And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

SFCityBear said:

---

And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, tiny TV screens imbedded in huge units and mediocre picture quality. We saw a handful of sporting events each year and we dreamed of a world in which there might be more channels, better picture quality and larger screens.

I have no problem with the current structure. I have Comcast and pay less today than I did five years ago. It is simply a matter of talking to them about my options and how interested they are in keeping me as a customer.

In addition, the changes that are coming re: how entertainment is distributed are mind boggling. In essence, there is no monopoly capitalism at work. There are plenty of options/choices. If don't like what Dish is doing, talk to them. If you don't like what they tell you, change providers......

71Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, tiny TV screens imbedded in huge units and mediocre picture quality. We saw a handful of sporting events each year and we dreamed of a world in which there might be more channels, better picture quality and larger screens.

I have no problem with the current structure. I have Comcast and pay less today than I did five years ago. It is simply a matter of talking to them about my options and how interested they are in keeping me as a customer.

In addition, the changes that are coming re: how entertainment is distributed are mind boggling. In essence, there is no monopoly capitalism at work. There are plenty of options/choices. If don't like what Dish is doing, talk to them. If you don't like what they tell you, change providers......

---

Television size? Irrelevant! Cable TV was on tiny screens too back then. Laughable to say that cable TV has ANYTHING to do with large, high definition television today.

And cable was unveiled as "advertisement free." That quickly changed. Classic bait and switch. And we keep giving these for profits monopolies, which is EXACTLY what they want. You may HAPPEN to live in an area with cable competition, but you're in the minority.

Let them TRULY compete for customers and we'd have better service and lower prices. But the market was never set up with competition in mind. No, it was profits.

Look at internet. We've been promised really, really fast speeds at low cost. The country that invented the internet should lead the world, right? Nope; slow progress at best - and that's oftentimes WITHIN silicon valley or next door! Many areas of the country still don't have high speed access at all, although telecom was required and agreed to making upgrades. How can that even be considered acceptable?

Compare to us to France, for example, where they enjoy internet speeds at about four times ours and half the cost, on average. Doesn't look like the for-profits are delivering a very competitive product.

TandemBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, tiny TV screens imbedded in huge units and mediocre picture quality. We saw a handful of sporting events each year and we dreamed of a world in which there might be more channels, better picture quality and larger screens.

I have no problem with the current structure. I have Comcast and pay less today than I did five years ago. It is simply a matter of talking to them about my options and how interested they are in keeping me as a customer.

In addition, the changes that are coming re: how entertainment is distributed are mind boggling. In essence, there is no monopoly capitalism at work. There are plenty of options/choices. If don't like what Dish is doing, talk to them. If you don't like what they tell you, change providers......

---

Television size? Irrelevant! Cable TV was on tiny screens too back then. Laughable to say that cable TV has ANYTHING to do with large, high definition television today.

And cable was unveiled as "advertisement free." That quickly changed. Classic bait and switch. And we keep giving these for profits monopolies, which is EXACTLY what they want. You may HAPPEN to live in an area with cable competition, but you're in the minority.

Let them TRULY compete for customers and we'd have better service and lower prices. But the market was never set up with competition in mind. No, it was profits.

Look at internet. We've been promised really, really fast speeds at low cost. The country that invented the internet should lead the world, right? Nope; slow progress at best - and that's oftentimes WITHIN silicon valley or next door! Many areas of the country still don't have high speed access at all, although telecom was required and agreed to making upgrades. How can that even be considered acceptable?

Compare to us to France, for example, where they enjoy internet speeds at about four times ours and half the cost, on average. Doesn't look like the for-profits are delivering a very competitive product.

---

I don't recall cable TV in the 1950's. I guess we were among the dispossessed here in the Bay Area.

71Bear said:

---

In addition, the changes that are coming re: how entertainment is distributed are mind boggling. In essence, there is no monopoly capitalism at work. There are plenty of options/choices. If don't like what Dish is doing, talk to them. If you don't like what they tell you, change providers......

---

Exactly.

Anyone who wants to compare what they've got now with other services that carry their favorite channels can look at this site:

https://www.suppose.tv/tv

Plug in your location and each of the channels that you "need" to have, and the site responds with various options and the prices for each.

71Bear said:

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9

---

And you can still get those channels for free if you want. Just hook up an antenna, they're still there.

It's the ability to watch any game at any time (including all Cal games) that is not free. But I suppose we could go back to the days when the Raiders game was preempted for Heidi or the NBA Finals were on tape delay.

SFCityBear said:

---

And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

---

TV is still free.

Premium TV isn't. You can probably watch as much football as 40 years ago on free TV.

Also check out locast. It's free local TV streaming through intertubes.

....and when I was about 13 they started broadcasting Brigitte Bardot movies on UHF Channel 20 KEMO and those movies were F'ing AWESOME!

Fox was off my sling last week but it's back now.

bearister said:

---

....and when I was about 13 they started broadcasting Brigitte Bardot movies on UHF Channel 20 KEMO and those movies were F'ing AWESOME!

---

let's no forget channel 36, the perfect 36 with Carol Doda

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9

---

And you can still get those channels for free if you want. Just hook up an antenna, they're still there.

It's the ability to watch any game at any time (including all Cal games) that is not free. But I suppose we could go back to the days when the Raiders game was preempted for Heidi or the NBA Finals were on tape delay.

---

I realize I can still get those channels for free. Not totally free, because it is the cost of the antenna and the cost of the converter box so I can get HD programming. But why would a Cal fan do that? This season there are no Cal football or basketball games scheduled on any of those channels, and last season was the same. The Oregon game was very unusual for Fox Channel 2. If you want to watch just about ANY Cal game, you MUST get them on a cable or satellite network channel, and pay dearly for it.

You seem to feel that the operation of these cable network channels is better today than the operation of VHF channels was. I don't think it is any better. I just missed the Oregon-Cal game because of contentious negotiations between Dish and Fox. That was not smooth operation. I had Comcast before. The signal often broke down, and service was awful. I never experienced that with VHF. When VHF failed, it usually was my receiver that failed. I switched to Dish, because Comcast did not carry PAC12 network in SF. Dish sometimes had trouble with their signal, usually due to heavy fog or rain. But it is much better now. And service has always been outstanding. I pay for hundreds of channels, and watch perhaps only 5 or 6 channels. In the old days when there were 5-10 channels, and I only watched maybe 3.

And speaking off topic, there are so many commercials now that often they start the action before the commercial has ended, or the camera is on the announcers, or doing a replay, and the viewers miss some of the action. And also off-topic, there are so many college games now, there are not enough competent announcers to call the game and comment intelligently on it. The NFL does a better job, but the announcing in college games is very poor quality. I'd rather listen to Starkey and Pawlawski than many of the TV announcers from the cable networks.

cal83dls79 said:

---

bearister said:

---

....and when I was about 13 they started broadcasting Brigitte Bardot movies on UHF Channel 20 KEMO and those movies were F'ing AWESOME!

---

let's no forget channel 36, the perfect 36 with Carol Doda

---

You guys are getting me a little excited.

71Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

And I can hardly wait until the other shoe drops, and I see my monthly Dish bill with the increase that the two corporations decided that they could get away with and not lose me as a subscriber. Monopoly capitalism (with government blessing) at work. I can remember the days when TV was free. Now it costs an arm and a leg.

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, tiny TV screens imbedded in huge units and mediocre picture quality. We saw a handful of sporting events each year and we dreamed of a world in which there might be more channels, better picture quality and larger screens.

I have no problem with the current structure. I have Comcast and pay less today than I did five years ago. It is simply a matter of talking to them about my options and how interested they are in keeping me as a customer.

In addition, the changes that are coming re: how entertainment is distributed are mind boggling. In essence, there is no monopoly capitalism at work. There are plenty of options/choices. If don't like what Dish is doing, talk to them. If you don't like what they tell you, change providers......

---

You are comparing today's TV broadcasting with the 1940s, the beginning of the television era? A little unfair. And I was talking about provider charges. The size of the screen, or the size of the box has nothing to do with that. The picture quality was pretty much the same as today, if you turn off your HD, and watch the standard definition channels. And Dish Network does charge extra for HDTV programming.

I was thinking more like the 1960s and 1970s. Every 49er game was broadcast on VHF and every Giants baseball game, as I recall. Lots of NBA games. All the Bowl games and the NFL championship was on VHF. And in 1965, I had a 25" Color TV. It was big enough.

I am glad you are happy with Comcast. I had them in the 1980s or 1990s and I lost picture a lot, and customer service was slow, and awful. I chose Dish because they carried PAC12 network in SF and Comcast did not. The other choice at the time was DirectTV, and they did not carry PAc12 Network in SF either. I say it is a monopoly because the cable and satellite providers have nearly full control over sports programming, networks and channels. There may be others,as you say, but I'd bet it is not any more than 2% of market share. The VHF networks carry a few games between them each week. There is no anti-siphoning law like they have in Europe, which requires that VHF channels be allowed to carry very important sports events. The FCC tried to impose such a law here and it was shot down in federal district court, and leaving the spoils to the monopoly of the three big cable and satellite providers. At least that is how I understand it.

KTVU news went down hill when they made Somerville the night time anchor. I will never watch the nightly news on channel 2!

71Bear said:

---

I don't recall cable TV in the 1950's. I guess we were among the dispossessed here in the Bay Area.

---

Back then my relatives up in Dunsmuir had cable TV. Somebody put up an antenna on a nearby mountain top with a direct line of sight to the antennas in Redding, and then brought a cable line into town. Most of my relatives were to cheap to pay for cable and tried erecting large antennas that never got a clear signal. AS a result family re-unions were typically TV free. Back then cable TV was not the best reception (at least compared to the Bay Area), it was the only reception.

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9

---

And you can still get those channels for free if you want. Just hook up an antenna, they're still there.

It's the ability to watch any game at any time (including all Cal games) that is not free. But I suppose we could go back to the days when the Raiders game was preempted for Heidi or the NBA Finals were on tape delay.

---

I realize I can still get those channels for free. Not totally free, because it is the cost of the antenna and the cost of the converter box so I can get HD programming. But why would a Cal fan do that? This season there are no Cal football or basketball games scheduled on any of those channels, and last season was the same. The Oregon game was very unusual for Fox Channel 2. If you want to watch just about ANY Cal game, you MUST get them on a cable or satellite network channel, and pay dearly for it.

You seem to feel that the operation of these cable network channels is better today than the operation of VHF channels was. I don't think it is any better. I just missed the Oregon-Cal game because of contentious negotiations between Dish and Fox. That was not smooth operation. I had Comcast before. The signal often broke down, and service was awful. I never experienced that with VHF. When VHF failed, it usually was my receiver that failed. I switched to Dish, because Comcast did not carry PAC12 network in SF. Dish sometimes had trouble with their signal, usually due to heavy fog or rain. But it is much better now. And service has always been outstanding. I pay for hundreds of channels, and watch perhaps only 5 or 6 channels. In the old days when there were 5-10 channels, and I only watched maybe 3.

And speaking off topic, there are so many commercials now that often they start the action before the commercial has ended, or the camera is on the announcers, or doing a replay, and the viewers miss some of the action. And also off-topic, there are so many college games now, there are not enough competent announcers to call the game and comment intelligently on it. The NFL does a better job, but the announcing in college games is very poor quality. I'd rather listen to Starkey and Pawlawski than many of the TV announcers from the cable networks.

---

We're all the Cal games carried on free TV at any time in the past? Not that I can remember, but I'm not as old as you.

Also, I have Comcast in Oakland and Pac-12 Network has been available there since the day it began. I don't think it's any different in SF; they carry the same channel lineup there.

calpoly said:

---

KTVU news went down hill when they made Somerville the night time anchor. I will never watch the nightly news on channel 2!

---

Somerville is actually a big cal fan. Have seen him often at CMS with his kids on his shoulders. Oddly he would wear cut off jersey muscle shirts and basketball shorts. That said, I stopped watching local news years ago.

SFCityBear said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

bearister said:

---

....and when I was about 13 they started broadcasting Brigitte Bardot movies on UHF Channel 20 KEMO and those movies were F'ing AWESOME!

---

let's no forget channel 36, the perfect 36 with Carol Doda

---

You guys are getting me a little excited.

---

I remember watching this movie in 7th grade on channel 20 while staying overnight at a buddy's house. I think I felt flushed.

cal83dls79 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

KTVU news went down hill when they made Somerville the night time anchor. I will never watch the nightly news on channel 2!

---

Somerville is actually a big cal fan. Have seen him often at CMS with his kids on his shoulders. Oddly he would wear cut off jersey muscle shirts and basketball shorts. That said, I stopped watching local news years ago.

---

I went to high school with Somerville (Berkeley High) and I am not a fan for many reasons.

sycasey said:

---

calpoly said:

---

KTVU news went down hill when they made Somerville the night time anchor. I will never watch the nightly news on channel 2!

---

Dennis RIchmond is a hard act to follow.

---

Indeed. His co-anchors Elaine Corral and Leslie Griffiths were also strong.

bearister said:

---

....and when I was about 13 they started broadcasting Brigitte Bardot movies on UHF Channel 20 KEMO and those movies were F'ing AWESOME!

---

Bardot was awesome back then too. Now, not so much..

Dennis and I worked out at the Executive Athletic Club on Franklin Street in Oakland in the early 1980's. I also bumped into him at Montclair driving range during that era. He is a real good dude. Humble and very friendly, two characteristics sorely lacking in many celebrities. He is 76 now.

sycasey said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Yep, TV was free. In the Bay Area, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9

---

And you can still get those channels for free if you want. Just hook up an antenna, they're still there.

It's the ability to watch any game at any time (including all Cal games) that is not free. But I suppose we could go back to the days when the Raiders game was preempted for Heidi or the NBA Finals were on tape delay.

---

I realize I can still get those channels for free. Not totally free, because it is the cost of the antenna and the cost of the converter box so I can get HD programming. But why would a Cal fan do that? This season there are no Cal football or basketball games scheduled on any of those channels, and last season was the same. The Oregon game was very unusual for Fox Channel 2. If you want to watch just about ANY Cal game, you MUST get them on a cable or satellite network channel, and pay dearly for it.

You seem to feel that the operation of these cable network channels is better today than the operation of VHF channels was. I don't think it is any better. I just missed the Oregon-Cal game because of contentious negotiations between Dish and Fox. That was not smooth operation. I had Comcast before. The signal often broke down, and service was awful. I never experienced that with VHF. When VHF failed, it usually was my receiver that failed. I switched to Dish, because Comcast did not carry PAC12 network in SF. Dish sometimes had trouble with their signal, usually due to heavy fog or rain. But it is much better now. And service has always been outstanding. I pay for hundreds of channels, and watch perhaps only 5 or 6 channels. In the old days when there were 5-10 channels, and I only watched maybe 3.

And speaking off topic, there are so many commercials now that often they start the action before the commercial has ended, or the camera is on the announcers, or doing a replay, and the viewers miss some of the action. And also off-topic, there are so many college games now, there are not enough competent announcers to call the game and comment intelligently on it. The NFL does a better job, but the announcing in college games is very poor quality. I'd rather listen to Starkey and Pawlawski than many of the TV announcers from the cable networks.

---

We're all the Cal games carried on free TV at any time in the past? Not that I can remember, but I'm not as old as you.

Also, I have Comcast in Oakland and Pac-12 Network has been available there since the day it began. I don't think it's any different in SF; they carry the same channel lineup there.

---

Of course not. You are right. Times were far different in the earlier days of TV. Society was not as affluent, and schools and pro teams both resisted mightily at first allowing their games on to be shown on TV, because of the fear of losing ticket sales. If last year's Cal basketball games had been played in 1970, the networks would not likely have picked more than a few games to air, as there would have been no profit in that.

And it has only been the last few seasons that all the Cal football games in a season have been carried live on TV. And we still have not had a year when all the Cal basketball games have been carried live on TV. There are 5 games in the upcoming basketball season not yet scheduled for TV, two the year before, and one in each of the years preceding that. And in the first few years of the PAC12 Network, which carries most of the Cal games, many of those games were carried live, but only by streaming to a computer or other device, and an almost unwatchable experience, with all the stoppages and missed action.

Sorry, but I misspoke about my history of Dish and Comcast. (I'm making a lot of gaffes these days, and I'm not even running for political office.) I just called Dish, and they told me I subscribed in 2002, so the reason I left Comcast to switch to Dish was just all the breaks in service, the bad connections, the frequency of price raises, and the very poor customer service, not because they did not carry PAC12 Networks. I do remember that when PAC12 Networks first began, Dish initially told me they did not carry PAC12 Netrworks, and so I contacted Comcast and Direct TV, who also told me they did not carry PAC12 Networks. After pursuing it with Dish for some time, they finally told me they would carry PAC12, so I stayed with them. That was in 2011 or 2012. It could likely be that since PAC12 network was brand new, that all three providers customer service people were not yet aware of the fact that PAC12 was making deals with providers.

My problem is not with the technology. We have the technology to broadcast games HDTV on VHF or on cable or satellite systems. It costs the networks far less to broadcast on VHF, as there is not all the copper wire or fiberoptic cable (plus labor) so they must charge more and advertise more for the product. Of course it provides more jobs, and makes more profits. I say it is a monopoly, even with the additional providers, because the FCC seems powerless to level the playing field. I think most consumers would prefer VHF for free if those networks could be allowed to broadcast the same games with the same quality as the cable providers.

Back then the only cal game on TV was perhaps the big game. You had to go to the stadium.

More free TV today, and a lot more premium TV. It costs about 90k to broadcast that show at a minimum. Should they get paid for that?

The Cal exhibition game on Oct 30 will not be televised.

Thanks for the Usf parking info. Do they allow you to pay and park in these lots for basketball games? Which one would be best.

Oski87 said:

---

Back then the only cal game on TV was perhaps the big game. You had to go to the stadium.

More free TV today, and a lot more premium TV. It costs about 90k to broadcast that show at a minimum. Should they get paid for that?

---

There are loads of commercials which are aired during any sports of event, and the networks charge advertisers handsome fees to purchase that air time. Doesn't that pay the $90K?

oskidunker said:

---

The Cal exhibition game on Oct 30 will not be televised.

Thanks for the Usf parking info. Do they allow you to pay and park in these lots for basketball games? Which one would be best.

---

Oskidunker,

I think you meant to post this on the basketball forum.

I don't know any more about parking at USF than the link I gave you to the map. You'll have to contact USF for further information.

The only thing about San Francisco that is harder to do than driving here, is finding a parking space here. USF suggests you take public transit to the game. I suggest you do the same.

Good luck.

Go Bears!

Not a chance with all the crazies out there

oskidunker said:

---

Not a chance with all the crazies out there

---

At least you don't live here. Be thankful for that.