>If it's not advertising, then it's those pesky fund raising specials that PBS has every so often instead. I donate to PBS because I really do enjoy the shows they choose (even if they are old) and I enjoy watching them without commercials. However, it seems like the fund raising is on about every 2 months these days and that interrupts the schedule I do enjoy.

I sure agree that the fund raisers do disrupt my schedule, and that they seem to getting more frequent.

On the other hand I *still* get far more out of PBS over a year than I do from either commercial or cable television. So I grumble through those periods < s >


>
>
>>>>>>Since advertising pays for the shows' (and in some cases the channel's) existence, it would all go away... A few stations have gone off the air shortly after they first broadcast.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which sucks - there is no other viable model to publish anything or have a service (on either web, or TV or paper) and make money on it, but via advertising.
>>>>
>>>>Have you ever *heard* of HBO ? <g>
>>>>
>>>>As the means of distribution is more efficient viewers will be able to be more selective and buy what they want. No ads, just pay for content. The trick is to be able to make the content available to a wide enough market that highly specialized tastes can be served.
>>>
>>>Sounds more like the internet than any kind of broadcast TV, including HBO. HBO has a much smaller audience than the "big 4" networks but it still numbers in the tens of millions. No question the whole television model is in a period of transition.
>>>
>>>As an aside, I am letting my HBO subscription go as soon as "The Wire" ends in a few weeks. All the series I liked will be gone.
>>
>>You're just bitter because they cancelled 'John from Cincinatti' <g>
>>
>>I imagine there will always be some kind of advertizing funded 'broadcast' TV. But the share will continue to dwindle.