Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television The Almighty Buck Communications Movies News Entertainment

Viewers Only Watch 10% of Pay-TV Channels: Nielsen (usatoday.com) 198

Chances are if you have cable, satellite or telco-delivered TV service, you aren't watching all the channels in your package. Heck, you probably aren't even watching half of the channels you pay for. Global information and measurement company Nielsen has conducted some research and found that viewers are actually watching, on average, only about 20 of the 200 channels they pay for. What this means is that a majority of us watch less than 10% of the channels we pay our cable, satellite or other provider for. USA Today reports: Back in May 2014, viewers watched 10.6% of the 197 channels they said they paid for, Nielsen's TV Audience Report found. A year later, viewers watched 9.6% of the 208 channels they got. This year, viewers also watched 9.6% of the 206 channels on their pay-TV service. That doesn't mean customers are unhappy with their service. "There is a jump between 'I'm not watching all the channels I pay for' to 'I'm not going to pay for more channels than I watch,'" says Glenn Enoch, senior vice president of audience insights for Nielsen. "What we do know is that people who have skinny bundles are lower-income than the average, so this is more about household income than viewing behavior." Pay-TV companies need to experiment, for sure, because other consumer behaviors in the Nielsen report suggest traditional TV viewing by those under 35 continues to fall, says Colin Dixon, analyst and founder of nScreenMedia.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Viewers Only Watch 10% of Pay-TV Channels: Nielsen

Comments Filter:
  • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:45PM (#53059311)

    Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising. One of the many reasons why I cut the cord.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Amen!

      I hope at some point cable providers get screwed over and penalized for inflating not only the cost of bandwidth, but capping it as well.

      Commercial free - a la carte - that's the only way to go. And I'm willing to pay for it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It is Not the Cable Companies.
        The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.
        Or You want.

        • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:32PM (#53059549) Homepage

          It is Not the Cable Companies.
          The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.
          Or You want.

          I have no problem with them including a shopping channel or other junk channel with the channel I want but what I really want is to be able to pay $5 per channel for the channels I want. If they want to give me a bunch of other channels with the hope that I'll watch some commercials, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is paying $20 a month for a bunch of channels I don't want and/or having to pay $100/month to get the 4 channels that I do want. $20/month for 4 good channels should work out good for both of us but until then I will look elsewhere.

          • There is no way in hell that the cable companies are going to give you for channels that you actually want for twenty bucks a month. They already scam a lot more than that from a lot of people without giving them anything that they want at all.
            • Until they get educated on how to get a la carte.

              The only people screwed are the ones that demand instant sports. And I feel bad for them.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            $5 seems overpriced for most channels. Netflix is what, $9 for HD, no adverts, on-demand and a much wider selection than most channels. Maybe something like HBO can justify similar prices, but $5 is probably way too much for most channels that also run ads.

          • It will take many more people cutting the cord for us to see any changes.

            If you're a content provider, your goal is to make money and you project profits based on the bulk licensing for distributors. You can then make some educated guesses about how best to divide up that money to either add more channels (and up those license fees) or spend more on quality programming. Since we have shows that feature idiots form New Jersey, child beauty pageants, and a family only famous due to a sex tape, we know exac
            • It will take many more people cutting the cord for us to see any changes.

              The change will likely come from outside. Just like the entrenched stock brokers weren't the first ones to offer cheap trading, the entrenched cable networks are not going to be the first ones to offer alacarte. Amazon prime has already started do this a little. They have started adding add-on subscriptions to prime like starz and a few others. I see this continuing to increase. I also wouldn't be surprised if sites like the history channel and cartoon network either started offering stand alone subscr

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          It is Not the Cable Companies.
          It's not the cable companies inflating internet only prices to offset the spraying arterial blood loss of cable cutting revenue ? Yeah, no.
          The Content providers demand they take packages or they can't get the few channels they actually want.

          Fuck em.

          Netflix is doing a fantastic job and I STILL pay 7.99 a month. When you don't have sharp eyesight, you can drop the video streaming quality and not really give a crap about it. Or pay 2 bucks more and get it - but ten bucks a month f

      • Good Grief - guess you have to be OLD to remember THAT WAS WHAT CABLE PROMISED WHEN IT STARTED - commercial free programming - at a price. THAT lasted about as long as it took the cable companies to split the country into 'covered' areas - i.e. local monopolies. THEN along came the extra windfall profits from adding advertising BACK into the entertainment packages, and you wound up paying for multiple channels with nothing worth watching, but every channel had commercials - - - AGAIN ! But Gee Whiz - you
    • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:11PM (#53059437)

      Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising. One of the many reasons why I cut the cord.

      Lets see the utter pile of shit there is available:

      Some 50 shows where sassy women sit around and yap and fight with each other.

      Another bunch where people sing more or less the same music to win prizes.

      Stupid dancing programs where professional athletes always win over some star or presidential candidates tramp daughter because they're professional athletes.

      Shows where yuppies pretend to be rednecks and encourage pedophilia

      Shows where superior people pop dozens of larvae out of a clown car vagina, and stand up for one of them being a pedophile.

      Strange shows with really weid looking guys with weird looking hair and stuff, but with wives who are oddly attractive.

      Shows where peope who never met each other sign a contract to marry each other.

      Marriage saving shows for kooks

      Must be a million shows about people in Alaska.

      "Science" shows where humans are stupid, and apparently every advancement in history was made by aliens.

      My better half watches some old reruns and court TV, so I see the ads for the weirdo shows.

      Then there are the commercials Sue this person sue that medicine company, Suee everyone. If you win an annuity in your suit, there's another company that will give you a lump sum if you give tehm the annuity.

      So I'm left with cartoon channel, and The Science channel, and HBO.

      Otherwise, its Youtube science and space/airplane vids. I can't be the only one who watches less than 1% of their crap.

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Cultural enrichment gives bonus virtue signalling points for the creators and broadcaster. But always select from the correct issues. Some issues are so 1970's and just don't get big oppression awards or offer as much gov script support anymore.
      • Lets see the utter pile of shit there is available:

        [examples snipped]

        You forgot the biggest, most useless pile of shit ever on TV: ESPN. It's even worse than when the History Channel became the Wrestling Channel, and largely on par with the sixteen shopping channels you just can't get rid of.

        • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          You forgot the biggest, most useless pile of shit ever on TV: ESPN.

          And yet 4 of the top 10 shows on cable TV are on ESPN. For being a useless pile of shit, a lot of people still watch it.

    • by swalve ( 1980968 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:14PM (#53059455)
      That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.
      • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:37PM (#53059573)

        And hence why people are only watching 10% of the channels they're paying for.

      • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:41PM (#53059593) Homepage

        That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.

        I'm ok with $7/channel. I'm also ok with a monthly minimum of $20 or something similar. What I'm not ok with is a $40 base package with none of the channels I want and then having to pay an extra $40 per month to get the 2 channels I do want. That's not $7/channel. That's $40 per channel when I have to pay $80/month to get the 2 channels I really want. It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free. They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue via either people willing to pay for them or shopping channels, ad revenue, etc...

        • It makes even less sense when we are talking directv and dish where assuming I already have the dish, the cost of them providing me a single channel is effectively free.

          The incremental cost of adding you as a viewer from a technical viewpoint is small, but not free. You need to pay your share of the infrastructure.

          But the incremental cost of you viewing that channel from a content viewpoint is whatever the per-sub cost for providing that channel is. It isn't free.

          They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue

          I think this is called the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want cable and satellite services to offer only those channels that draw the most viewers? This is why broadcast TV has such poor content, you know

          • I think this is called the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want cable and satellite services to offer only those channels that draw the most viewers? This is why broadcast TV has such poor content, you know. Lowest common denominator programming.

            I'm not saying only offer one channel that tries to appease everyone. Their satellites support over 100 channels so instead of having dozens of almost identical versions and then HD copies of those same channels why not have each channel specifically target 1% of the population. Then everyone gets a channel that they actually want. The infrastructure is the same but now instead of appealing to the majority you can also appeal to each niche separately. Noone can watch 100 channels at the same time, what

            • I'm not saying only offer one channel that tries to appease everyone. Their satellites support over 100 channels so instead of having dozens of almost identical versions and then HD copies of those same channels why not have each channel specifically target 1% of the population.

              You said: "They would be much better off to get rid of half of the channels and only offer channels that generate them a large revenue...". A 1% channel isn't going to generate large revenues. Supplying only channels that create large revenues is going to lead to the same problems broadcast TV has.

              The infrastructure is the same but now instead of appealing to the majority you can also appeal to each niche separately.

              That was the initial grand view of what cable television would be able to do. And as I already pointed out, the niche channels learned that they could make more money by being less niche and more mainline. The ca

      • by Anonymous Coward

        and when my cable co dinged my account $7 per month "sports fee" (espn fee) I decided that $84 per year to Disney was stupid.

        snip. bye.

      • by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Wednesday October 12, 2016 @07:07AM (#53060991)

        That's kind of their business model. ESPN costs $7 a month (or whatever), and they give you 15 other channels for free along with it. If they didn't give you those channels, ESPN would still cost $7. Same deal with whatever channel you value.

        If that was true, I'd still like an option for "pay $7 for just ESPN without the free channels", so I could express that I don't want them, free or not.

      • Actually, ESPN costs something like $2 a month PER SUBSCRIBER to the cable company. In other words, in order for ANY of a cable company's subscribers to be able to watch ESPN, the cable company must pay ESPN for ALL of their subscribers. ESPN does the same thing with their premium website..it's "Free", but only if your ISP pays ESPN some amount for each and everyone of their subscribers.
        Or to put it another way, if you have cable TV, you are paying for ESPN, whether you have any interest in sports or not.
      • Except to get the NHL Network, I can't pay $7 on top of my package. I have to go from a 45 channel package that's about the same price as my Internet service without the bundle to a 200-channel package that's about double the price. And yet after we paid $140 a year for NHL on demand streaming, they block out any games that are on NHL Network. So they want us to pay another $1300 a year on top of the $140 and still miss games where our team plays the "local team" 5 hours away.

    • Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising.

      Why do you care? As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else? Just ignore the extra channels. All the channels are traveling through the cable, and arriving at your house, whether you want them or not, so the marginal cost to the cable company is $0.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @10:22PM (#53059741)

        Why do you care? As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else?

        Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.

        "Just pretend the crap doesn't exist and you're paying more for the few channels you want", you might argue

        Problem is, by requiring that I pay for the crap channels, more of the crap will be created because the producers, by being paid, are mistakenly led to believe that their product doesn't suck. I resent that. I want the crap that nobody actually wants to pay for to wither and die so that nobody is forced to pay for it anymore.

        • Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.

          You are being forced to pay an extra $0 for something that costs the cable company $0 to provide.

        • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          As long as you get what you want for a price you are willing to pay, what difference does it make if you also get something else?

          Because we're being forced to pay for crap we don't want.

          I think you might be missing the point of the post that you replied to: you are not being forced to pay for crap you don't want. You decided that you would prefer to pay for crap that you don't want. If you had decided you would rather not pay for crap you don't want, then you wouldn't be paying.

          You shouted "YES, I ACCEPT YO

      • by tsotha ( 720379 )
        People seem to think if you get ten channels for $10/month you should be able to get the one you want for $1. But it doesn't work that way. It's more likely you'll get the one channel for $10.
      • I don't care, but the fact of the matter is that they do NOT offer what I want at a price I am willing to pay. That is why I no longer have cable TV.
    • You mean some people don't watch all of those shopping channels??? Damn it if I'm paying for them then I'm damn well gonna watch them!
      • by tsotha ( 720379 )
        The shopping channels pay the cable company, at least in my area. That's why getting internet without TV costs $10 more.
    • Exactly this.

      Also, how many channels are the HD feed of the exact same thing? Time Warner just adds 1,000 to the channel number and it's HD, but the SD version is still on the cable* taking up bandwidth. And how many channels are reserved for pay-per-view, which millions of people will NEVER use?

      Every cable system is digital now - why aren't we only using the bandwidth necessary for the thing you're actually watching, which would also allow for a la carte channel selection? Oh, I know - because of the bu

      • Time Warner just adds 1,000 to the channel number and it's HD, but the SD version is still on the cable* taking up bandwidth.

        So what? That's not bandwidth you get to use, it's reserved for the cable channels. Your internet is not a cable TV channel. The people who only have SD TVs appreciate getting a signal their TV can view.

        Every cable system is digital now - why aren't we only using the bandwidth necessary for the thing you're actually watching,

        Because it is cheaper to broadcast the digital signals and have the converters know what they can decode, than to have a switched video system. It is much cheaper for the consumer equipment to simply decode the right thing than for it to have to negotiate with a distant head-end for what it gets sent to deco

    • Given that they force you to buy 8 channels of dreck just to get the one channel you want, it's not surprising. One of the many reasons why I cut the cord.

      I can't even do that. The cheapest internet cable I can get comes with TV channels bundled with it.

  • Got a better deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:45PM (#53059317)
    Meanwhile, I watch about 97% of what I download. Plus shows from Netflix and Amazon.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:46PM (#53059325)

    Now that there are apps for most things like HBO or Starz, I really enjoy stations a lot more - I can pick up a station" as I wish, or drop it when I won't need it for a while.

    In any one month I probably pay more than I would with a bundle but then again in some months I hardly subscribe to anything. So I'm probably still ahead and I'm no longer subsidizing channels I find utterly worthless. I'd much rather I spend a little more but all of it goes to the channel I like.

  • by geek ( 5680 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:50PM (#53059341)

    If it wasn't for my wife wanting to watch The Bachelor the second it comes on I would have cut the cable a long time ago. I literally watch 3 channels and most nights not even that.

    I really can't stomach whats on TV these days. I know I'm older and my tastes have changed but what I see on TV these days is just uninteresting, overly political correct and frankly the actors seem to really suck. On the other hand when I see stuff from 20 years ago the same can be said, but at least then it was cheap.

    Netflix is really no better either. The choices are slim, the shows are mostly junk and the prices will eventually climb to the same as cable, and/or add advertisements. It is bound to happen.

    • by swalve ( 1980968 )
      Quit complaining and buy an antenna.
      • When I cut the cord I heard from lots of neighbors who were tired of the $200 plus per month. When I told them an antenna on the house was a one time expense of maybe $150 all in, they all sort of said ... what ? Put up an antenna ? How do I do that ? Run a wire ? and all still pay the $, because the fear of change. I've even demonstrated to a few my homebrew bow tie antenna, which works better than it looks. I'm 40 miles from my transmitters, and today the signal strengths are between 98% and 84%. W
    • If it wasn't for my wife wanting to watch The Bachelor the second it comes on I would have cut the cable a long time ago.

      Cut! Cut now!

      The Bachelor is on ABC, which you can get over the air. Unless you have one of the very early HDTVs, you've got a digital tuner in your set. You can rig-up a wire clothes hanger into the coax input and pick up free broadcast over the air HDTV, which will be your local stations. That includes ABC, so your wife can watch that crap show as soon as it comes on.

      Cut! Cut now!

      We haven't had cable in almost a decade now. The only channel my wife even misses is Investigation Discovery, and there's

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      Over 90 percent of what's on TV doesn't appeal to me at all. But then I'm sure a lot of what I watch wouldn't appeal to most people. One of the few shows I like that a lot of people also like is Game of Thrones. Most of the others struggle in the ratings. Fortunately a lot of marginal shows that would get cut normally manage to make it since there are so many channels. I like Longmire and when it got cut it moved to Netflix so I can still see it. I remember when I had cable briefly back in the 80's th

    • by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @10:09PM (#53059691) Journal

      If it wasn't for my wife wanting to watch The Bachelor the second it comes on I would have cut the cable a long time ago.

      The Bachelor is on ABC, which is broadcast over-the-are to something like 90% of the US population. Depending on your location, getting it might cost as little as $20. I wrote an in-depth tutorial that really walks you through antenna selection and setup:

      http://evilviper.pipedot.org/j... [pipedot.org]

      I literally watch 3 channels and most nights not even that. I really can't stomach whats on TV these days

      I've always been that way... That's why my favorite slogan is:

      "PBS: Television for people who hate television"

      You'll do better with an antenna, anyhow. Lots of sub-channels with old TV shows and movies, several of which don't even get carried on most cable systems.

      • by tsotha ( 720379 )
        As soon as we set up an antenna my parents dropped cable like a hot rock. We got them a DVR and my dad, who scoffed at television for decades because he couldn't find anything worth watching, told me he can always find something worth watching now, and has to consciously limit his TV time.
    • Same here. She absolutely couldn't live without "House Hunters" and CNN.

      Then I cut the cable. Told her to get Apple TV, Hulu and Netflix. Total of $30/mo, which
      is half what we were paying Comcast for cable TV.

      Somehow, we have survived. I rigged up an antenna in the attic, so she can get the local news she
      insisted she had to have. I don't think she's watched it since I did it.

      We did watch the first "debate". // Trump? Really? // If the FBI won't indict Hillary, she's guilty of nothing.

    • My wife made us get satellite when MNF moved to ESPN in 2006. She said, "Don't mess with a pregnant woman's football!" It was scary.
  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:53PM (#53059355) Journal
    Nobody, ever, gets offered the best deal a cable provider has by remaining a constant customer.

    As long as you have a competitive market, trade out as soon as introductory specials fade into the sunset, for newer, sweeter deals with the competition.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    In other breaking news, the sky is blue.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      This has been a complaint since the '80s. Sports fans had to buy "expanded" cable to get channels they didn't want, just so they could get ESPN. Disney Kids only comes with premium, so you have to buy the most expensive package with 200 channels to get that one. And you can't buy HBO with "basic" as well, so those wanting to watch The Sopranos or True Blood or whatever, couldn't get HBO without expanded basic or premium (depending on the company).

      A La Carte channel ordering would not cut revenue, but wo
  • On the Web (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @08:55PM (#53059369) Homepage

    Meanwhile, I only tend to visit about 20 of the 1 billion sites on the World Wide Web (about 0.000002%), and yet here I am paying full price for my Internet access.

    • You have a classic apples and oranges issue. If you're using the Internet largely as if it were an extension of TV, then you have an obvious problem. If you're equating the Web with the Internet, then you have another obvious problem.

      That's like saying, "I only ever use the bathroom in my house, yet I'm paying the full mortgage price." You don't want Internet access. You want AOL back in the 90's.

    • by Falos ( 2905315 )
      You're not paying for people's sites, for webpages, for their pigeonholes. You're not paying for any "channels".

      You're paying for the television itself.
  • In Canada we have what is called CanCon which is a legally mandated level of Canadian Content. What this translates to is a huge amount of stuff that represents groups far beyond their proportions. So an entire native channel, more French channels than I can count in French, and yards and yards of stuff made in Toronto that is then rammed into our eyeballs.

    I say in Canada it "was" far worse because one of the huge drivers of people to things like Netflix is to get away from this government mandated shit.
  • Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by orlanz ( 882574 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:37PM (#53059571)

    I have two cable boxes... Haven't been turned on since they were installed 3 years ago. I had to bundle them with my internet to get the best deal from the provider. And they stop calling you as often to "save me money with the bundle of the month". Now I just get the useless VoIP calls once every 6 months.

    I don't have the time nor inclination to plan my weekly schedule around the times of the shows. I haven't really watched traditional TV in close to 15 years! 10 years ago I even lost the need to have something random in the background.

    I still watch shows about 3-4 hours a week. But on my schedule. I think Hulu was a great detox program. Initially they provided the latest and greatest. Then they went to 1 day delay. Then 8 days. Then 30! A few months after that, I didn't mind watching shows an entire season later or even dropping them.

    Season clif hangers were no more so wasn't addicted to looking at release schedules. The whole water cooler talk had long since died so there was rarely a need to stay up to date on whatever was on.

    Now Hulu became paid only... in between seasons!! So awesome! Haven't even been to the site in months. I am probably bringing the average down, but I think Nielsen is being conservative in their numbers. It probably way worse based on how many just have the TV on and how many only got it due to bundles.

  • ...no matter who you are. Eventually our kids will wonder why we used to sit around watching a central TV, just like we wondered why our parents sat around listening to the radio.
  • I travel a couple times a year, when I do I get a hotel that has HBO. I don't look for it, the hotels in my price range always have it. What I learn when I rent a hotel room with HBO is I really don't need HBO at home, it just shows the same crap over and over and rarely shows new stuff I might want to see.

    I remember some 10 years ago, dad was in a hospital in OK with heart issues, mom was with relatives close by, and nothing was happening. Sis and I drove from San Diego to Tulsa OK, staying in hotels wi
  • by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @09:45PM (#53059609) Homepage Journal
    No different than playing 30 of your 300 steam games
  • Every other study I've seen about TV viewership points to the average viewer's interests encompass a limited number of channels, about a dozen. Stuffing more channels into a bundle doesn't make people watch more of them.

    The business model of cable is mainly based on high viewership channels subsidizing low viewership channels. They need bundling to support all the new dreck that gets made and old stuff that's re-run.

    • Yep, and they only put the ones people actually want to watch in the higher tiers forcing you to buy more to get them.

  • You only have 24 hours a day, even with 100 channels you cannot watch all of them!
    • That's right.

      100 channels for 24 hours = 2400 hours per day.

      Even if you watched for your entire 16-hour waking day, you could only watch 0.66% of your television's output.
      • Let's say you have 200 channels and you watch 50 channels in 18 hours a day. That's 25% of the channels for an average of 21 minutes each. Then your life is to be squeezed in 6 hours: food, drinks, sleep and ... Slashdot.
  • I have a 1 meter motorised dish which can be pointed at over dozen satellites, thousands of channels and I still only watch a similar number of channels.

  • Why do you think cable companies don;t allow al a carte channel selection? Most of these networks wouldn't exist without the cable forcing them on you.

  • I'm not sure what its like in the US,but here in Canada if you get 200 channels you're getting about 60 channels, 30 of which are repeated multiple of times (~5) for different cities. Obviously if you watch CBC Toronto, you're unlikely to watch CBC Ottawa. This would explain this "finding" immediately.

    • Yeah the US is a little different. For the broadcast networks with local affiliate stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox, etc.), the cable or satellite provider will generally only provide you with your local affiliate. So if you live in Los Angeles, you will only get the NBC station for Los Angeles, and not for New York or San Francisco.

      The cable stations (CNN, ESPN, Discovery Channel, Disney Channel, etc) have just one version. At most they might have two, an East Coast and a West Coast version with the same

  • I wish Nielson tracked when people use the mute button because I mute every presidential TV ad, every drug ad, and every ad for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.

  • Sure, 200 channels and there may only be 1 or 2 of them you are interested in at any given time. But having a wide selection can be nice.

    Obviously the most efficient would be for there to be a single channel that shows exactly what I want to watch at all times. But of course people would complain about the high cost of that one channel versus the relatively inexpensive per channel cost of a 200 channel bundle.

  • I guess I would be in the negative 1% club since I don't subscribe to cable at all and only subscribe online to HBO during "Game of Thrones" season then swiftly cancel. The only 2 channels I would like to have, HGTV and Comedy, are not available separately, so I simply found alternative sources of entertainment such as Twitch and Youtube, both of which I gladly support (Twitch Turbo & Patreon for individual Youtube channels.)

  • Sounds about right: 90% of everything is crap, and glad for it - there's too much good stuff to watch as it is...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Got tired of paying for a ton of crap I don't ever watch, just to get 2 or 3 channels I did watch. There's at least a dozen OTA channels I receive with excellent signal strength and quality where I live, and I rarely have nothing to watch waiting for me on my DVR -- and the picture quality is better, too, because cable TV recompresses everything within an inch of it's life.
  • I believe companies like Comcast already realize this, as their profit margins are significant with this model; hence their resistance to provide "a la carte" programming. I also use a DVR, rarely watching live television -- I utilize only a small fraction of what I'm forced to pay for, if I want access to those channels (ie: extra package costs).

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...