Do you remember when TV was free? Will Radio follow the same path?

[bleedingheart]

I remember when I was a kid and there were about 5 channels that my parents could get reception for, ABC, CBS, NBC, WQED (public TV) and some other channel that I can't remember the call letters for.

For the majority of my childhood, that was it and you either had rabbit ears or your parents paid a bit extra to put an antennae on the roof that had a controller in the house.

TV was free because advertisers paid the costs of bringing it into your home and the "cost" to the viewers was that they would have to sit through the commercials.

Then....cable came...

and the big selling point initially was that it would have less commercials because.....you were paying for it...

So...people migrated to cable and they paid as little as $7-10 a month for the very basic cable and they paid more for the super extra special channels that had even less advertising and great programming or movies....

Today, people pay around $13 a month for basic cable in my area or $50 a month for expanded basic and what you get is a lot of crap with a great deal of commercials. I have friends who are paying as much as $120 a month or more for TV and when you ask them what they watch...they can isolate it down to about 4 channels at most.

Now I see the same thing happening with Radio...the less commercials, the formats you want, when you want it, and I wonder one day will my grandchildren find a radio in my home turn it on and basically get nothing but static, because it won't be able to link into the expensive radio programming?

[mike_c]

1. turn it off....

Yeah, I remember that sequence of events, too. One night nearly 20 years ago I was channel surfing at 2 AM and realized that all I was getting on my "premium package" cable was a couple of interesting movies a month, shown repeatedly, a bunch of movies I wouldn't ever rent because they didn't interest me, news programming that was "info-tainment," re-hashed '70's sitcoms, home shopping channels, long "infomercials," documentary channels that programmed at a high school level, religious programming, and the psychic friends network. And I was paying for that tripe.

I disconnected the cable the next day. Haven't had television since. On the odd occasions when I do watch TV these days, maybe once or twice a year, I realize it has only gotten worse. Why would ANYONE pay for that drivel?

[bleedingheart]

2. actually it is off the majority of the time

I only get basic so that I can get some local news and for my kids.

Your observations are correct though, the content has gotten worse.

But what are your thoughts regarding radio?

[mike_c]

10. I listen almost exclusively to two or three local stations...

...that are indeed "local," and quite good: KHUM, KHSU, and KMUD. The latter two are PBS stations with lots of local programming, and the former is music programming that is entirely locally produced-- NOTHING downloaded from satellites programmed in some distant city. BTW, KHUM streams on the internet and I highly recommend it for music programming. There really isn't any format as such-- it's rather eclectic, although the style is definitely Norcal.

I don't listen to much nationally syndicated radio at all-- again, only a couple times a year, mostly when I'm out of town, so it's hard for me to comment on it.

[kineneb]

3. no tv since 1979

with the exception of 6 months with cable tv to my computer- at nearly $100/month it wasn't worth it. Now we just have the cable modem. No tv. No need. Streaming radio: BBC and Deutsche Welle for news, MDR-Figero for classical music. We don't have good radio reception here and the local stations are...junk.

[KansDem]

5. I'm with you on this one...

I canceled cable in 1996 and haven't missed it since. All because of what you described: I was viewing only about 4 channels and wondering why I was paying $30 a month. When my cable provider dropped C-SPAN 3 in favor of "local programming," I said "enough..."

Back in the 1960s the move was on for "Pay TV." I remember a referendum that failed due to extensive campaigning by the "Free TV" crowd that asked, "Why pay for something you already get for free?" What they failed to mention was that "Pay TV" would do away with commercials and offer better programming. Well 40 years later we now have "Pay TV" with all the commercials that "Free TV" was known for. In essence, we now pay for free TV.

"Turn if off" is the best advice for this dilemma.

[skypilot]

4. I'm convinced that...

...corporations are looking for ways to charge people for lots of things that we used to get for free. I've wondered about the very thing you've posted about. It wasn't that long ago that we were able to watch reruns of, say, "Charlie's Angels" late-night on network TV. Now, you'd have to buy cable to see something like that.

[shraby]

6. Cable should be commercial free since

we have to pay for it in order to get it. At the very least, the commercials should be limited to so many for each program. Ever watch sports like NFL, car racing, etc? A person can't even remember who had the ball last by the time the commercials are done..then they give one or two plays and start the commercials all over again.

[bleedingheart]

8. my husband joked with me that the commercials are great ways

to get stuff done...like all the dishes and perhaps detailing the car by the time your program comes back on.

This is why we only get basic for around $13 a month...cuz I couldn't handle paying more for such garbage.

But then again you have the folks who pay even more to get Tivo so they can record all their TV...and then fast forward past stuff, but that of course means paying more...which I refuse to do.

[Sequoia]

26. Have you noticed the commercials are always louder

so you'll hear them when you walk away to do those things.

[bleedingheart]

27. oh yeah..

[itsmesgd]

7. I'm a complete mess

I have to have cable tv (ok maybe dont have to have it) because I have internet from the cable company. I also have XM radio. But what is real sick is that most of the time when I'm at home/office (same place), my tv is tuned to the digital music channels unless something is happening on cnn or unless I'm listening to talk radio in the late afternoon or night. I dont get anything for free. Now it looks like I'm going to have to pay for a podcast if I ever miss the Malloy stream at night.

[mike_c]

12. I have cable internet but no TV, and it's considably less expensive...

...than the broadband/TV bundle.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. The TV Channells which were free 30 years ago are still free

[bleedingheart]

13. just try and get reception for them...

my hubby and I tried to do that and the images were so poor (not nearly as clear as when I was a kid) that it would cause you eye strain to even watch for even a small period of time. It could be our location we live more in a valley than on one of the hills but I wasn't about to spend more to buy signal boosters and other stuff just to see if it might help.

[suston96]

11. Indeed, broadcast TV is still free......

I spent a good part of my life selling and installing rooftop TV Antennna systems. Made good money for a while.

Then came cable and it wasn't long before many people preferred a small monthly payment for much better pictures than I could guarantee from a TV antenna.

Those TV stations over the air and through the antenna to your set are still free. In fact, if you live close enough to the station transmitters, those beautiful HD signals are also free. You must of course have an HD set with the right tuner or you will just get regular reception.

[bleedingheart]

14. but it is still hit and miss on signals....as I stated above

we tried it at our house and couldn't do it.

In fact we lived in our home for about a year before we ever got cable installed.

All we had was a TV and a vhs player...so when I finally decided to get basic cable the cable guy was shocked that I had lived in a home for a year without any cable.

[kskiska]

15. "Pay TV" meant NO commercials

They did the same with gas stations when they installed self-serve pumps. It used to be unthinkable to get yourself dirty pumping your own gas. That's what service attendants were for. Self-serve was supposed to be cheaper than the full-serve pumps at the same station. Then guess what happened? Once people got used to the idea of pumping their own, full-serve was completely eliminated.

Another issue involves ATMs. The original idea was that teller jobs could be eliminated and money saved by having customers serve themselves at an ATM. Then after a while they began charging to use an ATM.

[Bill McBlueState]

32. there's full-serve all over the place, here

I tend to avoid them, because I like to take care of things myself, but full-serve gas stations are pretty common in the northeast.

In New Jersey and Oregon, it's illegal to pump your own gas.

[npincus]

16. I remember when baseball was free...

it's RIDICULOUS that one has to subscribe to a cable service in order to watch any baseball game. Not only that, we have to subscribe to a PREMIUM cable channel to see our local major league team.

Athletes are so way overpaid, and the little guy gets screwed.

[Oeditpus Rex]

34. I'd jump at the opportunity to pay to watch Dodgers games

if that was all I had to pay for. But I live in Giants/A's country, so while their network (Fox Sports Bay Area) is in the basic package — which is still a rip-off — I'd have to subscribe to the most expensive package to get the Dodgers on Fox Sports West 2.

But it's moot, because cable isn't even available where I live. I have an antenna about 25 feet in the air and a rotor in the house, and I live between two market areas, San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay, so I get about 20 stations (if you count all the Spanish ones).

Still, about all I ever watch is PBS because the rest of it's crap.

Edit to add: There are still about 20 Giants games per season on broadcast teevee, but I wonder how long that'll last.

[hfojvt]

17. I still have free TV

living close to a metro area - KC, I get about nine channels with varying degrees of quality - 4 (Fox), 5 (CBS), 9 (ABC), 16 (TBN), 19 (PBS), 38 (38 the Spot), 41 (NBC), 52 (I), 61 (unknown). I lived through most of the 1990s without a TV at all. I probably shouldn't have one now, or just use it for DVDs. I am, however, kinda hooked on the weather report. After two hours of rain, for example, I desperately want to know 'when the tanj is it going to stop raining!?!1???'

[hfojvt]

18. I hardly ever listen to the radio

except when I am driving. Now I see that some cars are coming that you can attach your ipod too, which would free me from radio even when I am driving. Which I hardly ever do anyway since I do not own a car.

[suston96]

19. While we are on the subject.....

Know what really tees me off?

Two things - the station or network logo on the lower right - which could cause a burn in your picture tube or screen, and is very annoying, and.....

...now they are displaying shrunken advertising on the lower left while the regular programming is going.

What's next?

[bleedingheart]

21. I saw that at my mom's house

our tv options are very limited with basic...but my mom was watching something and this small advertisement was running in the lower right hand corner...it was distracting and annoying.

[ieoeja]

25. Hear! Hear!

There are times those logos and pop-up advertisements actually block something you need to see, e.g. writing across the bottom of the screen identifying the person/character talking.

And a lot of channels routinely shrink the credits to a virtually unreadable size. I am surprised SAG and the studios haven't tried doing something about that.

[Swamp Rat]

20. That is why I play my own music, do my own art, make my own films, read library books,

and I am preparing to do some podcasting.

Even if the Internet is shut down or made unavailable to me for some reason, I can still entertain myself with my acoustic guitars, drums, paint brushes, pottery wheel, and huge library of used books. :)

[bleedingheart]

22. you know what ...you are better off for all of that

I myself keep busy with work and then at home I work with my kids until they go to bed...and then i read or sew...sometimes we pop a movie into the DVD player but that is only when we don't have to go to work the next day.

[Swamp Rat]

23. I pulled from my library last night some really neat old books

written about 50 years ago - seminal works about urbanisation by social scientists... though, it's not easy reading.

Jane Jacobs - "The Death and Life of Great American Cities"

Robert Park and Ernest Burgess - "The City"

Lewis Mumford - "The City and the Highway"

These people were intellectual powerhouses. I wish more folks should read books like these.

[onenote]

24. so much misinformation on this thread, its hard to know where to begin

For starters, the selling point for cable television initially was not less commercials. When cable first was introduced, its primary (indeed sole) purpose was to retransmit free over the air television signals to people who could not receive them over the air either because they lived in an area where reception was bad or in a market that did not have a full complement of the major networks stations then available. Cable existed as principally a retransmission service from the late 1940s until the early 1970s. Its development during that time was hindered by an extremely restrictive regulatory environment imposed on it by the FCC at the urging of the broadcast industry.

In 1972, Home Box Office was introduced as the first satellite-delivered "premium" channel. Then, as now, it offers commercial free programming for a per channel purchase price. Other movie channels, such as Showtime, followed later in the decade.

By around 1980, satellite transponder space had become so affordable that additional channels of programming began to be developed for transmission via cable. These early networks included ESPN, CNN, CSPAN and Discovery. Rather than follow the "pay tv" model of HBO these networks were funded by a combination of advertising and "subscriber fees" paid by the cable operator to the network. (CSPAN was an exception - it is funded entirely by the cable industry and does not feature advertising). No one ever promised that these networks would have less advertising. Initially they did, but only because they had trouble attracting advertisers until they built up a sufficient large audience base.

One's interest in television is a matter of personal preference and I have no problem with people who don't like what is on TV and don't think a subscription to cable or satellite service is worthwhile, or even with people who choose to forego watching "free" over the air television. Personally, I think that while there is a lot of crap on both broadcast and cable, cable programming offers me a lot more viewing options than I had as a kid with 3 over the air networks and a single independent station that offered cartoons and late night chiller theater.

Finally, the reason that a person may not be able to get as clear a picture over the air today as when they were younger probably has to do with differences in where they live, the construction of buildings, etc. that cause signals to bounce and create interference and ghosting, or interference from electronic devices or other radio transmissions. It almost certainly is not the result of the station reducing its transmission power or taking any steps to reduce its over the air signal quality.

[bleedingheart]

31. I remember it being advertised as having less commercials

"No one ever promised that these networks would have less advertising. Initially they did, but only because they had trouble attracting advertisers until they built up a sufficient large audience base." what is funny about this statement is the fact that they got people to pay for cable, and then when they had documented evidence that they had a large audience...they added more advertisements which only aggravates the people who pay for the cable.

I recall when cable was being pushed to our neighborhood and it was all about how we would have less advertising and wouldn't it be great, because our blue collar town wasn't so keen on adding a new bill to their budgets when the didn't have to do it. I remember how depending upon how stubborn people were, some streets got up to six months of free cable in order to get them "hooked" in...

I live in the same community today and my location (which is what I stated)..in a valley is why I probably can't get good reception with rabbit ears....I said nothing about reduced transmission...

What is ironic is that I was chosen as a Nielson family a long time ago...and my family watched so little TV that they kept calling to see if something was wrong with the transmitter....so they took it out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

33. I agree except on one point

As a typical kid in the 1950s and 1960s who watched a lot of television, I completely disagree with your premise that: "cable programming offers me a lot more viewing options than I had as a kid with 3 over the air networks and a single independent station that offered cartoons and late night chiller theater."

The fact is, early TV was so much more than just cartoons and late night chiller theater. There was more quality television and variety broadcast over those 3 channels in the old days than in all of television today combined. Today we rave about certain exceptional series like Rome or Deadwood or Masters of Horror, etc. on cable. In the old days these types of quality shows, well written by master writers and acted in by great stage and screen actors was part of regular programming. I recall actually seeing stage plays broadcast on network television back in the late 1950s like The Glass Menagerie, Death Of A Salesman, Pygmalion, Sarah Plain and Tall, The Iceaman Cometh, The Price Of Tomatoes, and dozens and dozens of others. Paddy Chayevsky first wrote "Marty" as a TV drama on Philco Television Playhouse. Chayevesky probably wouldn't even get a break today, as quality writing about the human experience is no longer in vogue. The Hallmark Hall Of Fame was a long-running series started in 1951 that regularly broadcast televised versions of stage plays or great novels. You just don't find that today anywhere on television except in re-runs or occasionally on PBS. Even variety shows like the Ed Sullivan Show featured great stage performers including clowns, opera stars, circus performers, jugglers, mimes, rock and roll musicians, ventriloguists, magicians, and comedians from all over the world. In a smaller space of channels in the old days, people were exposed to a much bigger part of the world. Today, network TV and its more graphic version on cable, with a few notable exceptions, seems to just want to copy itself. They want to tell us what the culture is and its pretty much all the same, like the McDonalds and Wal-Marts that turn every town in America into a copycat town. TV today is run by Creative Development Executives who put the safety of continued profit above all else. And sure there were a lot of westerns and stupid family comedies in the 1950's and 1960's. But there was a lot of quality writing as well. People like Sam Peckinpah were writing for TV westerns and Harlan Ellison, Robert Bloch, and Ray Bradbury were writing science fiction and horror. Comedy was actually being written for television by people like Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner, Sid Caesar, Woody Allen, and Neil Simon. Something called Lux (detergent) Video Theatre even had several of its dramatic TV episodes written by William Faulkner!

The list of high quality drama and comedy on television back then is virtually endless, and major actors and writers were involved in most of this stuff, like Kraft Television Theater (ABC, 1953-55), Four Star Playhouse (CBS, 1952-56), Ford Theater (NBC, 1952-56) Lux Video Theater (NBC, 1954-57), Kraft Suspense Theater (NBC, 1963-65) The Clock (NBC/ABC, 1949-51), Mr. Arsenic (ABC, 1952) Alfred Hitchcock Presents (CBS/NBC, 1955-65), Theater of the Mind (NBC, 1949), They Stand Accused (DuMont 1949-54), Twilight Zone (CBS, 1959-64), Citizen Soldier (Syndicated, 1956), Armstrong Circle Theater (NBC/CBS, 1950-63), General Electric Theater, Studio One, U.S. Steel Hour, General Electric Theater, Goodyyear Playhouse, Playhouse 90, etc., etc.

Sure there were westerns, cartoons, Ozzie and Harriet, and other stupid shows. Sure there was plenty of censorship by the sponsors, trying to limit controversial or political subjects. But we have that today anyway. What we don't have is a variety and a quality presented by some of the best people in the arts, comedy, and crafts of which there was a cultural explosion back in the 1950s and 1960s. To me, most of what passes for entertainment on cable and network today is much the same. We really note exceptionally good stuff when it comes, and there is variety and quality today. But I don't think it compares in any way to the golden age of television, when there was a lot of live programming and the excitement of experimentation.

[kskiska]

36. I agree. I watched all those programs, too.

We got our first TV in the late 40s. TV was brand new and no one seemed to know what to do with it, so there was quite a mix of programming, from silly game shows to live drama and terrific documentaries in prime time. It's amazing to think a kid would be interested enough to watch all this, but we did. Plus, they had real talk shows then. I watched Jack Paar and David Susskind, along with Ozzie and Harriet and the Beaver.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. TV is still free.

There exist options to expand your selection for more money. Radio, too, is free. Also, there are options to expand your selection for more money (XM, etc.) I don't see a problem, really.

[cynatnite]

29. My uncle gets several channels with his rabbit ears...

Don't know what all they are, but he likes what he gets and doesn't feel the need for cable.

[Kelly Rupert]

30. I don't pay for cable either.

I'll watch a few reruns or Sox games from time to time, but I don't really see the need to waste what little non-textbook funding I have on cable.

[Rosemary2205]

35. Your local channels are STILL free just like before.

And the quality of the programming has not changed that much. New TV's don't come with antenna but radio shack still sells it so that it will connect to a modern television.

[lectrobyte]

37. If not for NPR, and some college stations, FM would be useless,

clear channel has killed it. We have a few bland remote-programmed rock stations, and the rest are country o r easy listening. That satellite radio is looking better and better. Folks are paying a dollar for a bottle of water, so I don't expect anything to be free again, ever.