We're paying for tv every time we watch a commercial. If there's commercials in your programming then it's being broadcast over the air somewhere and the network could care less if you have cable or sat or an antenna, b/c they're getting paid with ratings. HBO etc (no commercials) requires subscribtion. Our ability to get free tv has been diminishing, and our ability to get free high def w/5.1 could soon be eliminated according to the FCC's own statements, So I don't think it's "nuff said" at all.
Like so many other issues the core is gov't by the oligolopies and for the oligopolies, not by the people and for the people any more. Cable is clearly a monopoly, with sat being an oligopoly that doesn't offer much competition either. All cable does is help maintain the cable on the poles and pay washington to maintain their license to steal from american consumers. Unfortuneatly, if we payed our own gov't to maintain the cable and offer programing (read socialized media) it would cost way way more and not work as well when it worked at all. This leaves anti-trust legislation as an option - what's left of it anyways - and maybe common sence like preventing the gov't from trying to regulate the internet, remove audio/video quality from over air broadcasting, etc etc.