4 ms·

> that's not cable. That's premium. Moving the goalpost is not compelling. Yes, national cable stations were commercial free for years (eg Z Channel^1, HBO, Sh

> that's not cable. That's premium. Moving the goalpost is not compelling. Yes, national cable stations were commercial free for years (eg Z Channel^1, HBO, Showtime, et al), before every channel was advertised as being on cable, in a marketing shift to shift away from over-the-air broadcast and bundle programming rates. TBS was regional (Atlanta, Georgia^3), when it started off. The niche market of TBS was not industry defining anymore than my local bakery's donut deal is. This was a shift in terminology, but the history remains^2. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Channel [2] https://www.everything80spodcast.com/hbo-showtime-the-rapid-growth-of-cable-tv/ https://www.everything80spodcast.com/hbo-showtime-the-rapid-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBS_(American_TV_channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBS_(American_TV_channel)

vel0city 3y ago
You're the one moving the goalposts to make cable mean only HBO and Showtime. Cable existed for decades before HBO launched, and HBO wasn't even the first cable-only channel. Cable's original pros was absolutely not about freedom from ads, no matter how you slice it.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    No one is denying that you could buy premium services on top of cable that were ad free. The claim that was being denied was that “cable used to be ad free”, and specifically used as a basis for lamenting an evolving standard where the basic tier of streaming services are ad supported. Aside from not being the claim you have moved the goalposts to, it was made in a context where the ine you’ve moved the goalposts to would make no sense.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Many many people say the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. I guess I should ignore all the evidence and my own lived experience otherwise and listen. Cable had ads from the beginning. A few channels that came out decades later doesn't invalidate that fact. Even then, the first few cable-only channels had ads. Then on top of that the vast majority of cable-only channels had ads, only a select few didn't. It's revisionist history saying cable didn't have ads.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      > Many many people say the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. you're going to have to define many here because I don't think your definition and mine align. > Cable had ads from the beginning. No, cable carried local channels from the beginning and local channels had ads because local channels were typically broadcast over the air to television sets with antenna of some sort (aka "rabbit ears": https://www.amazon.com/Wideskall-Universal-Indoor-Antenna-Coaxial/dp/B06XNM326N/keywords=rabbit+ears+tv+antenna&sr=8-11 https://www.amazon.com/Wideskall-Universal-Indoor-Antenna-Co...). What you're essentially saying here is that the vast majority of cable channels would _interrupt_ their programming to show ads. That was not my experience nor the experience of most people. This is all just one big ass "well akshually..."
      - vel0city 3y ago
        > cable carried local channels from the beginning and local channels had ads Cool, so we can both agree this is 100% non-factual, revisionist history: > Cable TV once had the same allure: Freedom from ads. Like, we're both agreeing that at the start, 100% of cable's channels had ads, 100% of channels had ads for decades, and throughout the entire history of cable the vast majority of channels had ads? > What you're essentially saying here is that the vast majority of cable channels would _interrupt_ their programming to show ads. I have never once made the claim cable would interrupt regular programming of OTA networks to insert their own ads. But, well ackshully, many networks did end up having cable override the ad breaks for the OTA broadcasts and run their own ads, so in a way this actually was reality for some channels in some areas at certain points in time. What I have been arguing is cable TV, from day one and for decades every channel on it, had ads. That the majority of channels available to cable subscribers have always been filled with ads. That the majority of the first cable-only TV channels had ads from day 1 (TBS, CNN, USA, ESPN, Nickelodeon, AMC, etc). The majority of cable-only TV channels had ads. Arguing otherwise is arguing revisionist history not based in reality but in your own fantasy dreamland. > you're going to have to define many here because I don't think your definition and mine align. I dunno, I'm seeing a few people making the argument that cable TV never had ads or was free of ads at the start, and I often find convention centers crowded of people arguing for the flat earth and personally know several moon landing skeptics. My experience is flat earth has more supporters than the "cable never had ads" group. > That was not my experience Ok cool, and many people also experience a flat earth. > I once had someone correct me and say cable also has ads. I had to look it up and sure enough, it apparently does now. You've absolutely made the argument cable only recently started to show ads. You've tried stating things like the Sci-Fi channel didn't have ads when it did from day one. "it apparently does now" makes no sense when you then also agree that the majority of cable has had ads since the beginning.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative, which is incorrect. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Yes, commercials did eventually invade it (as everyone knows), but this was not the initial marketing (aka promise). I guess you had to be there. Good luck with whatever.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative, which is incorrect. Your article literally starts off stating "Although cable television was never conceived of as television without commercial interruption, there has been a widespread impression - among the public, at least -that cable would be supported largely by viewers' monthly subscription fees." Not that it was actually sold that way or promised that way, just that people had some impression that was how cable would work. It also mentions how in 1981 (only few years after the first cable-only big TV channels came out!) advertising was already a $45M. It doesn't once state there were no ads on cable networks, and points to multiple TV channels which launched with ads. The article adds to my point, not takes away from it. There were ads immediately when cable TV only channels were a new thing, this article confirms it. And this also doesn't say anything about the fact most channels on cable were just retransmissions of the major networks, which had ads. So most content available on cable was advertising based. And as mentioned, most cable-only networks had ads when they launched. Sure, there were a few out there like HBO and Z-Channel and what not, but most of the cable-only channels that came out had ads. > Many cable channels have yet to begin operating, and those now running commercials, such as Ted Turner's 24-hour Cable News Network or U.S.A. Network's ''You'' program for women, carry 30-second and one-minute commercials that are a standard feature of regular television Even your other article (everything80spodcast.com) makes a point at the delineation between basic cable (which channels often had ads) and premium cable which relied on additional subscriber fees. Basic cable channels like TBS and USA relied on ads, premium channels charged extra fees. Your own articles continue pointing to the fact ads were on cable from the start. > Eventually, this cable television concept split into basic cable and premium. One of the first basic cable channels was the Turner Broadcasting System, or TBS. And two of the first big premium channels were HBO and Showtime, which will be a big part of the focus here. And its funny you mention Z-channel as an example of one of the early "national" cable channels and call TBS "regional", when Z-channel pretty much never left Southern California. If TBS was a regional channel, Z-channel was a hyper-local one. TBS as a cable channel was in six states, over 90 cable networks, and several hundred thousand households in 1976. A decade later in the mid 1980s Z channel was still only in Southern California on a single cable network and had less than 100,000 subscribers. Which one was old hat? Which was the regional again? Let me reiterate. I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative of "national cable stations were commercial free for years" among other things, which are incorrect. I'm not arguing there were not some premium cable channels which didn't run ads, I'm saying the vast majority of regular cable channels had ads from day one. Your own sources agree with me on this. Good luck with whatever.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> . Yes, national cable stations were commercial free for years (eg Z Channel^1, HBO, Showtime, et al), before every channel was advertised as being on cable Premium cable channels like Showtime, HBO, et al., came after (by a couple decades), and were priced as a surcharge on top of, cable carrying relayed broadcast and ad-supported basic cable channels.

vel0city 3y ago

You're the one moving the goalposts to make cable mean only HBO and Showtime. Cable existed for decades before HBO launched, and HBO wasn't even the first cable-only channel. Cable's original pros was absolutely not about freedom from ads, no matter how you slice it.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No one is denying that you could buy premium services on top of cable that were ad free. The claim that was being denied was that “cable used to be ad free”, and specifically used as a basis for lamenting an evolving standard where the basic tier of streaming services are ad supported. Aside from not being the claim you have moved the goalposts to, it was made in a context where the ine you’ve moved the goalposts to would make no sense.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Many many people say the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. I guess I should ignore all the evidence and my own lived experience otherwise and listen. Cable had ads from the beginning. A few channels that came out decades later doesn't invalidate that fact. Even then, the first few cable-only channels had ads. Then on top of that the vast majority of cable-only channels had ads, only a select few didn't. It's revisionist history saying cable didn't have ads.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > Many many people say the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. you're going to have to define many here because I don't think your definition and mine align. > Cable had ads from the beginning. No, cable carried local channels from the beginning and local channels had ads because local channels were typically broadcast over the air to television sets with antenna of some sort (aka "rabbit ears": https://www.amazon.com/Wideskall-Universal-Indoor-Antenna-Coaxial/dp/B06XNM326N/keywords=rabbit+ears+tv+antenna&sr=8-11 https://www.amazon.com/Wideskall-Universal-Indoor-Antenna-Co...). What you're essentially saying here is that the vast majority of cable channels would _interrupt_ their programming to show ads. That was not my experience nor the experience of most people. This is all just one big ass "well akshually..."
    - vel0city 3y ago
      > cable carried local channels from the beginning and local channels had ads Cool, so we can both agree this is 100% non-factual, revisionist history: > Cable TV once had the same allure: Freedom from ads. Like, we're both agreeing that at the start, 100% of cable's channels had ads, 100% of channels had ads for decades, and throughout the entire history of cable the vast majority of channels had ads? > What you're essentially saying here is that the vast majority of cable channels would _interrupt_ their programming to show ads. I have never once made the claim cable would interrupt regular programming of OTA networks to insert their own ads. But, well ackshully, many networks did end up having cable override the ad breaks for the OTA broadcasts and run their own ads, so in a way this actually was reality for some channels in some areas at certain points in time. What I have been arguing is cable TV, from day one and for decades every channel on it, had ads. That the majority of channels available to cable subscribers have always been filled with ads. That the majority of the first cable-only TV channels had ads from day 1 (TBS, CNN, USA, ESPN, Nickelodeon, AMC, etc). The majority of cable-only TV channels had ads. Arguing otherwise is arguing revisionist history not based in reality but in your own fantasy dreamland. > you're going to have to define many here because I don't think your definition and mine align. I dunno, I'm seeing a few people making the argument that cable TV never had ads or was free of ads at the start, and I often find convention centers crowded of people arguing for the flat earth and personally know several moon landing skeptics. My experience is flat earth has more supporters than the "cable never had ads" group. > That was not my experience Ok cool, and many people also experience a flat earth. > I once had someone correct me and say cable also has ads. I had to look it up and sure enough, it apparently does now. You've absolutely made the argument cable only recently started to show ads. You've tried stating things like the Sci-Fi channel didn't have ads when it did from day one. "it apparently does now" makes no sense when you then also agree that the majority of cable has had ads since the beginning.
Supermancho 3y ago
I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative, which is incorrect. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Yes, commercials did eventually invade it (as everyone knows), but this was not the initial marketing (aka promise). I guess you had to be there. Good luck with whatever.
- vel0city 3y ago
  I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative, which is incorrect. Your article literally starts off stating "Although cable television was never conceived of as television without commercial interruption, there has been a widespread impression - among the public, at least -that cable would be supported largely by viewers' monthly subscription fees." Not that it was actually sold that way or promised that way, just that people had some impression that was how cable would work. It also mentions how in 1981 (only few years after the first cable-only big TV channels came out!) advertising was already a $45M. It doesn't once state there were no ads on cable networks, and points to multiple TV channels which launched with ads. The article adds to my point, not takes away from it. There were ads immediately when cable TV only channels were a new thing, this article confirms it. And this also doesn't say anything about the fact most channels on cable were just retransmissions of the major networks, which had ads. So most content available on cable was advertising based. And as mentioned, most cable-only networks had ads when they launched. Sure, there were a few out there like HBO and Z-Channel and what not, but most of the cable-only channels that came out had ads. > Many cable channels have yet to begin operating, and those now running commercials, such as Ted Turner's 24-hour Cable News Network or U.S.A. Network's ''You'' program for women, carry 30-second and one-minute commercials that are a standard feature of regular television Even your other article (everything80spodcast.com) makes a point at the delineation between basic cable (which channels often had ads) and premium cable which relied on additional subscriber fees. Basic cable channels like TBS and USA relied on ads, premium channels charged extra fees. Your own articles continue pointing to the fact ads were on cable from the start. > Eventually, this cable television concept split into basic cable and premium. One of the first basic cable channels was the Turner Broadcasting System, or TBS. And two of the first big premium channels were HBO and Showtime, which will be a big part of the focus here. And its funny you mention Z-channel as an example of one of the early "national" cable channels and call TBS "regional", when Z-channel pretty much never left Southern California. If TBS was a regional channel, Z-channel was a hyper-local one. TBS as a cable channel was in six states, over 90 cable networks, and several hundred thousand households in 1976. A decade later in the mid 1980s Z channel was still only in Southern California on a single cable network and had less than 100,000 subscribers. Which one was old hat? Which was the regional again? Let me reiterate. I'm sorry that you're insisting on pushing that narrative of "national cable stations were commercial free for years" among other things, which are incorrect. I'm not arguing there were not some premium cable channels which didn't run ads, I'm saying the vast majority of regular cable channels had ads from day one. Your own sources agree with me on this. Good luck with whatever.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> . Yes, national cable stations were commercial free for years (eg Z Channel^1, HBO, Showtime, et al), before every channel was advertised as being on cable Premium cable channels like Showtime, HBO, et al., came after (by a couple decades), and were priced as a surcharge on top of, cable carrying relayed broadcast and ad-supported basic cable channels.