
08-05-2011, 02:53 PM
|
 | | | Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 456
| |
If it existed, my poll choice would be "Yes, I'll pay what I pay now, and just keep skipping/fast forwarding through commercials."
But your idea of "I'd pay a lot more to have no commercials" already happens. Channels like HBO don't show advertisers' commercials, but they cost me extra. (I pay first for basic cable, then extra if I want HBO on top of that.) I suspect that most of the extra goes to HBO and replaces the ad money that HBO doesn't get.
Some of the cost for basic cable makes sense to me. There are some costs to my cable company for laying/maintaining cable, having the equipment to download and relay shows, having technicians, billing, and support people, and so on. Note that I'm not saying whether or not the prices are reasonable, but just pointing out that basic cable does cost the cable company something. So I'd expect some kind of charge, even for the ultra-basic option that only shows channels that broadcast locally. Uh-oh, the next part gets a bit long-winded. Skip if you don't care about history ("what cable was originally supposed to be").
I'm not so sure that there's been as much change as it seems. My memory of early cable is patchy, but most of the channels seemed to be in the style of HBO: you paid extra to have them, but you got no commercials. In other words, the 'no commercials' channels worked the same back then as they do now. I can't remember whether all cable channels worked that way (MTV, for example). (If anyone actually cares, I'll ask my mom and see whether she remembers whether MTV had commercials, and whether she had to pay extra to have it included.)
I think the main thing that's changed is that there are now major networks that only air through cable. It used to be that if you wanted to see ABC, CBS, etc., your city had to have a local affiliate station that maintained its own staff and broadcast equipment, showed some local programming, solicited and inserted commercial advertisements, and so on. So some of the commercials gave money to the parent network, and the local commercials gave money to the local affiliate station. It seems that the cable company acts like the local affiliate for cable networks like TNT, Nick, etc. The cable company does most of the same things that the local affiliate stations used to (minus the local programming). So it's not surprising to me that they have continued the same advertising model.
[/uncontrolled pedantry]
Last edited by quirkster; 08-05-2011 at 02:57 PM.
Reason: nit-picky tweaks
|