TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...)

Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...)

Barry Margolin (barmar@alum.mit.edu)
Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:15:30 -0500

In article <telecom23.605.13@telecom-digest.org>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> wrote:

> Given this history, I don't see how it's possible that anyone familiar
> with the industry could have claimed that "there would not be any
> commercials; it is all paid for by your cable fees." Without distant
> independent commercial stations like WGN-TV and WOR-TV, the cable
> industry wouldn't have had a salable product.

Of course they weren't talking about broadcast channels that were
piped in by the cable system -- those would obviously have the same
content as over-the-air. The no-commercials expectation was for all
the premium channels that were created just for pay cable
distribution. Since we have to pay extra to get those, there was an
expectation that these fees would obviate commercials. But the only
channels that have stayed true to this vision are some of the movie
channels, like HBO and Showtime.

Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: John David Galt: "Re: AFA (Flight Attendants) Opposes In-Flight Cell Phone Use"
Go to Previous message: DevilsPGD: "Re: Is 'Transitional Fair Use' The Wave Of The Future?"
May be in reply to: Neal McLain: "Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...)"
Next in thread: Neal McLain: "Re: Cable TV Advertising (was 'Transitional Fair Use'...)"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page