Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Las Vegas Dave

Wasn’t the point of paying for TV access so you wouldn’t be forced to endure commercials?


4 posted on 05/25/2012 2:52:38 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: listenhillary
Wasn’t the point of paying for TV access so you wouldn’t be forced to endure commercials?

You're paying for the delivery, not the content. Well, if it is a cable channel, then you are also paying partly for the content, as the cable or dish provider must pay the channel owner a certain amount per subscriber. But for broadcast network channels, you're only paying for the delivery. Eyeballs viewing the commercials pays for the content.

Without ads, you'd pay much, much more. Look at the premium you must pay for HBO or Cinemax vs. ESPN.

8 posted on 05/25/2012 3:19:00 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: listenhillary
Wasn’t the point of paying for TV access so you wouldn’t be forced to endure commercials?

Remove commercials and you'll pay a lot more for satellite and cable.

24 posted on 05/25/2012 7:42:24 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson