Are upper income households or lower income households less likely to have cable

[nomadcowatbk]

Many upper income households are highly educated and may not watch TV beyond PBS and are quite vocal about it. You see mini-Dishes all over trailer parks in rural areas. I think lower educated households are more likely to have cable or satellite than higher educated households. Lower income households are likely to be lower educated.

 

[OldNumber7]

I'm sure there are figures available somewhere online, but I am too lazy right now to hunt them down. That said, my gut tells me your sweeping generalization is probably a bit off-base. Yes, there are a few snobs who like to brag about never watching television, or only watching PBS; but just because they are vocal about it doesn't mean they speak for most upper-income people. Practically every household in America has television, and it is clearly easier for upscale people to afford cable/satellite than folks living in poverty. If you're rich, and have a big TV, why wouldn't you be spending relative pocket change to view everything that's out there? Counting how many dishes there are in a neighborhood doesn't tell us much other than the consumer decided dish was a better way to go than cable (I know plenty of middle class people who switch back and forth every year to get the "introductory" offer).

 

[OldNumber7]

OK, I stopped being lazy and found this:
Cable TV's 68 percent household penetration achieves critical mass for an advertiser. More than one out of every three homes in America subscribe to Cable TV. More importantly, cable TV promotes itself as reaching above-average-income households, with 80 percent penetration among households earning over $50,000.

Source: http://www.rab.com/sales_meetings/8-03-3.html

Statistically, higher income households are more likely to have cable than lower income households

 

[nomadcowatbk]

What are the incomes and education of the anti-TV you know (the kill your tv types)? Many on public assistance have cable (though it's included with the rent at a lot of places). The poor don't seem to vocally anti-TV.

 

[ansky212]

Many upper income households are highly educated and may not watch TV beyond PBS and are quite vocal about it.

Sure, but they also probably have teenage kids that are watching ESPN or MTV.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

OK, I stopped being lazy and found this:
Cable TV's 68 percent household penetration achieves critical mass for an advertiser. More than one out of every three homes in America subscribe to Cable TV. More importantly, cable TV promotes itself as reaching above-average-income households, with 80 percent penetration among households earning over $50,000.

Source: http://www.rab.com/sales_meetings/8-03-3.html

Statistically, higher income households are more likely to have cable than lower income households

But what about education? I'm gonna guess most the heads of most cable households have a college degree based on those statistics.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Many upper income households are highly educated and may not watch TV beyond PBS and are quite vocal about it.

Sure, but they also probably have teenage kids that are watching ESPN or MTV.

These types usually don't have cable if they even have a TV. They usually restrict their kids TV viewing or their kids don't have any interest. They'll just go to a friends house if they wanna watch something on Cable and lie to their anti-TV parents.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

I think it changes from state to state. On the Canadian side, I can tell you right now Toronto (Ontario) public housing just got OUT of the cable business and told everyone cable is no longer included in rent.
(Glad I don't live there! lol)

Rent went down a few pennies while cable went up a few dollars.
How is it done in the States? Does each state decide these things? Or is it a federally regulated thing for the poor to have cable?

 

[Mediafrog+]

Cable/satellite TV is cheap entertainment for those that have limited financial resources. The filthy rich can afford to amuse themselves in countless other ways.

 

[LKellerIII]

Well, it's not my intention to seem superior in any way - my wife and I qualify as an "educated upper-income" household, and I can tell you that regardless of education or income; cable or satellite is a necessity where I live in San Francisco. I live in Bernal Heights in San Francisco, outside the line-of-sight for most of the local OTA broadcast signals . So cable has been a necessity for 4 decades or more. A considerable minority of my neighbors have made the switch to satellite - but the majority (like me) have stuck with cable TV through the Viacom, AT&T, TCI, and now Comcast years.

Every couple of years, I compare the price for equivalent satellite service from DirecTV or Dish Network, but every time (so far), it amounted to only a minor savings (a few dollars a month), not worth the grief of switching, and having to maintain a dish on the south side of my house, that would probably misbehave, or even blow down every year during some major rain and wind-storm.

 

[Tim from Springfield IL]

Here's another side of the equation that could lead to a side question: Exactly what kind of cable/satellite package do these families have regardless of income? Could some--even those with decent incomes--only decide to just buy basic cable, or do some families get the whole package regardless of income?

In my case, I am single but making a pretty good income (I won't reveal how much I make), but I only have Comcast's "Digital Economy" package right now. (I'm still paying off the student loans from going on for my master's degree--but I hope to have it done within a year if all goes well). I used to have the "regular cable" with the digital box with the likes of ESPN and the Deuce, etc., but I chose to downgrade almost a year and a half ago (when I first learned about Digital Economy) not because I couldn't afford it, but because I didn't feel I watched enough TV at the time to justify paying the $30 or so more for cable than with Digital Economy. And I'm satisfied with what I'm getting right now--although I confess I wished that TBS, TruTV and TNT were part of the Digital Economy lineup during the first three rounds of March Madness (although back in the old days TBS was a fixture on most basic cable package lineups). (BTW, satellite and outdoor antennas are not options for me here in my apartment, and I have considered "re-upgrading" possibly after the student loans--my only debt--are finished).

BTW, here's our local Digital Economy lineup in Springfield (including a few other channels I've also been getting that I didn't think were part of the package):

2-WICS (ABC 20.1) Springfield
3-WCIA (CBS 3.1) Champaign
4-Local Access ("Access 4 Springfield"--now operated by the City of Springfield)
5-Local Advertising (also on channel 244)
6-WBUI (CW 23.1) Decatur
7-WRSP (Fox 55.1) Springfield
8-WSEC (PBS 14.1) Jacksonville/Springfield (with actual studios in the Springfield suburb of Chatham at Glenwood HS) (BTW, channel 14 in Jacksonville was the home of the ill-fated WJJY-TV from 1969-71)
9-WGN America (also on channel 115)
10-WAND (NBC 17.1) Decatur
11-HSN (also on channel 241)
12-WILL (PBS 12.1) Urbana/Champaign
13-QVC (also on 240)
15-CSPAN (also on 445)
16-TV Guide Channel
17-Weatherscan (from TWC) (also on 434)
18-Springfield Municipal Channel
19-WCFN (My 49.1) (former Springfield analog repeater for WCIA, standalone since 2002 with 49.2 now retransmitting WCIA)
22-Educational Access
26-CNN (also on 407)
29-BET (also on 166)
30-USA (also on 106)
31-Discovery (also on 461)
33-Spike (also on 141)
37-A&E (also on 158)
42-Lifetime (also on 121)
43-Disney (also 315)
44-The Weather Channel (also 430)
45-Comedy Central (also on 148)
46-Animal Planet (also on 455)
47-Cartoon Network (also on 325)
48-Food Network (also on 211)
50-Fox News Channel (also on 406)
53-E! (also 133)
89-Shop NBC (also on 242)
98-"Local Access Programming" (mainly Comcast Sports Net Plus programming of extra Cubs, White Sox, Bulls, and Blackhawks games not on the main Comcast Sportsnet Chicago)
138-Total Living Network
189-WEIU (PBS 51.1 Charleston, IL)
219-PBS Create (WSEC 14.3 Jacksonville/Springfield)
220-PBS Create (WILL 12.3 Urbana)
232-This TV (WBUI 23.2 Decatur)
233-ION
255-Big Ten Network
275-EWTN
277-Trinity Broadcasting Network
317-Disney XD
336-Sprout
416-PBS World (WILL 12.2 Urbana)
417-PBS World (WSEC 14.2 Jacksonville/Springfield)
418-MHzW (WEIU 51.2 Charleston)
436-Stormcenter 17 (WAND 17.2 Decatur)
446-CSPAN2
516-MLB Network
611-Lifetime Movie Network
692, 693, 694-Big Ten Network alternate feeds
820-Country Network (WICS 20.2 Springfield) (see comment below)
850 thru 895-Music Choice

We won't be getting Cool TV OTA on this side of the Springfield/Decatur/Champaign market as Sinclair has decided to limit WICS and sister ABC affiliate/repeater WICD-15 Champaign to one subchannel. WICD-15.2 is slated to get Cool (probably IMO to appeal to the side of the market that includes most of the college crowds at the University of Illinois and Eastern Illinois University in Charleston), while we "go Country" on WICS-20.2. But I would think that Comcast would offer both subchannels on cable to all parts of the market they serve (but I'm not sure yet if Cool TV has even hit the air in Champaign yet, while we've gone Country for about a month by now). Particularly since they now offer Charleston's PBS and its MHz subchannel on digital cable to the Springfield service area (where WEIU's signal is nonexistent OTA).

 

[OldNumber7]

What are the incomes and education of the anti-TV you know (the kill your tv types)? Many on public assistance have cable (though it's included with the rent at a lot of places). The poor don't seem to vocally anti-TV.

This is sort of a different issue. Lots of educated/upscale people can bemoan the glut of junk on TV, but that doesn't mean they don't have cable/satellite and don't find something to watch and enjoy. Lots of poor people will watch whatever is on just to kill time and because it's cheap, escapist entertainment. They don't demand better because junk is good enough. That was true before cable, and it's still true whether the poor have cable or are just watching over the air.
My own viewing behavior has changed in recent years. The TV is on, but I am usually watching with only half an eye because I am online often. I downgraded to the most basic cable tier because I really didn't feel like I'd be missing much (and with the exception of sports, that's been proven true).

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I think it changes from state to state. On the Canadian side, I can tell you right now Toronto (Ontario) public housing just got OUT of the cable business and told everyone cable is no longer included in rent.
(Glad I don't live there! lol)

Rent went down a few pennies while cable went up a few dollars.
How is it done in the States? Does each state decide these things? Or is it a federally regulated thing for the poor to have cable?

Any such decision would be made at the municipal level.

 

[LKellerIII]

What are the incomes and education of the anti-TV you know (the kill your tv types)? Many on public assistance have cable (though it's included with the rent at a lot of places). The poor don't seem to vocally anti-TV.

This is sort of a different issue. Lots of educated/upscale people can bemoan the glut of junk on TV, but that doesn't mean they don't have cable/satellite and don't find something to watch and enjoy. Lots of poor people will watch whatever is on just to kill time and because it's cheap, escapist entertainment. They don't demand better because junk is good enough. That was true before cable, and it's still true whether the poor have cable or are just watching over the air.
My own viewing behavior has changed in recent years. The TV is on, but I am usually watching with only half an eye because I am online often. I downgraded to the most basic cable tier because I really didn't feel like I'd be missing much (and with the exception of sports, that's been proven true).

Yes. Somebody said earlier in this thread that wealthy educated people claim to watch TV only rarely, and only watch PBS. I don't think that's true - this isn't the 70s. First - PBS sucks these days, and is a shadow of its former self. Second, most of the talked-about dramas these days are not on Masterpiece Theater - they're on premium cable, and even basic cable - F/X, AMC, TNT, etc.

Wealthy educated people are no different that anybody else - they want to watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire just like the rest of us- these are the buzz-worthy and critically acclaimed shows.

The days of PBS being the only place to see high quality dramas has been over for a couple of decades.

 

[recto101]

What are the incomes and education of the anti-TV you know (the kill your tv types)? Many on public assistance have cable (though it's included with the rent at a lot of places). The poor don't seem to vocally anti-TV.

This is sort of a different issue. Lots of educated/upscale people can bemoan the glut of junk on TV, but that doesn't mean they don't have cable/satellite and don't find something to watch and enjoy. Lots of poor people will watch whatever is on just to kill time and because it's cheap, escapist entertainment. They don't demand better because junk is good enough. That was true before cable, and it's still true whether the poor have cable or are just watching over the air.
My own viewing behavior has changed in recent years. The TV is on, but I am usually watching with only half an eye because I am online often. I downgraded to the most basic cable tier because I really didn't feel like I'd be missing much (and with the exception of sports, that's been proven true).

Yes. Somebody said earlier in this thread that wealthy educated people claim to watch TV only rarely, and only watch PBS. I don't think that's true - this isn't the 70s. First - PBS sucks these days, and is a shadow of its former self. Second, most of the talked-about dramas these days are not on Masterpiece Theater - they're on premium cable, and even basic cable - F/X, AMC, TNT, etc.

Wealthy educated people are no different that anybody else - they want to watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire just like the rest of us- these are the buzz-worthy and critically acclaimed shows.

The days of PBS being the only place to see high quality dramas has been over for a couple of decades.

PBS is only known to most viewers for NOVA and News Hour and thats it in the PBS of today. When I was little in the 1990's PBS had better Kids shows Nick, Fox, KBHK and KOFY TV 20 also had better kids shows . Now I have no clue from there.

 

[1069_KIFR]

Less likely.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

What are the incomes and education of the anti-TV you know (the kill your tv types)? Many on public assistance have cable (though it's included with the rent at a lot of places). The poor don't seem to vocally anti-TV.

This is sort of a different issue. Lots of educated/upscale people can bemoan the glut of junk on TV, but that doesn't mean they don't have cable/satellite and don't find something to watch and enjoy. Lots of poor people will watch whatever is on just to kill time and because it's cheap, escapist entertainment. They don't demand better because junk is good enough. That was true before cable, and it's still true whether the poor have cable or are just watching over the air.
My own viewing behavior has changed in recent years. The TV is on, but I am usually watching with only half an eye because I am online often. I downgraded to the most basic cable tier because I really didn't feel like I'd be missing much (and with the exception of sports, that's been proven true).

Yes. Somebody said earlier in this thread that wealthy educated people claim to watch TV only rarely, and only watch PBS. I don't think that's true - this isn't the 70s. First - PBS sucks these days, and is a shadow of its former self. Second, most of the talked-about dramas these days are not on Masterpiece Theater - they're on premium cable, and even basic cable - F/X, AMC, TNT, etc.

Wealthy educated people are no different that anybody else - they want to watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire just like the rest of us- these are the buzz-worthy and critically acclaimed shows.

The days of PBS being the only place to see high quality dramas has been over for a couple of decades.

Cable took away a lot of PBS's donor base that watched for cooking shows, financial shows, or opera. They're now going after the old crowd that watches Lawrence Welk reruns and Doo-wop reunion shows. People spend their money on cable instead of giving to their local PBS station.

 

[TexasTom]

There's a lot of generalizing about both the wealthy and the poor in this thread. My suspicion is that neither group is as easy to generalize in viewing habits (and TV packages) as many seem to want to assume.

But my guess is that the likelihood of whether a household subscribes to cable, satellite, or is OTA-only may vary more broadly by market than it does by income level.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

There's a lot of generalizing about both the wealthy and the poor in this thread. My suspicion is that neither group is as easy to generalize in viewing habits (and TV packages) as many seem to want to assume.

But my guess is that the likelihood of whether a household subscribes to cable, satellite, or is OTA-only may vary more broadly by market than it does by income level.

But what are the demographics of anti-TV types?

 

[12 In a Row]

I agree, lots of broad brush statements.

There will always be a teeny tiny fraction of folks that don't watch TV.
HH's with the bundle package-High Speed Internet/Premium Cable/Phone tend to be higher income but not all. Lower income households also subscribe as a cheap form of entertainment.

Lots will complain about their cable bill but watch what happens when there is a power outage. They go CRAZY!!! ;D