Cable TV has ads, so why isn't it free?

[UltraVires]

This is mostly hearsay from my grandfather who died in 1993, but was around in the 40s and was always trying ways to get new television signals:

In West Virginia, reception is spotty because of the hills and valleys. There were only two local channels (5-CBS, and 12-NBC) that one could get from rabbit ears. I remember as a kid putting aluminum foil and touching the foil to something metal to get better (or sometimes worse) reception.

But, hey look, there is a big hill overlooking our small town. We can put a big ass antenna up there, send it down the hill, split it around to our neighbors, boost the hell out of it, and get channels from Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Stuebenville, OH, Charleston, etc.

The first “cable” television system was basically a business model whereby if you wanted my grandfather to run a line from his antenna to your house, you agreed as a neighbor to chip in part of the cost.

I remember mornings where we woke up and there was nothing on TV. The old lady up the road called shortly thereafter. Granddad and I would take his 13" b&w portable tv and other equipment up the hill to test the signal. Good signal at the antenna! No signal at the bottom of the hill.

We go to the halfway point and get a good signal! We spend several hours rinsing and repeating until we see that a deer got tangled in the cable at a certain point and we repair it. Then that evening, we enjoy our eight channels of entertainment! (Three carrying the same broadcast).

I remember being able to watch the Pirates on KDKA channel 2 out of Pittsburgh. Nobody except our “cable” subscribers could see that in this area.

As I sit in the very same house where that system was installed, I wonder what Granddad would think of 700 channels, YouTube, Netflix, etc. at the touch of a keystroke. My guess is that he would probably try to figure out a way for more bandwidth.

[amaguri]

[derail ahead] I like when a completely new cable channel launches and the ad team apparently hasn’t been able to sell all of their airtime so you end up with a mix of obscure, unusual and generally crummy ads until they can catch up.

In other news, I am easily amused

[cochrane]

@kunilou

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.

I must be lucky. All of my channels come in clear and steady as if they were on the cable with just a set of rabbit ears, including one from 45 miles away. And my set top box has a PVR which costs me nothing to use. I really only watch 16 of the channels on a regular basis, but I also save an additional $115 a month that I was previously paying for cable.

[brujaja]

@aseymayo

Sorry, never heard that one before.

Oh, it’s true, though! Once upon a time there was only broadcast television. Then, at least where I grew up, there was something called a “public access channel” (which was cable) and provided a venue for truly eccentric people to just let it all hang out.

**BUT **when they first introduced the idea of “Pay-TV” everybody was all, like, “What? I get ‘Streets of San Francisco’ and ‘Gunsmoke’ and Walter Cronkite already for free! Why the hell should I shell out a lot of good money for cable?”

And at first, the answer was “Porn.” That was the main selling point of cable at first – Ron Jeremy 24/7.

A little while later, the answer was indeed “No commercials!”

The proof being that, for a loong time after that, there WERE no commercials on cable TV.

curious george, I’m with you 100% on this one! This is my very most pet peeve, right after improper use of the apostrophe. It really, really bothers me how some people sit around all day getting paid to figure out how to get us to start paying for something we currently get for free. Like, it used to be that if you were looking for a place to rent or a job, you looked in the want ads which the landlord or employer paid a small fee for. Then these guys came along with the idea of the ad’s TARGETS paying a huge fee to a middleman because only they had the “good” listings. Thank god the internet (and Craigslist) put a stop to that. Well, sort of.

The other part of this whole scam is that commercials on cable TV, which everyone back in the day signed up for to get away from commercials – those ads now take up fully** one third** of every hour, far more than they ever did on broadcast TV.

[ronenfe]

@kunilou

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.
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.

What I’m thinking is the channels earn more money by getting paid from the cable companies than broadcasting over the air and get more rating.
That’s the reason they don’t go OTA too.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@nearwildheaven

I realized this was a zombie thread when I saw all the references to VCRs.

I was a big fan of seeing this sig!

@ThePolecat

---

As long as my bottle opener is Y2K compliant, I’ll be okay.

Really takes ya back…

[DrCube]

@ftg

In both the zombie and revived parts, there’s this weird idea that cable TV was/is somehow commercial-free related.

What the what???

@Thudlow_Boink

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?

1. Because the two biggest cable stations started out explicitly commercial-free. HBO still is, if I recall correctly. MTV dropped that policy like a bad habit in the mid-80s.

2. Because we often hear (nowadays) about how “if you’re not paying, you’re not the customer, you’re the product” or “if you don’t like ads, pay the programmer!” or some other condemnation based on the idea that “freemium” business models (where you pay to get rid of ads, but the product is free otherwise) are the only kind.

The internet/mobile apps are basically repeating the same kind of experimentation with business models that the cable industry did in the 60s-80s, so these sorts of questions are being discussed again.

[ftg]

@DrCube

1. Because the two biggest cable stations started out explicitly commercial-free. HBO still is, if I recall correctly. MTV dropped that policy like a bad habit in the mid-80s.

Here’s the first hour of MTV … well, in text form The video’s have been deleted due to copyrights. But it does describe the first commercials 10 minutes in.

It’s silly to think that all but a few basic cable channels were commercial free. HBO (1974) was pay-tv, of course. But not TBS (1976), ESPN (1979), CNN (1980), etc. USA, Lifetime, Discovery, and such were always commercial.

Some of the exceptions: The original version of Bravo was pay-tv like HBO, then for a while was commercial-free relying on cable company fees and donations, then finally got commercials and sold its soul. Disney did something similar.

I’m not sure if CBN, a very early satellite channel, was commercial-free.

Unless you were subscribed only to pay channels like HBO via cable* and got your other programming OTA, your had a lot of commercial cable channels.

• Other non-cable ways of getting programming we’ve lost includes microwave distribution direct to homes. A funky small square antenna on top of the house, etc. For those, HBO was a supplement to regular OTA programming. But also “not cable”, technically.

[fiddlesticks]

Nickelodeon was ad-free in its very early years.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@curious_george

It seems when cable tv was first starting around 1980, the idea was that customers would pay a monthly fee but there would be no commercials. However, as long as I have had cable tv, it has had commercials and the monthly fee keeps rising. Why do customers put up with this?

Cable goes back a bit farther than that. The initial problem to be solved wasn’t commercials, but poor OTA reception in remote or hilly areas/neighborhoods. Where before you almost always had to put up with flecks or even “snow”, once you had cable the picture was crystal clear. Let’s see…in L.A., without cable, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7,9,11, 13, and those were the three national networks plus a few other local stations. When we got cable around 1970, we continued to have those channels, and the commercials were the same, although I think there weren’t nearly as many commercials back then. With cable, as well, we could watch all the formerly unused channels now, as well, but they weren’t those actual channels. Channel 6, for example, was PBS, which in turn was really Channel 28. We could barely pull that in with a UHF antenna before. Channel 12 on the dial became UHF channel 52, which used to feature some interesting odds and ends, including an early version of what eventually became Turner Classic Movies.

So apart from PBS, and from a new prototype movie channel “Z” that came in a few years later, all those stations had commercials.

[Lord_Feldon]

@ftg

Other non-cable ways of getting programming we’ve lost includes microwave distribution direct to homes. A funky small square antenna on top of the house, etc. For those, HBO was a supplement to regular OTA programming. But also “not cable”, technically.

I looked this up to get more details about it, and wow, they sued people who kept the antenna up after canceling service.

[ftg]

@Lord_Feldon

I looked this up to get more details about it, and wow, they sued people who kept the antenna up after canceling service.

Since they were using the public airwaves to broadcast a signal, they couldn’t encrypt the signal.* So people could get an old antenna, buy a receiver from an ad in the back of certain magazines and watch HBO for free. (An ex-BIL did this.) Being a microwave signal, the antenna pretty much had to be out in the open.

• I’d guess that rule no longer applies. It wouldn’t apply to things like cell phone calls since those aren’t “broadcast” to many people.

[cochrane]

@ftg

Since they were using the public airwaves to broadcast a signal, they couldn’t encrypt the signal.* So people could get an old antenna, buy a receiver from an ad in the back of certain magazines and watch HBO for free. (An ex-BIL did this.) Being a microwave signal, the antenna pretty much had to be out in the open.

• I’d guess that rule no longer applies. It wouldn’t apply to things like cell phone calls since those aren’t “broadcast” to many people.

My dad knew “someone” at Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) in Tucson and bought an HBO receiver and dish from him. Apparently nobody from HBO noticed as we never received a notice from them. Eventually cable came to our area and we became a subscriber.

[oara]

I first saw cable television in 1997, and I was pretty surprised that it had ads.
And also that hbo would play the same movies constantly. Pretty disappointing.
But the web came along and who needed television?

[Steve_MB]

What I find really annoying are the ads on some of the channels on SiriusXM – it’s not bad enough to get ads after paying to get the content, but to add insult to injury the ads are all the sort of blatant one-step-ahead-of-the-bunko-squad crap (get-rich-quick, miracle-cure, etc) you’d expect to find on a local Podunk station at 3AM.