Here, the author goes into the technological advancements and decisions fthe cable industry faced in the mid 90s. It compares the approach of telephone companies in adopting fiber-optic technology with the cable operators' eagerness to use its potential for expanding channel capacity. While acknowledging the reach of offering an increased number of channels, the author raises a critical question: with existing limitations in production costs, available programming, and audience time, how would those channels be filled in a meaningful way? This, again, shows the tension between technological possibility and the practical and cultural constraints of the television industry.

This paragraph talks about a pivotal moment in cable television history which is the launch of HBO. I think it paints a great picture of the setting, Wilkes-Barre which is facing economic hardship and a natural disaster. In this context, the introduction of a new "pay-TV" service offering commercial-free movies and events was a significant development, it was something that people had never seen before. It was important because it was the beginning of cable's move beyond providing better reception to offering unique content that viewers were willing to pay extra for.

This quote discusses the shift in the cable industry's structure during the 70s. It explains that the early mom-and-pop cable businesses were being replaced by larger entities called Multiple System Operators or MSOs. By doing this it meant that the industry was becoming more centralized and that the more powerful and wealthy companies were starting to take control. This change in the landscape had significant consequences or just changes for the types of things that were then being broadcasted to consumers.

This quote highlights a key moment of tension in the early days of cable television. The author is arguing that cable was like a "parasite" because it was essentially reselling television content, which was expensive to make and protected by copyright, without paying anything to the people who created it. This sets up the idea that cable's business model was controversial and led to conflicts with broadcasters. It also points out the legal battles that came after this, as broadcasters wanted to protect their content and revenue streams.

This is basically saying that even though we think of radio and TV as being wireless, wires have always been a big part of it. It points out that the early networks used wires, and even those big telephone cables that go across the ocean are a type of wire. Then it makes a bit more sense that cable TV uses cables to get signals into your house. It's kind of obvious, but I guess it's important to remember that cable was always an option, even from the beginning.

This final paragraph is basically summing things up and I think it does a great job at it. It's saying that even though the classic network era didn't last as long as you might think, it's still super important. So many big changes happened during this era and big moments in TV. Even with all the changes, like cable and more importantly streaming, we still need to remember where it came from. It also makes a good point that we shouldn't get all nostalgic for the "good old days" of TV, because it wasn't perfect and didn't represent everyone.

This paragraph is highlighting how feminist scholars have really changed the way we look at TV history. Instead of just focusing on the business side or what the shows were about, they started looking at things through a lens of feminism. This means considering how women were represented, and how gender plays a role in TV. I've discussed this in some of my other classes a while ago, such as "The Future of Your TV", and this has been a major contribution and has helped us get a way better understanding of everything.

This sentence is interesting to me because it's kind of calling out the networks. It's saying that since they were making so much money, shouldn't they have taken more risks and made shows that were more enlightening or engaging? It makes me wonder if the networks were just playing it safe to make money, instead of trying to make good TV. This brings up another good point about the purpose of TV is it just for entertainment, or should it be doing more? I think it's relevant for today's world because there is so much misinformation on TV that it becomes a moral issue since the networks still get so many viewers.

This first sentence is talking about the cultural side of things, and how it is all about balance. The American system had to deal with these essential tensions, which are basically competing interests. I think the big one they talk about is private profit and public service which means, do you make shows to make money, or to actually help people out? Then there's national coherence and local responsiveness, which is about whether to make shows that everyone across the country will like, or shows that are more specific to certain areas. It sounds like the networks were always trying to find a middle ground, which must have been hard because at least one demographic would have felt left out if the networks were trying to please everyone.

So this quote is laying down the groundwork for understanding what the "classic network" era is all about. It's saying that this period was when the American system of TV became much more solid then it was before, and when you think of this time, it's important to think about the Big Three NBC, CBS, and ABC. These networks were, pretty much the entire TV industry at this point and represent the mature structure of the industry. When they say "American system," I'm guessing that means the way TV is done in the US, with the commercials and networks themselves. This is important to remember because it sets up how TV was structured and who was in charge during this time period.

This sentence is very interesting because as we see, it's a struggle between a laborer and the Guild. Sounds a little familiar. There have always been disagreements between workers and the Guild, it is interesting to see how far this went back. Comparing this to the recent strike (I believe in 2023) people wanted to protect their intellectual property aganist the use of AI which is an ever growing force.

Wow, it is a little crazy that he was able to do this with a single dollar bill and one slip of paper. I'm a bit unsure about the laws of intellectual property at this time but in today's world that is something people very much protect. I didn't even know you could protect your idea as a 'premise'. I'm sure it's a bit different now.

The fact that the show had people from all different backgrounds (radio, movies, theater and stage) is something that helped it become what it was. It makes me think about modern television production where now it is more specialzed. People study TV, take classes on it, maybe get an internship for it, but it makes perfect sense with I Love Lucy that the producers had a wide range of diverse talent they could draw from and it contributed greatly to the success of the show.

I find this interesting because they state from 'in the United States and around the globe' when talking about everyone who adored Lucy in the show. I think in this case, yes, she does deserve the credit for the success of the show becuase this was so early on in television shows and Lucille had become one of the first household names that families loved. This isn't to say the production of the show was not amazing because it was. However, in the case of I Love Lucy, without Lucille one could ask how great the show would have been.

I believe here some of the things the author is talking about when they say how groundbreaking the show was, were things like the multi-camera system and the live audience. These specifically brought more life to the show that had not be seen before in other TV series.

This highlights the power of independent media in challenging coporate control of news. This could be compared to how independent journalists use social media today to bypass traditional news outlets. Andrew Callaghan is an example one could look at for an example of this. He has done a lot of independent journalism which really gives the viewer or listener a real and raw look at the subject matter which is being investigated by him in his news posts.

Media industries, from time to time but not alway, prioritize profit over public service. Is this still true today with corporate ownership of news outlets? One could argue that news outlets are used for public service to inform the public but at this point many news outlets lean, politically speaking, either left or right so it can be misleading.

This agreement, the Biltmore Program, suggests an attempt to monopolize news distribution. An example of this I can think of is social media companies trying to get algorithims from each others. Mark Zuckerberg, for example, was approached a few years back about his algorithm with Facebook but never wanted to give it up because of how successful it was for him and the company.

This shows how economic interests drove media conflicts. Could this be compared to the modern struggle between print journalism and digital news platforms today? We even see this at our own campus, Temple, where the print newspaper is still operating but it is pretty clear that most prefer digital news via instagram or twitter.

The newspapers first saw radio as a novelty and not a serious competitor. There have been many times in history when new technologies have been underestimated and this was certainly one of them. It reminds me of how some dismissed the internet in the 90s.

This ban certainly caused tension between the British goverment and Marconi, the company which was conducting the broadcasts in Chelmsford. Of course looking back on this now I think most would say it was a mistake and they should have been allowed to keep broadcasting. During the time, however, I can understand why this ban was out into place, because they thought it might interfeer with offical signals.

David Sarnoff is interesting to me because this idea he had around 1916 was a great one stating that by switching signals you could have one channel which was events of national importance. another which was music or 'concerts' and so on. Sarnoff also predicted a large audience receiving a broadcast from a single transmitter.

Dame Nellie Melba had one of the most important moments in radio history by singing to listeners across all of Europe. This was the first major live performance which offers another shift in radio history. By Dame performing on this show, it opened the door to entertainment via the medium of radio. So there now, up to this point, have been quite a few shifts in radio and it is still early on for this new technology.

In my opinion this was another turning point for technology. The experiments in Chelmsford greatly shifts the use of radio technology during it's time and it is a genius move by Marconi. Weather they knew it or not, Marconi had helped shift this technology from a military tool to a new medium which could be used for public communication.

It seems like one of the main story lines in this article is the use of these wireless stations during early war times before and during WWI. This was innovative because rather than just continue using radio as it has been used for, goverments across the world had to now find new uses for radio. At the end of this paragraph you can see that some gramophone records had even been played over military wireless stations which I think is very interesting.

By dropping the long-distance charges AT&T encouraged more long distance communication which was a smart thing to do. If it costs more to do long distance calling than less people will do it. However, by dropping this charge people can communicate with others far away and not worry about the different costs

This was interesting to me and I wonder if this was because at the time women had been in the hosue more so they could be the ones using the telephone in the house to communicate. If that is the case then it was definitely reinforcing gender structures at the time

I really did not know that some of these campaigns thought that the telephone had 'unnecessary' uses. Of course, when this was occuring it just inhibited the use of the telephone in many ways but things such as time limits were put on because business had to be conducted. As you'll see later in the document AT&T and their users had become more acustomed to using the telephone more and more to maintain relationships with one another rather than only for business

The marketing of AT&T through the years certainly has changed and around the mid 1920's, through customer practices, it helped the company see how they can use marketing to their advantage. I see this as a genius move from AT&T during the 20's because they saw what their customers were doing and showed how the telephone was a necessity for connection between people.

It is interesting that at this early stage of the telephone many did not see the implications and it was believed that the public 'had to be educated' about the benefits of the telephone. This was the beginning of the telephone shifting to becoming more popular in houses and for social uses which was a big shift at this time.

This is something that relates to the first annotation I made, that there are usually many factors that contribute to a change not usually just one technological innovation for example. Again, one must look through a cultural lens of the time to understand all the factos which facilitated a change in society.

I think this is a very important point which the author makes. Understanding history offers another perspective on human life and society which opens people's eyes more to what society and life was like in whatever period they are studying. And to understand history you need to look at it through the perspective of the time, it is harder to understand when you're looking at it through your own perspective.

This is something that is completely irrevelant nowadays, being able to recall historical facts means nothing. When going into a topic for the essay it's important to remember this so we can take a cultural approach to the research and ask deeper questions to get a better picture of the historical setting at the time including the geographical, cultural, economical and social sense of the world.