Welcome to new New, Balkanzied, Locked-Down, DRM'd World Wide Web
If they don't want our eyes, then screw 'em.
Is turning away intelligent, educated, financially viable viewers a good business model?
We are BEYOND the point of merely being annoyed- we need to demonstrate ANGER.
Why was ad-supported content (whether broadcast sports or TV shows) sufficient from 1950 through the 1990's (over the air content), with zero DRM, and now they want pay-to-watch, WITH ads on most cable/sat networks!?
IMO, everyone are fools for paying into this scheme.
You pay your cable/sat/ISP bill, then the cable/sat/ISP provider turns around and gives a significant portion of your money to each network for the "right" to carry their content WITH ADS!? You're PAYING THEM to carry ads that make them MORE money!?
At MINUMUM, the networks and cable/sat carriers TRIPLE DIP-
(1) The EXCESSIVE ad breaks, which are now 30% or more of the broadcast time of the program- about 20 minutes per hour for a typical new network show. In the late 1960's, a program like the original Star Trek had 52 minutes
of program per hour- now down to less than 40 minutes
. You do the math- over 24 extra 30 second ad spots per hour, times the cost of a 30 second ad...
(2) They put product placements in the program for MORE ad revenue
(3) They destroy the program's art/cultural/functional value with a THIRD ad revenue source- screen bugs and screen banners during the program!
That 52 minutes of program material in the late 1960's was FULLY funded by the 8 minutes of ads (plus syndication, merchandising, etc, which still exist today). That was WITHOUT product placement or screen bugs/banners!
Why doesn't the 20+ minutes of ads, plus product placements, plus on screen bug ads, fully cover the costs?
They are actually QUADRUPLE dipping if you count the money you pay them for the luxury of delivering these ad sources to you.
And production costs have DECREASED by any meaningful measure.
Is it reasonable to even be involved in this scheme?
...and that's not even considering the scam that is major college/pro sports. Same issue with ads during the game, in the game, on the players uniforms, and the same issue with your ticket money/sports channel money going to pay overinflated player's salaries and their owners. There is ZERO reason for ANY player to have a salary more than a few hundred thousand/year max for the BEST players. The best players can always earn their 10's of millions on endorsement deals if they are good enough/popular enough. That way, ticket prices for consumers/fans would be minimized. But broadcast sports should be 100% covered with ad revenue.