This was the first I've heard of this dubious technological advance. From MSNBC:

Phillips Electronics applies for patent on channel-freezing technology

During commercials, there's always the possibility of hitting your TVs "Off" button for about 3 minutes, though. Doubt they'll be able to disengage that.

First three reactions, within the space of twenty seconds or so:

1) &#%$&!!

2) There has GOT to be a way that this is illegal. I paid for the friggin' machine - why should someone else be able to stop me from doing anything with it that isn't against the law?

3) I have my doubts that this will catch on much. Are even the networks dumb enough to think that further alienating their audience in this way will help them in the long run?

And as far as turning it off goes, if the networks go down this path, how long will it be before they invent a technology that prevents you from switching off the TV (or killing the sound) during a commercial? That seems no less unreasonable to me.

The answer is simple: everyone stop watching network TV. I've found nothing much of interest on it for the past 10 years. What a colossal waste of spectrum.

I'd call that reaction... er, reactionary. But then there are several shows I regularly enjoy, even more so when skipping through the commercials with TiVo.

First off, it doesn't mention this being used by the networks at all. The only example they give seems to be a variation on pay-per-view, where you could pay to see an uninterrupted movie (as you would now), or accept commercials with it and watch it for free. Doesn't sound like the end of the world as we know it to me.

If the networks should try to implement this, I think the outcome is obvious: NO ONE would buy a TV with such a device in it.

My monthly question is do I keep paying for both TV and high speed Internet from the same provider. I'm on the verge of quitting so called 'cable' all together.

It irritates me that one needs to put up money regularly for what a one time investment in an antenna once got you while getting less old basic stuff one desires (like generic cartoons of the childhood kind) except at a premium price, getting a plethora of stuff you really don't want instead (gee thanks for the generosity overflowing), and losing even decent minimal acess if you drop the service (antennas aren't what they used to be in the cable-era; less eyesore, yes but less entry level, democratic access too). And anything genuinely cable-worthy (like HBO) is way beyond an average thinking person's budget.

Meanwhile, web streaming worldwide offers much more to freely pick and choose from, especially if you don't mind watching Russian movies broadcast pretty handsomely without subtitles and the like. Youtube.com alone gives one a month of sundays every day, and it's not illegal yet as far as I know. Not to mention thousands upon thousands of radio stations to check into.

The same conglomerate where I live is my provider for both. Sooner or later there's going to be a reckoning as to TV versus the Web as vying media, there has to be. An alla carte menu option as to what one wants on television just as a start. Give me Saudi TV without making me pay for women's NASCAR, for example, a way of navigating up to current web standards of what's free and individually 'On Demand' (the latter on a scale of occasional versus regular viewing). Right now, though, I've just about decided to quit the Cable version of the tube. It's not a reactionary choice or a judgement fn the medium, at all. It's the aggregators handling the medium who are behind the curve and who I'm cursing.

The best way I've found to watch a network series , say, Invasion (which is on C4 in the UK in a 1hr slot with about 42m of actual footage), is to record it and then start watching it on "chasing playback" mode about 15m into it. One can then fast forward through all of the adverts and catch up to the ending at about the right time. Plus, you had an extra 15mins of your life spare - over 26 episodes that's 6.5 hrs.

Here's Philips' response, which sounds like double talk to me. Particularly the part about people wanting to watch commercials, which has to be a lie or wishful thinking:

Philips to blogs: Let's get this straight

I think this passage from the Philips response should throw some water on the "They want to control us" fire:

Perhaps modify it to "They want us to pay to be commercial free". One source reports the following:

I'm not a hundred percent sure I'm interpreting the facts and speculation correctly, however. Read and judge (and speculate further) for yourself

Globe & Mail coverage

Yes, some people will want to watch the ads, because they won't want to pay for the commercial-free option. It's all in the way they spin it. If viewers opt for the ads, they won't be able to skip them.

Aw, c'mon, like I think there's really a chance in hell of everyone ceasing to watch network television.

Nevertheless, I'd wholeheartedly recommend it. :D

If I could watch my favorite shows completely ad-free -- no pop-up ads, station bugs, shrunken credits, voice-overs, etc. -- I might consider paying a nominal fee, say .99 like an iTunes download. I don't think I'd go any higher than that though, and iTunes currently charges $1.99 for video downloads.