Why do we still have to sit through commercials?
 

The DirecTV/Viacom thread got me thinking.

Commercials were developed as a way for free channels to get the revenue necessary to operate, the same as radio and newspapers. Regular radio stations and many newspapers are still free to this day, so advertising is just the cost of doing business. However, most cable packages cost between $50-$80, just for “standard cable” (not including HBO, etc). My current DTV bill is $85, and I don’t have any movie channels.

We are all paying a premium for these channels, and yet 1/3 of the content is advertising. What is the difference between paying for HBO (commercial-free and unregulated language/nudity) versus (unwillingly) paying for the Viacom package of channels (commercials and FCC-regulated)?

Just get a ****ing dvr.

Problem solved.

Greed.

This ^

Because subscriber fees only account for a tiny percentage of all the revenues channels bring in. That's about all there is to it.

You can still get free channels.

To expand, this article is a bit out of date (2010), but suggests that the average subscriber cost for a cable channel is about $.20.

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-...he-reason-why/

Compare that to HBO, which is currently sitting at $15.99 (though that admittedly includes multiple channels).

This

Well, that and economics I suppose.

Mostly greed though.

Come on, this is America.

Why does everyone always want something for nothing?

Paying for your cable bill isn't nothing.

GREEEEEEEEEEEED LMAO

Fyp

Maybe the commercials offset the cost of the cable bill so it does not cost people 250 bucks a month...

They are doing you a favor, Kinda like when Verizon does you a favor by letting you have a 600 dollar phone they pay 100 bucks for and locking you in for 2 years.