• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ted Turner says that TV might not be "free" anymore

Chaotic42

Chaotic42

Lifer
Considering that you have to pay for cable just to have the right to watch the commercials, I don't see how it's free now, but anyways....

ABC News just said over the radio that he said that it's too easy to skip commercials with products like Tivo. He said we might have to pay $250/yr on top of everything else.

I'll try to find a link. Anyone else think this is stupid? I'm glad I don't have TV.
 
I doubt that TV will get to that point. There will always be a "free" aspect. Tivo won't affect that much, because there are far more televisions watchers out there then there are TIVO's and TIVO copycats. I think this one is on the same shelf like "The US is moving to metric system in the late eighties"... So don't break those rabbit ears yet!
 
Originally posted by: Tsaico
I doubt that TV will get to that point. There will always be a "free" aspect. Tivo won't affect that much, because there are far more televisions watchers out there then there are TIVO's and TIVO copycats. I think this one is on the same shelf like "The US is moving to metric system in the late eighties"... So don't break those rabbit ears yet!
Click to expand...

My problem is with the idea. The vicitim syndrome is spreading.

Poor old network execs :sniff: 🙁
 
I hear this rummy still has a drinking problem. This is what they do when they forget it's a privilige to do business with the consumer. Let em keep their cruddy programming and commericals.
 
Who's Ted Turner?
Click to expand...
Isn't he some manically depressed person worth millions of dollars? We'll have to see how Rupert Murdoch (owns Fox, NY Post, etc.) responds to this. Apparently, Ted and Rupert have been at odds for some time now. It should get interesting...
 
TV will always be free as long as you have an antenna and live within range of the station.
Cable isn't free now, neither is the dish.
Contrary to popular opinion the networks don't own the frequencies they transmit on and they can't charge for access.
 
My problem is with the idea. The vicitim syndrome is spreading.

Poor old network execs :sniff:
Click to expand...

This is NOT victim syndrome.

He is not claiming to be a victim. He is just describing a possible scenario. Truth is ADVERTISING REVENUES ARE DOWN. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR TV, if not thru advertising then we will OR content will go down significantly. either way, he's not claiming to be a victim. he's not saying he's entitled. HE IS ENTITLED. if revenues are DOWN then he has to find a way to increase revenue. THAT IS NOT VICTIMIZATION.

at least know what your talking about.
 
I acutally watch the commercials....better whats on broadcast tv anyways.

But if all goes though, it will just end up costing more to the cable company/provider , which passes on the expense to you. $250 a year , per connection, about $21 a month.
 
Originally posted by: Tiger
TV will always be free as long as you have an antenna and live within range of the station.
Cable isn't free now, neither is the dish.
Contrary to popular opinion the networks don't own the frequencies they transmit on and they can't charge for access.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could. I beleive in the UK, you have to pay for a TV license in order to watch TV, at this pays for programing. They have white vans driving around looking for people that didn't pay their TV fee and fine them. Could happen here.

 
Yes, they could. I beleive in the UK, you have to pay for a TV license in order to watch TV, at this pays for programing. They have white vans driving around looking for people that didn't pay their TV fee and fine them. Could happen here.
Click to expand...

I think tiger was talking legally not technically. yes with current technology you can charge for airwaves, no legally you can't because the networks don't own the airwaves.
 
Yes, they could. I beleive in the UK, you have to pay for a TV license in order to watch TV, at this pays for programing. They have white vans driving around looking for people that didn't pay their TV fee and fine them. Could happen here.
Click to expand...

Is it possible technically to scramble a TV signal and keep non-subscribers from receiving it? Of course.
Will it ever happen? Not till hell freezes over.
The spectrum the networks use is held in public trust by the FCC.
Each TV station is required by law to provide the service as a public service. It's a condition of licensure.
They are allowed to charge for air time, either advertisers or individuals.
They aren't allowed to charge the public for access or restrict that access.
 
YAWN, And how will they broadcast emergencys and how about local stations and advertisers? They want thier message out..

Funny how some of you poeple think cable or dish is soooo important, almost a have to have. I don't have any paid TV nor do most of the guys I work with. We are too busy and wish our kids to be inindated by real fun rather than stick them in front of a box and forgetaboutem' till it's bed time.

Like Tiger said will never happen.
 
Have you ever heared of PAY-TV????
They just have to scamble their program and ... voila, you have to pay to watch their program!
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
YAWN, And how will they broadcast emergencys and how about local stations and advertisers? They want thier message out..

Funny how some of you poeple think cable or dish is soooo important, almost a have to have. I don't have any paid TV nor do most of the guys I work with. We are too busy and wish our kids to be inindated by real fun rather than stick them in front of a box and forgetaboutem' till it's bed time.

Like Tiger said will never happen.
Click to expand...


Like I said, this is done already in other countries and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Now get back to your Amish meeting brother Carbonyl. You gotta plan that barn raisin' 🙂
 
They just have to scamble their program and ... voila, you have to pay to watch their program!
Click to expand...
By law they can't scramble the signal and the law won't change anytime soon.
 
Amish meeting brother Carbonyl.

I wish LOL🙂

Seriously what are some of your most fun and learned expirences from childhood? I bet it was'nt TV ones and TV's melt the brain and lack critical thinking. When my boys complain about no cable I play a game of chess with them or teach them something like yesterday I tought my 8 yr old how to mix fiberglass and we patched a hole on the boat together.. This morning we are going riding thier motorcycles at the dunes. Actually his friends come over and hang out with the "fun" dad on the block ME LOL🙂
 
You have to understand that what Turner says does make sense. Television channels make most of their money by providing advertising space. The better the TV shows are the more people will watch and the more money they can charge for advertisements. If everyone stops watching advertisements by using Tivo, then they will lose money. Its the same way many web sites that used to be free (like Gamespot, etc) now charge for their content since advertising revenues are down as no one clicks on the banners.
 
in the US, the airwaves that cbs, nbc abc and other basic cable stations are owned by the public. Not sure how it is in the UK but AFAIK that is the american way
 
Turner is talking out his arse. Adcritic died because they couldn't get enough bandwith to serve the commercials. People don't mind watching commercials, it's just that it gets dull after seeing the same commercial 5 times. On the rare times I do watch tv I find the commercials to be amusing and interesting. I doubt they'll change free tv anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top