With the networks still hemorrhaging money in the recession and the purchase of NBC by Comcast, pundits are predicting that the era of free TV channels is coming to an end. As cable channels siphon off viewers and ad dollars dwindle, the growing theory is that the hoary old networks will require viewers to subscribe with a cable or satellite service.
And while this may not play well with the handful of old-timers watching TV on their newfangled digital antennae, I for one welcome our Comcast overlords. In an economic landscape where the most valuable viewers (in advertising terms) have cable, networks have been forced onto an uneven playing field. The quality of cable shows like “Mad Men” and “Sons of Anarchy” (among many, many others) — which should have forced the networks to create better original programming — instead led them to scramble for cheap reality show solutions that slowed the bleeding. Hence two-hour blocks of “American Idol” and “Dancing with the Stars” and one-hour results shows the following day — anything to save them from the cost of writers, of actors, of new ideas, of risk. Anything that might result in, for lack of a better word, art.
I’d happily pay a few more dollars a month to have the option of more original programming and less reality trash, and those who disagree can get in line behind the people talking about how much they love the feel of the morning newspaper in their hands. I believe that line starts behind you. In the 20th century.


I live in an area with no cable access. Yes in America ther are some. I rely on OTA stations. With a good antenns, I can pick up several stations and most HD stations have two or three channels per stations. It’s as good as cable since 75% on cable are things you never watch anyway. Free TV is one of the last free things left in this country.
It’s funny how people in this country always seem to overlook the less fortunate. Maybe I’m not “old” and not really amazed by the all the DTV garbage, but what about the people that can’t foot a bill for cable or dish? Maybe it’s not a lack of advertising, but that consumers don’t have the money they once had to spend on all the shinny shit they push into your living rooms. What then, we start putting ads on blogs, websites, and youtube……..wait, we already do that, and has there been any talk about what thats NOT doing? The over all problem i have here is that TV stations are greedy, and this is just one more bullshit move they are going to push, since most americans these days are totally fine just sitting at home not making a deal out of all the things we keep loosing. You take away my free TV, i say revolution!
you already have a way to pay a few extra dollars a month to get better programming. it’s called *cable*. And not everyone can afford it. We’re in the middle of a recession, and you’re saying everyone should have to shell out more money that they might not have, to get basic things like the news, because you don’t like reality television?
Usually I agree with you, but this is bad form, man. Not everyone is above the poverty line, just because you can afford cable doesn’t mean everyone else can, and should be forced to.
How about banging the ala carte channel package drum a bit so cable’s more affordable without the big gross packages, before you start saying everyone should be forced to adopt? IMO the better way to increase television quality is to let people unsubscribe from any channel they damn well please. Look how well it’s worked for hbo and showtime, their original series are some of the best tv that’s ever happened.
“Time Warner and Fox better figure shit out because if I lose F/X I’m going to be pissed. Then I’ll switch to Direct TV.”
You do realize that Directv is a fox entity in essence right? Why would you put more money in their pocket for blackmail money??? 300% pay increase is nuts.
Anon said “That’s the whole point of the digital conversion! There are 20 percent of households that are cable/satellite holdouts. By causing half of them to lose half the channels the OTA ratings drop,”
Losing half their channels? Without digital, I picked up at the most 3 really fuzzy channels. With digital and a tiny antenna,over 30 with maybe 4 repeats.
But I am probably not the voice of reason here, because I just never watch a lot of TV regardless. but I can’t imagine that people lost channels.
I don’t remember the last time I had pay TV. I pick up 30+ channels on a cheap small digital antenna. Whenever I visit my brother, I see he has 100+ channels of nothing on.
I don’t think I’m missing anything for the money. At all.
“Personally, I have found myself wondering why I even still have cable (actually Dish Network), when I can find any stream I want on the Internet and watch it without commercials.”
this is total right….The revolution will not be televised or on the radio, just all over these DAMN blog sites!!
tv cable will fall soon….who doesn’t go online for videos….and for “Rebecca” why should i pay for cable when i don’t even watch half the channels, and be forced to pay for something i don’t even use….so go blow yourself and pay for your cable….i have 1,300 tv shows and 650 movies…..so go blow your self and get in the times
About what Moo said, I find it very confusing. The two sides of the argument are flinging so much shit at each other that I have no fucking idea who to believe.
The fact of the matter is, we are headed for a time where WE will be able to choose what programming we want, by paying for it individually streaming or downloading to our DVRs when we want it, not on Wednesday at 8pm.
This will happen within 10 years. It’s just too easy for the Networks to eliminate the middle man in the cable companies. All we need is High speed internet and we can download and stream all of our HD content right to the TV.
Personally, I have found myself wondering why I even still have cable (actually Dish Network), when I can find any stream I want on the Internet and watch it without commercials.
I, for one, can’t wait for the day when historical TV shows all feature screenshots of blogs to remind us of the zeitgeist of the era. Assuming, of course, those screenshots are kept somewhere. If only there were a permanent, non-erasable way to record history …
the next thing we know you’ll be helping them round us up to toil in their underground sugar caves.
“First you get zee sugar, then you get zee power, then you get zee women.”
That’s the whole point of the digital conversion! There are 20 percent of households that are cable/satellite holdouts. By causing half of them to lose half the channels the OTA ratings drop, putting the silver bullet into OTA TV by dropped ratings (and advertising money). It should have been called The Cable Market Saturation Act. Thank you Bush 2.0!
In Canada the big networks equivalent to your abc, nbc,cbs and fox are trying to get it so people have to pay to get there signal through satellite and cable providers since they lost money due to the recession/lost ads.
This just in — NBC execs have bypassed the above tombstone in favor of a cinderblock with a painted peacock on it.
I actually wouldn’t mind paying for the five – six channels that I want to watch. It’s paying for the other 47 that pisses me off.
What the networks should be arguing for is an end to FCC interferance. There is a reason the best shows are on cable and that is because there are fewer limits on the content. Put The Sopranos on network tv and it would have been so neutered the show would have been cancelled after half a season. But allow NBC, CBS, FOX and ABC to show it uncut and the networks are saved.
I hope that if free network programming does come to an end, then this will somehow open the door to local stations to come in and create free over air programming a la the Weird Al classic, UHF.
Hey, those people will still have PBS.
Aw, but Charlie Rose creeps me out.
And people who can’t afford cable don’t deserve televised emergency broadcast information anyway!
Hey, those people will still have PBS.
Time Warner and Fox better figure shit out because if I lose F/X I’m going to be pissed. Then I’ll switch to Direct TV.
Sure, first you’re telling us we should happily pay a few more dollars a month for more original programming, but the next thing we know you’ll be helping them round us up to toil in their underground sugar caves.
And people who can’t afford cable don’t deserve televised emergency broadcast information anyway!
Anything you say, Ron Paul.