I switch to the "no commercials" movie channel and watch whatever movie is on until the ads are over. All that money those advertisers spend on trying to sell their products are wasted on me.

"The only thing that disrupts television revenue...is programming"

Sorry if your news show likes to get paid for their efforts. Obviously they should all broadcast for free and everyone making the show should live on the streets instead of the offensive sin of trying to make a living.

Why people complain about commercials is something I can not understand. Take away the ads and then the shows and the channels go away too. That hundred bucks you pay is nothing.

Me, I don't have cable and even when I did I did not waste my time watching those stupid news shows.

then how fair and balanced will the coverage of said corporations be?

Cap the salaries. It is the peoples airwaves after all.

State and Local Regulation of Cable Systems

A variety of laws and regulations for cable television exist at the state and local level. Some states, such as Massachusetts, regulate cable television on a comprehensive basis through a state commission or advisory board established for the sole purpose of cable television regulation. In Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the agencies are state public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of cable television is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. In other areas of the country, cable is regulated by local governments such as a city cable commission, city council, town council, or a board of supervisors. These regulatory entities are called "local franchising authorities." In addition, most states have one or more state laws specifically applicable to cable television, dealing most commonly with such subjects as franchising, theft of service, pole attachments, rate regulation and taxation.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/evolution-cable-television#sec7

Being regulated doesn't make cable the "people's airwaves", mostly because cable has nothing to do with airwaves.

Lots of commodities are regulated, but that doesn't mean they belong to the people.

The federal government could, if it chose, preempt all state and local regulation of cable on the grounds that cable is part of a national system of communications. However, the federal government has long maintained a policy of shared regulation under which federal law grants state and local authorities the right to engage in certain types of regulation; the basis for sharing regulation is that cable uses public rights of way and thus the state and local governments have grounds to regulate. But any attempt to regulate the wages paid by national program networks that are distributed not only by cable but also by satellite would exceed any authority that has been conferred on state and local governments.

Plus it would be impossible to do, requiring a massive bureaucracy to determine what level of compensation is owed to literally hundreds of thousands of employees at networks, stations, cable systems, etc. around the country. And exactly how would the wages be set? Would the employees of successful stations/networks/systems be paid more than those at less successful businesses? The same?

And enforcing it is not near as complex as you say, there would be another law to simplify it.

to be set by government fiat. Would run into Constitutional problems (equal protection, freedom of speech, taking of property).

So why not focus your energy on thinking of achievable reforms?

But you don't have to bear it; that's why God made the mute button.

I was trying to figure out how to point out the spelling error politely. You did that very well.

that dream didn't last long....now you pay and get more spots

Premium (ad-free) movie channels such as HBO didn't come around until the early 1970s and were quickly followed by "superstations" such as WTBS (which carried different ads than the locally televised version of the same channel), and other ad-supported networks such as USA Network and CNN.

In the free-air programming model, it was understandable. In the "pay-per-view" model, it's an anachronism.

corporations that pay for the ads that pay for the talking heads and TV news entertainers?

Really, how?

That's when it's a good idea to turn the sound off.

Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I have never timed it but out of an average three hour "game" I have no doubt that at least 1 hour to 1 & 1/2 hours are devoted to commercials.

The same thing is happening to newspapers with an overwhelming portion of the paper actually just being advertising.

This also holds true for "news" and general programming, it has to gotten the point that I've become nauseated of commercials, it feels like mind rape.

Thanks for the thread, rsmith.

There are few to no commercials on MSNBC viat the internet.

And some sites or programs are commercial free.

My television is a movie player. That's all it does. Put in a dvd or videocassette, watch movie.

Sometimes movies have previews of other movies, but I can skip past those.

If enough people reject the current model of broadcast/satellite/cable television things will change.

If people keep paying for content frequently interrupted by F#&^ing Commercials then the networks will keep delivering F#&^ing Commercials.

Amazon Prime and Netflix. The cost of cable became way too high to pay for 98% dreck and commercials. If I want to watch any of the MSNBC shows I can catch them on free Hulu (but Hulu does have commercials -- but it's free).

Was gradually packed with commercials,than came cable selling itself as commercial free tv.
they lied.
We get tons of commercials and PAY to watch them. I wish there could be no more than 2 fucking commercials an Hour on tv including pay tv.