>>A man of principle! A man who is missing some good shows, but a man of principle nonetheless ;-)
>>
>>Not sure I follow your point about paying twice, though. Advertisers pay for the ads. You pay for your subscription. (Well, you used to). Together these comprise the revenue of the networks and cable providers. Is there some rule now against businesses having more than one source of revenue?
>
>Very near to what I was going to say. The ads pay the networks for the shows.

No, they pay for the ad space. The ad has zero connection with the show - it's the same every time for weeks, regardless of what salad is tossed around it. It's on a permanent re-run.

> The subscriptions pay for the cable company distribution.

But not for the content? So if I'm paying for just connection, why am I not getting everything they have? I've paid to be connected. But no, their schedule fee (aka "plan") depends on how many channel packages do I want.

>The cable companies and the networks are not the same thing. Dragan, do you go around naked because the material for your clothes is already paid for by the manufacturer and then they have the nerve to turn around and charge you for the product when you want to buy it?

The tailor has added value. The cable company just resells (under its own terms) what programme (not programming! - that's what we do) is made. Who is inserting the ads? The networks. Their revenue model may sound nice and fair to you, but I still believe that a movie can be art, and if it's chopped into pieces by ads every dozen minutes, it's the same as if a box cutter is applied to a painting. If it was made so that it can be chopped without damage, then it can't be art. It's prolefeed.

Anyway, I've put my money where my mouth is.