If anything I've noticed the minutes of advertising per hour has gone up. A lot of newer TV shows are only 20 minutes run-time...giving 10 minutes of commercials vs 8. Older shows are getting edited and time compressed to squeeze in another ad or two. No...sorry..if "half" of their revenue isn't ad-based; then they must not be making squat off advertisements and are just reducing the amount of programming because they want to.

Something doesn't seem right about this; it seems to be completly counter to what I've noticed. Ads are increasing on TV, not decreasing. The reality is the industry is as greedy. Local broadcasters double-dip in profits by selling advertising space *and* making you pay for the channel if you have a TV provider. TV providers are sticking it to cord cutters by requiring verification of a TV subscription to get programming. Last time I tried Hulu I was locked out of content if I didn't verify I had a TV subscription...plus I got to pay $10/month to watch advertisements.

I'm not going to trust the word of "editor in chief" of some magazine who probably sells advertising that's being blocked. If the advertisements weren't getting to the point there's more ad content than actual content; no one would run them. If the ad networks weren't allowing just anyone to buy ad space; and allowing hackers to insert malicious advertisements...less people would use them. If they didn't use flash that caused massive CPU usage spikes; less people would use them. They tend to forget, at least in America...we're almost at a tipping point of seeing more ad content than other content. 15 minutes of every hour of television in the US is advertising; and that number is going up. Newer shows are being produced a couple of minutes shorter to cram in more advertising; older shows are being edited to fit more advertising; TBS is time-compressing shows to fit another advertisement or two. We're being screwed by the corporations in an effort to advertise. Pretty soon we won't be talking about minutes of ad's per hour, we'll be talking about minutes of actual programming per hour. You won't take in to consideration how much of the screen is taken up by ads, it will be how much of the screen is taken up by actual content. But..mainly..if I didn't stand a chance of getting infected every time my PC loaded an advertisement; if I didn't have to deal with my browser crashing because this site uses 15 flash ads per page; I wouldn't have to block them. Clickbait is the worst (answers.com lists of crap is 90% flash ads and 10% content); but it's almost at the point where I don't even want to visit legitimate webpages. Everyone's monetizing everything with ads. You can't even use a Slingbox without having advertisements forced upon you. I say screw those people; I skip them when I watch stuff on DVR, I use live TV commercial time as a chance to go do something else...I'm not going to wait 20 minutes to load a webpage because the advertisements are bogging the system down.

I'm just plain yogurt.

I think the bigger scam is the fact people are still paying for domestic long distance.

Your "free OTA local channels" aren't free; your provider has to pay to carry them. You, in turn, pay to get them. You cannot opt-out of this either.

It's all Acer. All the Dells and HP/Compaq laptops that enter my trash heap are usually repairable save for a major motherboard malfunction or two.

The majority of Acer laptops in my pile all have fatal problems that cannot be repaired by swapping parts. They'll be the last one standing because their hardware fails and people keep buying it.

Absolutely not! Corporations should not have the control to tell you what you will and won't pay for. If the FCC allows this, its basically a big middle finger to consumer rights. They should abide by the same rules. If your establishment relies on selling WiFi, you should reconsider your business model,

Can't watch Slingbox without using their plugin, which uses NPAPI. They seem unwilling to update any software...which means I'll have to boot up IE just to use Slingbox.

That is after they make me watch a 15 second advertisement to watch TV I pay for on hardware I pay for on the only valid viewing option on my PC.

>Don't even get me started on ball sports..
This pretty much tells me everything I need to know about your mentality and to put 0 effort in to my return arguement because you're flat out going to not buy them.

> There are Ethernet and power plugs at various spots in the garden..
That's great...for you. For many of us trying to do something as simple as plant a flower bed requires digging permits and utility companies to spend days trampling through your yard to mark where lines are. That's not to mention many people live in places where they can't run wires...say an apartment building or a house they rent.

>So.. because I've solved my particular needs for workspace freedom using wires Good for you. Solving problems using 200 year old technology.

> I would humbly suggest you have a good night's sleep and read up on some modern research on biological effects of RF, and perhaps come back to this discussion afterwards. I have...many of them in fact. I took RF engineering stuff in college. The problem I had with most of those reports are 80% of them were biased one way or another and paid for by some company with other motives; the others tended to be inaccurate for one reason or another. It's true we didn't fully know microwaves; but things have changed. We've done more studies...and many of those have been biased one way or another. It's like reading stuff put out by PeTA; it does nothing but help push their agenda while seeming like fact.

I guess that's my problem...I've worked with this stuff and worked with people who have been around it longer than I have..and we don't see the purpose. None of the guys I know who have been doing cell-phone sites for 30 years have no problem.

Of course are you to a nuclear plant? Anything within 50 miles and you're pretty much screwed anyway.

Hey....how else am I supposed to watch football when I poop? That's why I own a tablet. But don't see the point of WiFi? Really? Ever consider someone who works from home, and works on a computer? What's the point of not being in the office if you're still tethered to a location to work; one that likely has marginally more natural light. Maybe I want to...I don't know...sit outside on a nice day and do some work. You're just one of those paranoid tin-foil hat types who probably only feels secure in a cubicle. Technology has allowed us to no longer be tied to a terminal..or a room...or a building...or even a populated location. But you banned microwave-based devices....that's fine...I probably wouldn't want to associate with a paranoid job like you in the first place..

Your roommate is an idiot. Tell him all the wifi is hogging the spectrum.

Netflix paid a peering deal with Verizon; and Verizon refuses to deliver. Speeds are just as slow as they were before the deal. If Netflix deserves anything; they deserve every cent they paid to Verizon; then they should sue for breech of contract.

Verizon doesn't care. They own RedBox Instant; they last thing they want is customers using Netflix. We're not gonna get net neutrality out of the FCC (the public comments are a sham; the FCC only care about the businesses involved in the decision); so this is not going to get fixed. If Netflix uses Level3; they were cripple all level3 connectivity.

As far as I know, it's at 0%. They have not activated IPv6 for anyone; nor do they seem to have any plans to. They've been promising it for years; but nothing.

Sorry; the original lawsuit against Beta were brought by Universal Pictures, Walt Disney, and a few other picture companies. These original lawsuits dated back to 1976. Sony did not have a film/tv entertainment industry till the late 80's.

The lawsuit didn't include anything about disabling the copy of tapes. The argument was the devices themselves were capable of infringement and wanted Sony held responsible. Copying tapes wasn't a concern; as most people couldn't afford a VCR, let alone two; but TV networks were also making the claim that people recording content was infringing copyright.

The Supreme Court wound up making a decision on this case in '84; ruling just because the devices could be used for that purpose, they had a larger number of legitimate purposes; since they also ruled that time-shifting programs for one's own use was legal.