Wake up call

[cactuswatcher]

http://money.msn.com/now/these-numbers-show-why-the-tv-business-is-dying .
Interesting article, but I'm not sure Mr. Edwards understands that pure greed in bad times has fueled much of this. Too many choices, too many ways to avoid watching commercials in real life, too many folks trying to make a fast buck in a limited market.

Comments

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

I think you've pretty much nailed it. This part was quite revealing of that:

"Even though cable TV has had its worst year ever, cable TV revenues are still rising because companies are charging the dwindling number of customers more in subscription fees. According to analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson, those higher prices are "part of the problem" that pushes out poor subscribers -- losing the TV business even more eyeballs:
"Of course, the fact that pay-TV revenue is still rising smartly is part of the problem ... We have always argued that cord-cutting is an economic phenomenon, not a technological one. "

It certainly is economic for me. Many years ago, I switched from very poor quality cable service to satellite-- which was great at first, except that the prices kept creeping up year after year, and as as I built a film and video library up on laserdisc and then DVD, I had less and less need for the movie channels that added greatly to the cost. I trimmed it, and then trimmed it some more, and finally went back to basic-basic cable at around $15.00 per month. That rate is now around $23.00/month, and just a few months ago they started adding a $1.00 fee for the converter boxes that they require me to have to view their signals, which are now 100% encrypted, even the re-carriage of the "free" broadcast networks.

That's for the cheapest service they offer. The least expensive "normal" service is now around $40.00 per month, and the "Standard" service that most people subscribe to is $60.00/month. Add a few premium services and you're pushing $100.00.

$60.00 to $100.00 per month, for TV? Are they insane? Apparently so.

The thing that could possibly save them, if anything can, they steadfastly refuse to do-- offer to subscribers only those channels that they want to watch, and pay only for them.

Of course, to be fair, it isn't just the carriers like cable and satellite. The program providers, especially the various sports networks, are increasingly greedy, and since they control a package of programming, they insist that the carriers pay for the entire package. You want so-and-so channel? Sorry, you can't have it unless you also take 20 other channels with it, and pay for them.

I'd guess that at least $5 to $8 of the $24.00 I pay each month goes to programming that I never watch.

I won't even get started on the fact that 20 minutes of every broadcast hour is now advertising, and then that isn't enough, they sneak those infernal pop-ups into the program itself now.

[/rant]

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

Yep. When cable TV changed from something people had in the remote countryside where you couldn't get good antenna reception to a way to get more channels in the city, it was promoted as a way to watch TV with fewer commercials. Now unlike broadcast TV its an unregulated mass of commercials.

I've never subscribed to cable or satellite. When I've had access to it, I found I watched one or two cable channels to the exclusion of the rest. As you say paying $60 a month or more for TV is a little nutsy. More so if you'd have to get the $60 package just to get the one non-premium channel you'd watch. Here in town I can get about 40 broadcast channels. I've never watched most of those. Other than the news I watch maybe four or five hours of TV in the evening all week, and another four or five on weekends during the day. Just not worth it to me to pay for TV.

Don't get *me* started on the damage cable TV and ESPN in particular are doing to sports in this country.