Now They Want to Cut Off Free TV

"Free TV" ? What the hell is that ? If you mean non cable, non satellite, then there's still
your time that's being charged to watch their crappy commercials. Here in central New York, you can get channel 3, and 9 for "free". 0 + 0 still =0. None of them are worth watching, because generally, you get what you pay for in life. I've paid for Dish Satellite TV since 2002, and I've gotten good digital transmissions that were worth recording on the DVR. Most of them are priceless. And I know I never would have seen them on "free TV" Garbage is free too. Would you miss that ???

Yeah, I would agree that free TV isn't really free. Those who think they are immune to the advertising are more than likely fooling themselves. Those Madison Avenue types have spent incredible amounts of money to find ways of instilling their messages. Many (most?) of those messages are now actually inserted into the programs themselves to thwart those who think they can use their Tivos to avoid the ads. Going TV-less beginning about five years ago was one of the best decisions I have ever made. The amount of time it freed up still kind of amazes me...now I just wish I could say that I put it to use finding a cure for cancer or something instead of "just" enjoying my own life more. Gotta be better than that weird kind of living vicariously through the pretend lives of TV characters I see so many people doing...heh...

cut off free tv? that's Ok. I'll be alright. no, seriously...i'll be...

Good, then I'll just stop watching TV. Fuckers.

No really. I'll quit cold turkey and never think twice. Not even joking. I almost did over the bullshit digital boxes everyone had to buy and the government coupons for the boxes were like 20 bucks lower than the price of the units! Fucking assholes.

There is nothing for free. There is no "right" to free TV or internet. Everything has to be paid for by someone. Unless daddy is giving you a free ride. But that is only temporary.

Enought people DROP cable TV, they'll start dropping there high prices, just start watching DVD's...and tell the cable company to go kiss-off ! hit the big companies where it hurts, in there pocket books...! You want the News, turn on the radio..! read it on the internet.

*sob* - No more 3rd rock from the sun reruns? . . damn!

I live in a rural area. The stations in the larger town have transmitters on a mountaintop that send the signals this way. The local town has a tower that has the equipment that allows me to get TV over the air with an outside antenna or rabbit ears.

I pay for that tower and equipment through property taxes each year. It's under a dollar a year.

Another small town had their tower hit by lightening. They couldn't afford to have it fixed. They have no over-the-air TV. If you want TV, Dish or Direct are the two choices.

The Federal Communication Commission ruled years ago that the airwaves belonged to the people. However, as many have noticed, the airwaves are being bought by large corporations and CONTROLLED by the corporations with the blessing of our government officials.
(Actually...bought government officials is more lke it.)

XM and Sirius merged. Now you got what? for satellite radio. One corporation.

Information, or the control of information, is practiced by countries that have very tight controls and restrictions on their people,
And..... control of information is the key in winning any war.

I wonder how many of the above responsses are bought and paid for by Comcast. I don't know about all of you but the PBS stations here are constantly begging for donations in order for the statikon to continue to operate. I haven't watched NPR that much to find out where their revenues come from but I am old enough to remember that years ago before the age of greed and before the FCC became a profitable corporate owned Government agency Nearly all programs had one sponsor. The CEO's must have been more sane and civil because they did not spread the outrageous bonuses and wealth to a few loyal Company leaders and comrades. What is the difference if a corporation is owned by a government ot if the government is owned by the corporations, it sounds just like the old USSR to me, yes real brutal Socialism perhaps better known as Communism, you know that state of profiteering and wealth awarding state of high finance that Rush Limbaugh lovers so much, Where only the greedy officials love to look down on. They are just like our congressmen who think that all of us are stupid and do not know how government works, Ha Ha I have news for all of them. Not all of us are fools, just the majority.

"My question to the people who are complaining; why are you knocking a company trying to turn a profit on their investment?"

Why shouldn't consumers work equally hard to be profitable in their own lives?

When Company XYZ eliminates health benefits and downsizes....we view it as normal, even honorable! "Hey! That company must do everything it can to make a profit and get as much as possible for as little cost as possible!"

Well CONSUMERS are acting just as "honorably" by themselves trying to get as much as possible for as little cost as possible.

Would you think it's normal for a company to go bankrupt paying each of its employees $25 MILLION a year in salary?

No.

In fact, I suspect you'd applaud that company for trying to find way to "maximize profitability" by consolidating work and reducing wages -- what they euphemistically refer to as "increasing productivity."

So when I as a consumer engage in identical tactics as a company and try to maximize profitability in my own life by keeping a formerly free service free....why do you suddenly view that as "selfish" and "greedy" and "unreasonable"?

It almost sounds like brainwashing:

If a company does something, it is for saintly and noble reasons.

If a consumers does somethng, it is because they are greedy and stupid.

Like news papers, tv can thank the internet for this reasoning. Both tv and the papers are ran by moguels. Both have seen a decline in revenue based on the dilution of advertisement dollars.

My question to the people who are complaining; why are you knocking a company trying to turn a profit on their investment? Why would an individual pay money to bring a something to others? I doubt many people here would give their dinner to others for the right to provide them with a service.

but for those who will not pay for the services i recommend, Freakonomics or SuperFeakonomics by steve levitt. its worth the time.

If you know your history, JP Morgan, The Rockefellers and the Jekyl Island group set control of the media the first step in controlling the USA. Second was to have the Federal Reserve Bank approved by the Congress. Then it was only a step to the FCC and open control and Forced buyouts. The Government agencies had a straight shot to control after they put Congress and the Senate in their pocket and then it only took opening the doors to the Oval office and the coup was complete. The once famous Taft Hartley act once protected the public by limiting the hostile takeovers that was before the corporations got wise and bought out out government and the servants of the people.

I'll just continue downloading shows like I have been. So I can watch without commercials and watch when I want.

I don't even own a TV, let alone watch one.

Comcast is nasty. They are also so greedy even JP Morgan will raise himself out of the grave and shudder over them trying to be nastier than him. TV could have been a great tool to educate and entertain the people but there is little educational programming and plenty of trashy programming, and more and more of computer animated programs and soon there will be animated voices and then there will be no need for live flesh and blood actors and actresses. All of the profits will remain in the great studios. America is heading to be the worlds largest bloody ghetto and the people ar at fault.

oh that's too bad
more and more things need to pay and then can be enjoy
less and less money be earned nowaday
http://www.topnflnews.com/

Awesome, more news that doesn't effect me

TV is ALL digital now,so ya know what? You basicly have to pay for it ,if you watch TV at all!!! TV NEVER was free though,as long as you have to pay for some way to run the damn thing, it's not free right? ( I mean it's not a rock on a wall is it???) If people start to freak out about this story,it would only prove my theory that humans are becoming increasingly stupid!!! People should be more concerned that Viacom owns just about all media in the US (& a few other places too!!!) & that "Reality" TV Has taken over every channel !!! I'll just sit back & laugh while you come up with some better way to scare people! LOL

Agreed, TV is full of BS! The only thing its good for is watching movies or the History channel. But other than that, society would be a lot better off without TVs. Screw the NFL!

Credible, unbiased information via television died along with Edward R. Murrow.

its still free if u get it on bootleg ;) u can watch just about everything on the internet anyway.

Well would kind of suck that you'd have to pay for on-demand content as well but for some of the shows you already do. So it wont be that big of a change really, some of the newer shows on there you get the newest one free but if you missed a previous episode you wanted to see it's about 99 cents. Invest in a DVR if you guys are so worried, lol.

Yeah right, There is another thing that needs to be fixed. It probably will too. Keep them cards & letters coming folks.
I feel depressed. Maybe I'll go brainwash a skin head into suicide bombing a Neo-Nazi Recruitment event.
Probably not.

Are we trading one screen for another? Does it even matter? I read last week that the average internet user spends 13 hours a week surfing.

How much did it cost to watch TV in 1983? Nothing. It was free.

In 2010? It's going to cost $40 a month, but you can choose ANY cable provider you want. You can either have Comcast, Comcast or you can even pick Comcast as a service provider.

How much did it cost to send an email in 2009? Nothing. You could send an unlimited numbr of emails and were never charged PER EMAIL in 2009.

How much is Comcast going to charge you PER EMAIL in 2011?

5 cents per email without any attachements

10 cents per email with an attachement 1mb or less.

25 cents per email with an attachement over 1mb.

The above scenario is exactly why this trend of turning "free" services into PAYMENT PER services is disturbing.

No one seems to care that in 2009 we all went from free tv (paid for by commercial advertising) to paying $40 a month to watch the exact same shows THAT STILL HAVE COMERCIAL BREAKS EVERY 10mins.

If we as consumers sat passively through that transition -- gladly bent over and opened our wallets -- what makes you think Comcast won't start charging us per email?

We went from free TV to paying out the ass without a single complaint....why wouldn't they do the exact same thing for every single email we send (or even every individual website we visit) and have each site or email be a seperate charge???

"Oh, they would never do that!" the skeptics scoff.

Do you know how money all the ISP's could make if they started charging per email?

And if they all agreed to do it together...what exactly would you do to stop them? You couldn't really "switch" in protest because they all follow the same business model.

Charging PER EMAIL and charging PER WEBSITE is a cash cow and you better believe they are already working on it.

And judging by how "upset" people got when free tv was repalced with PAY FOR IT TV they don't have much to worry about.

Some people don't seem to grasp that the telecom giants have a big vacuum and they are poised to put it directly into your wallets.

"What's the big deal? Who cares if I have to pay $87.00 a month to send 25 emails?"

Really?

You really and truly don't care if it costs you $2.99 PER PAGE to view content on Wikipedia?

the thing that gets me is this is all happeneing under our noses, and we know it, yet it seems we (most of us) choose to ignore it and trust in our government to do what's right.

havent paid for cable in about three years. TPB and demonoid ftw.

There is an unending supply of euphemisms for media monopoly. One of the best I've heard so far is "the evolution of technology and public policy." It's proactive, cutting edge, and applicable to just about anything. I'm glad the writer above did not take the time to refute any of my particular factual talking points and, instead, chose to label the headline "paranoid" and "ridiculous." Those are very effective propaganda words and we'll be seeing a lot more of them when all control of information is in the hands of the new Lords of Knowledge. Just don't look for rational refutation or discussion which strays from a predetermined purpose.

the I guess I won't watch t.v. anymore... who cares really

This is not Big Brother; this is the evolution of technology and public policy. The paranoid tag line of this post is ridiculous.

Broadcast frequencies are owned by the citizens of the United States, and they are held in trust (much like public lands). The airwaves are public property, and no business has the right under the law to use any broadcast frequency in a way that violates the public interest. What is the public interest?

Public interest includes the right to not be subjected to false advertising. In the past many crooked merchants sold faulty or even dangerous products to uneducated people without fear of penalty (if they could get out of town before the suckers found out they'd been had). Broadcasts are monitored to make sure people are not being taken advantage of, and fines are levied when a station commits an offense against the public interest..

Public interest includes the right to information which has not been altered to suit a particular business interest or political group. Television and radio stations must identify when they are stating opinions rather than facts. This regulation exists to protect Americans from propaganda and lies.

Public interest includes the opportunity for any citizen to purchase a television or radio station and to compete for advertising dollars based upon the quality of the programming offered by the station. In the 1950s and 1960s many high quality television programs were beamed into American homes, enlightening and entertaining millions. Thousands of independent radio stations in the 1960s broadcast music from new artists, opening creative floodgates that had stifled innovation.

Now, the broadcast airwaves are under siege from media outlets which deliver many more choices to consumers. This is not a bad thing. However, when free television disappears, the corporations which now control cable and wireless communications will also control opinion by selectively showing only news which is favorable to their interests. Cable providers and cable networks are not subject to the same rules and regulations regarding quality, content, and fairness when it comes to politics. They will have free rein to propagandize as they see fit, and there will be fewer and fewer voices to dispute them before a large audience.

The tide of innovation and technology has now made it possible for a very few individuals to effectively control "reality" in the world communications, and that control will not improve the health of our representative governmental system. This is why I think it is unfortunate that we will lose free broadcast TV. While they are certainly imperfect and mostly poor in quality, free TV broadcasts used airwaves which we rented out to the station owners, and those owners were accountable to us for their licenses. Who does Comcast answer to? Fox? CNN?

Look for more lies and less information in the future.

The reason they are switching to digital is to free up the frequencies on which all analog TV waves travel in order to create secure and long distance channels for the next generation of wireless internet. You would be able to provide internet to millions from long distances.
Just one use of those frequencies...

Why do you think they made everyone switch over from analog to digital?

So your saying i will have to pay for shows like "The Biggest Loser" and "Dancing with the Stars"? the world is ending as we know it! Blame Obama!

Will PBS still be around? Seems like PBS's business model is still doing alright, and guess what.... no advertising there.

TV isn't free, and it hasn't been. Ever since cable was invented, you've had to pay for the service. At least the Internet is still open (for now, at least).

I am unconvinced that this is as scary as some may think. I have Comcast cable (as well as internet and phone service from them) and I do not think they have any impact whatsoever on the content of what I get through the cable. They put on whatever channels people are demanding. there is a wide range of channels and shows that offer differing opinions and perspectives. I don't think it's the cable providers that are the problem. to me, its the companies that own the television stations. the news corps and the GE's and Disney and etc. etc...

Society could definitely better from this course of action.
Less television could ultimately relieve the public from the daily hassle of bullshit and brainwashing that their minds are flooded with every day.

Fuck tv.

Hell, good riddance to tv anyway. Overwhelmingly dominated by bullshit and lies...

Whatever will we do without our tvs...oh, I dunno, maybe go back to being human beings, visit our neighbors, plant a garden, take a walk.