| reply to elray
Re: And the Walmart machine marches on... Ok, I've never heard of anywhere short of NORAD that cannot get satellite access. Can you elaborate why you don't have access to the sky?
and all you need to provide TV service is programming. You don't have to have NBC, AMC, ESPN, HBO, etc. |
|
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
1 edit | We aren't permitted. Many people don't have a view of the southern horizon.
Some people live in "historic" structures that forbid satellite dishes.
Others don't have roof rights.
TV Service includes NBC, AMC, ESPN, et al.
If your definition held water, Google TV would have sold like hotcakes.
People buy TV Service, expecting the aforementioned networks. |
|
| TV Serice does not require a provider to have NBC, AMC, ESPN, et al. Seriously, you don't need that. Those are just types of programming. You don't need specific types of programming to provide entertainment via a television. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | 100+ million pay-tv households say otherwise. |
|
| Where do you get 100+ million pay-tv households? how many households are not pay-tv households? |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
1 edit | Take your pick: Nielsen or the NCTA. Both show 100M+.
OTA-only is somewhere around 15-17M. |
|
| add in the other-tv households.. it's more than you would think. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by ArrayList:add in the other-tv households.. it's more than you would think.
Huh?
There are only 115 million households.
102 million of them buy satellite, cable, or telcotv.
I was being generous, since a couple unofficial sources claim slightly more than the net 13 million OTA-only that the math supports.
Adding "other TV" doesn't change anything.
Absent a congressional restructuring of content and broadcast, i.e. requiring some form of discrete / unbundled wholesale rates for channels, networks, episodes, by the hour, day, week, month, year or seasons, with an MFN clause or transparent bidding system, accompanied by an end to the network-neutrality fiasco, you aren't going have consumers buying cable-equivalent content via IP/OTT. And while you may protest, that's what the consumer considers "TV Service". |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| doh! My mistake. I know there are about 300 million people in the US. I forgot that there are multiple people per home. Sorry about that. This is very surprising information for me. Why do so many people waste so much money on TV when the economy is supposedly in the shitter. My guess is that the economy was never in trouble in the first place. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by ArrayList:doh! My mistake. I know there are about 300 million people in the US. I forgot that there are multiple people per home. Sorry about that. This is very surprising information for me. Why do so many people waste so much money on TV when the economy is supposedly in the shitter. My guess is that the economy was never in trouble in the first place.
The economy is most definitely in big trouble - you ain't seen nothing yet.
When the zero-percent financing and our credit line runs out, we're going to be in a world of hurt.
Just because a family (household) finds $40-100/month to keep the cable on, doesn't mean they're doing well. It may mean that with 2 or more unemployeds in the home (the kids come back after possibly finishing college, with their own massive debt load), cheap entertainment fills in the void and monotony that dominates the atmosphere between job applications. Not everyone is instantly re-hired, even if they are fortunate enough to have the desired skill set at the right time. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
| instead of putting that money away for when the economy is worse, they spend the money? That is just ass backwards thinking. It's really sad that TV, a relatively solitary activity, fills the void that work does. Why can't people take up a hobby instead of sitting in front of the boob tube?
by your numbers, that is about $40-$100 million/month that could be put into savings instead. That seems like a better idea than wasting it on crapitalistic programming. |
|
