Could this be the record for the oldest zombie revival?
FUCK!:mad:
Observation beaten by, like, 5 minutes! :mad:
Any way, we had cable in 1980 and, with the exception of HBO, Cinemax, and SelecTV [anyone here remember that? Even without cable you could get it. Comment if you remember why.] Everything else had commercials.
I knew someone with cable in 1974. we were in awe of the 30 channels they had. 
data point:
II was at a presentation for “cable TV” in a small town circa 1964:
Their spiel:
“This is just like having a neighbor with a really good TV antennae and hooking up your TV to his antennae!”
Just a few pennies a month and NO COMMERCIALS!
Ever see the “public access” channel on a hick town’s cable?
But yeah, the original deal was “pay cash and never see a commercial again”.
By the 80’s, the newspaper’s 'TV Viewing Guide" was a mess - trying to list all broadcast + ‘basic cable’ + 'premium cable (BRAVO) - they quit after the listings started covering an entire page.
I have never had cable and was mildly amused to learn that commercials had taken residence on cable.
While it’s true there are a limited number of frequencies, with digital OTA transmission broadcasters can now split their bandwidth to effectively triple the number of channels in an area. Each station can broadcast multiple signals over a single frequency. Most of the stations in my area broadcast three different subchannels, for example, the main CBS channel on 13.1, Me TV on 13.2, and Grit on 13.3. One station in my area even has four subchannels, although theoretically picture quality suffers if one frequency is split into too many channels, especially if one of them is supposed to be in HD. I can pick up seven stations in my area broadcasting a total of 21 channels.
In Capitalist America, only old people bother with television.
(Hey, Slashdot was still relevant in 1999!)
The whole concept of appointment entertainment is becoming a cultural touchstone: Do you feel like it’s worthwhile to schedule part of your life around consuming a specific show at a specific time? People prior to radio largely didn’t, as print didn’t suffer from that limitation, and now people subsequent to television won’t put up with such nonsense, either.
That takes us from the 1920s to the 2020s, at least in round numbers. A century of appointments.
(Sports is, of course, the exception. It will be interesting to see how broadcast media survive going to all sports all the time.)
((News isn’t even an exception. I thought it was for a while, too, but most news can be time-delayed quite a bit and still be relevant. Newspapers work that way, after all. The only news which can’t be time-delayed is emergency announcements, like warnings of imminent storms or other disaster, and that’s typically handled separately from news, anyway.))
Over here in the UK I have something like 100 channels on my OTA TV. I could subscribe to cable, or I could subscribe to internet TV but since the only real advantage is sport, I choose not to.
In fact we only watch five or six of the channels on a regular basis and 90% of what we do watch is time shifted. Two of the channels are BBC (no ads) and the rest commercial so it’s partly to skip through ads and partly to skip through the boring bits of shows like X Factor.
The BBC isn’t free - it costs around £12 a month, but apart from the initial purchase of equipment, that’s it.
The short answer is, the Cable company has no control of the content. They just provide you with a signal from stations without regard to whether they are commercial or not, and they charge you according to their cost for the transmission of that signal. If the stations carried by the cable company charge the cable company a fee, the cable company either carries the station and passes that fee on to you, or drops the offending channels.
I DON’T put up with it!
I had my cable disconnected 10 years ago. They kept increasing their prices and would not allow me to just buy the channels I wanted (à la carte), so I said BYE BYE!
In both the zombie and revived parts, there’s this weird idea that cable TV was/is somehow commercial-free related.
What the what???
A relative of mine installed cable TV in our remote, small town in the mid 50s. All it did was relay two channels from UHF repeaters. Both commercial stations, of course.
That was the core of cable TV for a long time.
When satellite rebroadcasting became widespread, almost all the new channels had commercials. Exceptions were pay channels like HBO and SHO and a very few paid via other methods. E.g., shopping channels which were basically all commercials, etc.
Even back in the day when we had “only” ~24 channels, only 4 were commercial free: 3 pay channels and 1 community channel. Hardly a ratio that would lead someone to think it was all supposed to be commercial free.
Note that ads aren’t enough to support most channels. ESPN charges cable companies a large amount/subscriber which gets passed on to the viewer. Almost all local channels get a fee from the cable companies which contribute a very large chunk of these stations revenue nowadays. (Which leads to those occasional disputes where a cable station and a local channel can’t agree on a fee. The cable company has the nuclear option of not carrying the channel. The local channel has the anti-nuclear option of forcing the cable company to carry it, but then can’t charge a fee.)
BTW: We only watch commercial free TV now, in a sense. We FF on our DVR.
One thing that’s relevant to this question in 2016 is: Why don’t cable networks make their channels available for live streaming for everyone?
Many cable stations have streaming channels, but often it’s only available to customers who already have cable. For example, if you have DirectTV, you can get CNN, FX, and others on your streaming device. The channel will ask you to log into your DirectTV account and verify your service currently gets that channel. But if you don’t have cable service, then you can’t watch the channel. It seems that these cable networks would welcome the additional viewers since the streaming content still has commercials.
I finally threw out my VCR’s because there wasn’t enough time, now I have a DVR and I have even less time and more shows to watch. I can never keep up.
My grandmother lived in a town of 6,000 people all her life, and had cable TV in the 1970s. As children, we were fascinated by the channel that broadcasted the weather all the time. A camera moved back and forth between a barometer, a thermometer, and another device I can’t recall right now. 
ETA: IIRC, they also played Muzak which we didn’t like quite so much.
In 1994, I was in Decorah, Iowa to attend a concert by the alt-rock bands Sugar and Magnapop (the former had Bob Mould as frontman). You know you’re in a small town when they advertise a rock concert on the same public-access community billboard as church bazaars and the band booster chili supper! 
My local cable carrier has http://www.classicartsshowcase.org/ , which I love. It’s also broadcasted from a local college, and this is sometimes pre-empted by college programming. Anyway, it’s commercial-free and will remain so as long as there’s funding.
It has long been common for newspapers and magazines, which are not free, to run ads. So why would anyone assume that it’s mutually exclusive for a content provider’s revenue to come from consumers vs. advertisers?
Nope, this recent thread is about half a year older. this one is roughly the same age.
That wasn’t Elko, Nevada, was it? I moved there from Boise in 1978 and that was the first time I had access to cable TV. I was told that Elko was one of the first towns to get cable TV. It is too far from Salt Lake City, Reno, and Boise to pick up broadcast signals even with rooftop antennas. I don’t ever remember anyone thinking cable should be free. In Elko I got the broadcast channels from Reno and SLC and a bunch of independent California stations I had never heard of, along with HBO and a few other satellite channels. We also got a bunch of FM radio stations from Reno and SLC. I thought it was wonderful and well worth the price of $5/month or whatever it was.
Nevertheless, there’s still a limit to how many channels are allocated in a given area. I can receive 29 channels over the air (although they usually break up badly, which is a major reason I have cable) while my cable provider offers roughly 300.
[QUOTE=filmore]
One thing that’s relevant to this question in 2016 is: Why don’t cable networks make their channels available for live streaming for everyone?
[/Quote]
Because if I’m a cable provider, your channel is valuable to me because people have to subscribe to me to receive it. If you stream your channel on the internet so anyone can watch it, I’ll take it off my cable lineup. Then you’ll lose the guaranteed three cents per subscriber the cable company is willing to pay for your content.
As mentioned, it’s the magazine model now. Both OTA and basic cable channels get a large chunk of their revenue from shared cable/sat revenues. Not just ads.
Also, for a cable company to profit off of non-subscribers using their bandwidth, they’d have to insert a lot more ads than they currently do. (There’s a small amount of ad time they are allowed to replace with their own ads based on deals with the channel providers.) More cable company ads means fewer provider ads means more conflict over a smaller revenue base.
Sounds like Classic Arts Showcase with a different genre of music. 
I haven’t caught up with you yet, but I canceled mine in October '14, so that’s 20 months, at $70 plus tax. About $1500. I haven’t missed a minute of it. I can get local channels with a paper clip antenna. Meanwhile, I just paid my credit card statement, including a round-the-world plane ticket booked for this August, $1450. Manila, Brunei, Qatar, Addis Ababa. I can go wherever I want, every two years, for the cost of cable.
Anybody envy me?