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

[BMR]

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?

Interesting question. In the UK they are generally artsy/creative types or reasonably well paid state sector workers..... middle class, left wing with a *very* small 'L'. We nickname them 'bleeding heart middle class' as they are often faintly ashamed of their middle classness and their wealth (but not enough to give it away )

Of course it's a tiny minority of 'bleeding heart's who have no TV at all, and they are an even tinyer minority of the middle class as a whole. And not all creative types or state employees are lefties

Sky and Virgin (the UKs main satellite and cable providers) have successfully positioned themselves as fairly upscale brands of late, especially with channels like 'Sky Arts HD'. In reality they appeal across the social spectrum I think.

Incidentally some centre-left/liberal people reject Sky not because they have no interest in TV, but because of the connections with Rupert Murdoch, even though Sky itself is pretty much politically neutral.

 

[recto101]

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?

Interesting question. In the UK they are generally artsy/creative types or reasonably well paid state sector workers..... middle class, left wing with a *very* small 'L'. We nickname them 'bleeding heart middle class' as they are often faintly ashamed of their middle classness and their wealth (but not enough to give it away )

Of course it's a tiny minority of 'bleeding heart's who have no TV at all, and they are an even tinyer minority of the middle class as a whole. And not all creative types or state employees are lefties

Sky and Virgin (the UKs main satellite and cable providers) have successfully positioned themselves as fairly upscale brands of late, especially with channels like 'Sky Arts HD'. In reality they appeal across the social spectrum I think.

Incidentally some centre-left/liberal people reject Sky not because they have no interest in TV, but because of the connections with Rupert Murdoch, even though Sky itself is pretty much politically neutral.

Maybe they figured out that Rupert Murdoch is connected to Fox News the mosty political biased network in the USA

 

[ansky212]

The neighborhood 2 blocks from my house has homes in the 1 million to 5 million dollar range. I'll take a walk over there one night and try to look in their windows to see if I can catch a glimpse of what they're watching on TV

 

[BMR]

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?

Interesting question. In the UK they are generally artsy/creative types or reasonably well paid state sector workers..... middle class, left wing with a *very* small 'L'. We nickname them 'bleeding heart middle class' as they are often faintly ashamed of their middle classness and their wealth (but not enough to give it away )

Of course it's a tiny minority of 'bleeding heart's who have no TV at all, and they are an even tinyer minority of the middle class as a whole. And not all creative types or state employees are lefties

Sky and Virgin (the UKs main satellite and cable providers) have successfully positioned themselves as fairly upscale brands of late, especially with channels like 'Sky Arts HD'. In reality they appeal across the social spectrum I think.

Incidentally some centre-left/liberal people reject Sky not because they have no interest in TV, but because of the connections with Rupert Murdoch, even though Sky itself is pretty much politically neutral.

Maybe they figured out that Rupert Murdoch is connected to Fox News the mosty political biased network in the USA

Well, yes, although the left's hate-affair with Murdoch goes back much further than that, largely to when his newspaper 'The Sun' supported Margret Thatcher in the 1980s. But that is totally offtopic.

 

[mjlarochelle]

What is the going rate for basic cable in the U.S.? I'm interested in how it compares with Canada.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

What is your definition of basic? My cable company's idea is about 70 channels (analog and QAM, with the QAM channels mostly duplicates of the analog channels) for about $65 a month. They also offer a "saver" package with about 20 channels (locals, CSPAN, and home shopping), analog only, for $15 a month.

 

[BRNout]

Agreed on the comment about broad-brushed statements. In my dealings with people from various levels of the social/economic framework of this country, I have been surprised at how similar their viewing habits are. To build on the statement above, this isn't England - circa 1960.

While its true that there are shows which appeal more to those of the lower socio/economic strata (daytime courtroom shows and Springer - basically shown at times when a less employed audience is watching), overall viewing habits are less different than you'd think. "Rich, educated" people in Cambridge, Greenwich, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, etc. still watch American Idol and don't limit their viewing to the likes of PBS. Their kids like the same Jersey Shore crap that kids in poorer areas do.

I do find it amusing to read comments about how the "rich" would be watching primarily highbrow stuff on PBS. Talk about stereotypes! Yes, there are channels that appeal more heavily to such an audience - but one of them not mentioned is actually the Golf Channel. And, as far as cable subscribership goes, the wealthier people would be more inclined to have cable - whether they watch it or not. They are used to affording multiple options and spending money on cable is not thought of as a significant expense to someone with a high income. They want to have it when they 'need' it and they do not have the time to fuss around with an antenna.

I've found that the 'kill your TV' crowd is comprised more of the academic households that are not really 'rich' but are middle class with an advanced degree of some sort (sociology perhaps). Not a significant demographic.

All that said, those who get OTA TV usually either do so in concert with a DBS dish, do so because they are middle class people who want to save a buck or do so because they are disgruntled with cable. "Poor" people in this country generally do have cable. Somehow they afford it, just as they afford cell phones. Ask any cable installer about all the HD-DVRs that he's installed at housing projects and he'll have enough stories to fill your evening!

As a whole, the OTA crowd would not have an income significantly different from the population at large.

 

[Bill_W]

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

Nope, can plug the DirecTv into the generator!

 

[vchimpanzee]

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).

I only have the most basic cable as well, because that's really all I can afford. But I only watch TV that I give my full concentration to.

 

[vchimpanzee]

They also offer a "saver" package with about 20 channels (locals, CSPAN, and home shopping), analog only, for $15 a month.

That's what I get, because of DTV.

 

[MarcB]

I just downgraded my service to help lessen the burden on my Mom who helps pay my bills. Instead of paying $122/month for Cable and Internet, it will only be $75/month for Cable and internet.

I opted to keep my box so I get a few extra channels that I would get if I didn't keep my box.

Now I get
3-CBS
4-NBC
5-Community TV
6-FOX
7 & 97 -PBS
8-ABC
9 MY TV 9
10-ION
11-The CT
12-PBS
13-Telemundo (Spanish)
16-TBS
17 & 393-EWTN
18-Univision (Spanish)
22-CSPAN
24-New England Cable News
70-QVC
72 & 100-TV Guide
84-NESN+
89 & 280 -ShopNBC
90-Liquidation Auction Network
95-Classic Arts Showcase
96-Community Goverment TV
98-CT Government Network
99-HSN
291-ThisTV
292-Create
293-Eyewitness News Now
294- NBC Weather +
295-Universal Sports
296-Telefutura (Spanish)
297-CPTV4U
298-CoolTV,
376-Antenna TV
392 - Trinity Broadcast Network

 

[WPPCProductions]

Here in Connecticut Comcast has a cheap package with the locals only for low imcome people for under $20.like AT&T with their Lifeline package.

 

[MarcB]

Here in Connecticut Comcast has a cheap package with the locals only for low imcome people for under $20.like AT&T with their Lifeline package.

That's what I got. She told me it was like $19. I got an extra 15 channels because I opted to keep my box for an extra $2/Month and I'm glad I did. I still get Antenna-TV which shows 2 shows I used to watch on TVLAND (which I no longer get) - The Nanny and All in the Family. What channels do I miss? Hallmark Channel (Golden Girls and Fraiser - Fraiser starts next week), Food Network (several shows), TLC (CakeBoss), Travel Chanel (Man Vs. Food and $40 a day), Nick-at-Nite (Full House) and YES Network (New York Yankees Baseball). The rest of the channels that got taken away, I really could care less about.

 

[BMR]

If anyones interested, the most basic cable package in the UK is £12.50 a month. At current exchange rates that's around 20 bucks. There is also a one off installation charge of £40 (65 dollars) although they do 'free install' offers from time to time.

For that you get 65 channels. However you can get a free to air satellite install with most of the same channels from £125-150 (200-250 dollars) one off payment.

If you have the know-how, you can buy the equipment and DIY for around 75 pounds (120 dollars) and a few hours messing about.




Cable can be better value if you get a 'triple play' of TV/phone/broadband in one package.

 

[OldNumber7]

If anyones interested, the most basic cable package in the UK is £12.50 a month. At current exchange rates that's around 20 bucks. There is also a one off installation charge of £40 (65 dollars) although they do 'free install' offers from time to time.

For that you get 65 channels. However you can get a free to air satellite install with most of the same channels from £125-150 (200-250 dollars) one off payment.

If you have the know-how, you can buy the equipment and DIY for around 75 pounds (120 dollars) and a few hours messing about.




Cable can be better value if you get a 'triple play' of TV/phone/broadband in one package.

Do you still pay for TV licenses in the UK? How much? Do people get around paying?

 

[BMR]

Do you still pay for TV licenses in the UK?

Yes

How much?

£145.50 per household , which is just over 230 dollars a year at todays exchange rate. The only exclusions are for those who don't own a TV at all, and the over 75s. A licence is also needed to watch live TV via a laptop/pc etc.

There is no licence for the radio, it is just funded from the TV licence, as the number of people with radio but no TV is very small.

Do people get around paying?

Yes, although enforcement is now done door to door and is strict.

Gone are the TV detector vans- they simply go door to door at unlicenced premises and assume everyone has a TV set and require anyone without a licence to let them in to prove they have not got one. If you don't co-operate they can get a warrant to search the premises.

Some people moan about this and feel it is authoritarian. Others struggle to afford it. It is certainly a lot of people for anyone on a low income. For comparison one weeks full-time wages at minimum wage works out at around £200 (about 320 bucks.) after taxes.



The licence fee is currently frozen at its present rate for up to six years.