone operator?

You provide great arguments and are well spoken but my main point still is that cable should not be free and people shouldn't expect it to be. I don't have an issue with any company that provides a non essential service and makes a profit on it. Its the reason about 3000 people have jobs in my area and that doesn't include any other companies that compete with the cable company or the many different people employed by people who provide for that industry.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join