Home & Garden1 min ago
Why Is It Tv Evolved Into Such Large Monthly Bills?
13 Answers
When I was a kid television had a knob to select channels 2 through 13, and everyone had an antenna on the chimney. Not everyone had signals strong enough to pick up all of the broadcast channels so in some rural areas they only had a strong enough signal for 2 or 3 channels. I was pretty fortunate, living on Long Island N.Y. we had 9 channels to choose from. Television was free back then, or let me say you didn’t have to pay a monthly bill to get reception. True, the sponsors who ran the commercials paid for airtime so the products we purchased from them reflected their cost of advertising. So it wasn’t really free, but there was no monthly bill. Personally I think my mother would have bought Wonder Bread whether there was a commercial for it or not.
Then in 1976 (I Googled that year, didn’t exactly remember it.) along came a great new concept. At least new to where I lived. Cable TV. Cable TV had a few (we only had 1) commercial free channels, we had HBO. Imagine that, no commercials on your home television. Of course you paid for that privilege but it was sure nice.
Fast-forward 39 years. We now get all of our television over the cable, no more antennas on the chimney. Some of us live in more rural areas now so we get to use a dish to get our channels. But what is strikingly different is, at our house, we get to pay $86 a month for the service with one big difference, every channel has commercials. Even if you have a cable running to your house, you still get the commercials, no extra charge. If I paid more I could still get the premium movies but then I go over $100 a month. A line in the sand I am unwilling to cross.
My question is how did network TV run for all of those years supported solely by commercials? Now it seems the cable networks get the income from the commercials and the income from the viewers. How is that right? What laws were put on the books to make that entire transition happen? Seems to me the public took a beating. Take that $86 a month times 12 months times about 90 million cable subscribers in America and you’re talking 90 billion dollars. Talk about an economic stimulus!
Then in 1976 (I Googled that year, didn’t exactly remember it.) along came a great new concept. At least new to where I lived. Cable TV. Cable TV had a few (we only had 1) commercial free channels, we had HBO. Imagine that, no commercials on your home television. Of course you paid for that privilege but it was sure nice.
Fast-forward 39 years. We now get all of our television over the cable, no more antennas on the chimney. Some of us live in more rural areas now so we get to use a dish to get our channels. But what is strikingly different is, at our house, we get to pay $86 a month for the service with one big difference, every channel has commercials. Even if you have a cable running to your house, you still get the commercials, no extra charge. If I paid more I could still get the premium movies but then I go over $100 a month. A line in the sand I am unwilling to cross.
My question is how did network TV run for all of those years supported solely by commercials? Now it seems the cable networks get the income from the commercials and the income from the viewers. How is that right? What laws were put on the books to make that entire transition happen? Seems to me the public took a beating. Take that $86 a month times 12 months times about 90 million cable subscribers in America and you’re talking 90 billion dollars. Talk about an economic stimulus!
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
paying people like 'judge judy' 45 million dollars a year might have something to do with it
06:20 Thu 03rd Sep 2015
I think TV programmes are much more expensive to make these days too- in tEngland for example the TV companies have paid a few billion dollars for the rights to braodcast premiewr league football. So it's not just the TV companies who are making money there- the main winners are the Premier League clubs.
Also there are many more channels now and therefore there is much more choice. Some channels attract very few viewers so the advertisers don't pay much for adverts. There's only so much advertising money to go around and it's now spread between hundreds of channels and providers, so the providers make up the shortfall with their charges.
And finally they can keep charging what the market will bear
Also there are many more channels now and therefore there is much more choice. Some channels attract very few viewers so the advertisers don't pay much for adverts. There's only so much advertising money to go around and it's now spread between hundreds of channels and providers, so the providers make up the shortfall with their charges.
And finally they can keep charging what the market will bear
From a UK perspective: payments are high for Sky for one reason only-grotesque bidding wars for the rights to show Premier League football. I pay just under £67 per month to Sky plus £12 a month for BBC licence fee (which I do not mind ) I'd say that I get pretty decent value most of the time for the TV choices and Mr S likes sport so we do watch Sky Sports but I do resent the high numbers of staff employed by Sky Sports (typically a seemingly never ending stream of big bosomed long haired clueless women) all no doubt on huge salaries. I remember the days of 2 channels and question sometimes if things were not better then. There is so much choice-much of it dross-that you are often overwhelmed by it all. Probably we should give it up but as we do not go out a great deal the TV is our luxury,plus Sky Atlantic is not something I could give up easily.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
If You Wanted Confirmationour...
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.