Cable Subs Flee, but Not To Satellite

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#2
They sound like scientists trying to explain the Universe's "Missing Mass". Subscribers seem to be disappearing into a massive black hole. They are doing all they can to NOT mention the existence of the fundamental "OTA particle".

(BTW, I believe I have located the missing mass. She's in a trailer park in upstate NY. )
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#3
From the article:
... poor people have an excellent motive to cut cable and simply replace it with an antenna or nothing at all, he said.
"The price cable TV has risen to the point where it's simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes," Moffett said. "The evidence suggests that what we're seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon." In addition, high unemployment means fewer new households, as kids are probably delaying moving out of their parents' houses, or people move in with roommates. That can reduce the number of households that pay for TV.

Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.
May I add, that OTA provides me more USEFUL channels than very basic cable. I get channels I can't get in any cable package. Religious and shopping channels don't count.

If content providers are worried that they won't get enough money for their content, here's a few suggestions:

1> Provide decent content.

2> Stop overpaying actors and writers and pretty much everyone involved. No actor is worth over a million+ PER EPISODE. The highest per episode pay in the late 70's was about $200, 000 - now the highest are around 1.5 million per episode, that increase in salaries is in no way mirrors inflation. Remember, in the 70's, these shows relied completely on ADVERTISING revenue. If they could do it then, why not now? I'm sure there's plenty of actors willing to work for a few grand an episode plus benefits like most well paid mere mortals. If residuals are counted in its still a pretty sweet deal. As for something like The Real Housewives, one report indicates that the New York cast earns about $30,000 an episode, pretty sweet for not being an actor on a reality show.
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#4
If content providers are worried that they won't get enough money for their content, here's a few suggestions:

1> Provide decent content.
"Decent" is subjective. While I feel that this year is not as good as last year, I read tons of self-fulfilling messages saying that two years ago and four years ago, when from my perspective, television was better than the year before. Am I correct that this is the first year in history that television content was of lesser quality overall than the year before? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe this year is the best year ever, but each of us, myself included, has developed such myopic tunnel vision regarding our own preferences, which themselves have narrowed as time has gone on, such that we don't realize that television is still better this year than it has ever been in the past. It's really impossible to say. But what we can say is that using one's own personal perspective to judge whether content is "decent" is the only wrong approach.

2> Stop overpaying actors and writers and pretty much everyone involved.
That's interesting, but that could be asserted for any job where people are making more than minimum wage. It's easy to say that people are overpaid when they aren't you, and you're the on who's affected by how much they get for what they do. Regardless, that's not within the content providers' control: If they start offering much lower compensation, they will quickly find themselves replaced by content providers who comply with industry standards.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#5
From the article:
May I add, that OTA provides me more USEFUL channels than very basic cable. I get channels I can't get in any cable package. Religious and shopping channels don't count.

If content providers are worried that they won't get enough money for their content, here's a few suggestions:

1> Provide decent content.

2> Stop overpaying actors and writers and pretty much everyone involved. No actor is worth over a million+ PER EPISODE. The highest per episode pay in the late 70's was about $200, 000 - now the highest are around 1.5 million per episode, that increase in salaries is in no way mirrors inflation. Remember, in the 70's, these shows relied completely on ADVERTISING revenue. If they could do it then, why not now? I'm sure there's plenty of actors willing to work for a few grand an episode plus benefits like most well paid mere mortals. If residuals are counted in its still a pretty sweet deal. As for something like The Real Housewives, one report indicates that the New York cast earns about $30,000 an episode, pretty sweet for not being an actor on a reality show.
Except for Government employees, people are paid pretty much at what the market will bear.

If there wasn't demand, they wouldn't be able to ask for and get that much.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#6
Except for Government employees, people are paid pretty much at what the market will bear.

If there wasn't demand, they wouldn't be able to ask for and get that much.
But, what are market prices? A few years ago the housing market was being driven by bad loans. Just because it is market, doesn't make it a sustainable market.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#7
From the article:
May I add, that OTA provides me more USEFUL channels than very basic cable. I get channels I can't get in any cable package. Religious and shopping channels don't count.

If content providers are worried that they won't get enough money for their content, here's a few suggestions:

1> Provide decent content.

2> Stop overpaying actors and writers and pretty much everyone involved. No actor is worth over a million+ PER EPISODE. The highest per episode pay in the late 70's was about $200, 000 - now the highest are around 1.5 million per episode, that increase in salaries is in no way mirrors inflation. Remember, in the 70's, these shows relied completely on ADVERTISING revenue. If they could do it then, why not now? I'm sure there's plenty of actors willing to work for a few grand an episode plus benefits like most well paid mere mortals. If residuals are counted in its still a pretty sweet deal. As for something like The Real Housewives, one report indicates that the New York cast earns about $30,000 an episode, pretty sweet for not being an actor on a reality show.
Mr. Pogi is right about artists being over paid. That is why Napster and Limewire were so popular since EVERYTHING is over priced, and entertainment is the first to go. Do most industry insiders think that all of the increased sales numbers announced by antenna manufacturers are going into cables big black hole and are not being used? I don't think antenna manufacturers announce these numbers just to toot their own horn. People really are buying and installing antennas, no matter what Bitcher says to counter that FACT.

All actors, Singers, athletes, Bankers, Stock Brokers,CEO'S, and politicians are all overpaid, and that is one of the reasons for all of the economic grief the middle class is enduing these days. Greed has taken over capitalism, and everyone else has to pay for the greed of the upper class, who only THINK they are worth that much compensation. Why did the big bankers get to give themselves a pay raise and large bonuses for almost destroying our economy, and then they reward themselves for doing it. The sheeple woke up to what Osama and his troops were doing, and now it is time to focus on private industry, and get the greed factor out of the capitalist society one again. Is it right to charge 3 times what a good or service actually cost to produce or provide, just to satisfy stock holders?

BEEF, ITS WHATS FOR SUPPER !!
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#8
Actually, charging 3x what a product costs would be a very thin margin by today's standards.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#9
We're actually all overpaid. Practically every single American worker is paid substantially more than a comparably qualified person would be paid for the same job in the majority of the rest of the world. So be careful pointing fingers at other folks, accusing them of being overpaid - you are as well.
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#10
... And in return for our higher rate of pay, we pay higher prices for goods and services. 30 cents an hour is not a lot of money, even in the poorest of nations. I've lived in and visited 3rd world countries, so you can't BS me on this one.
 
Top