3 - More and more, retransmission money paid to stations by cable and satellite companies is paying the programming bills. So, campaigning to get people to drop cable service may potentially hurt your ability to find good programming on these channels down the road. So, encourage those (especially those being rated) to watch those local channels that you can get for free, but encourage those who are willing to pay for TV to continue doing so.
If someone else wishes to feed the beast, you may as well let them.
The impact of that retransmission money is...complicated.
We can certainly expect that broadcast stations that are seeing 50 cents/month per subscriber will probably not be interested in encouraging viewers to cut the cord. After all, that's a large, steady income stream. In a market the size of the one that I'm in (DFW), that's over $10 million/year. But I'll note that even at that amount, it will still be dwarfed by advertisng revenue -- this same market was generating some $700 million in annual broadcast TV advertising revenue before the big recession hit. That amount is likely lower today, but I'd be willing to guess that the "big four" affiliates are probably looking at upwards of $50 million each in advertising revenue.
So take that retransmission money away and programming quality will surely suffer, right? Maybe not...because what's driving a lot of the programming cost inflation is that broadcasters need to compete against cable networks that get even larger amounts of retransmission money (that means, in particular, ESPN). When you cut the cord, you cut the money going to those competitors. And for every 50 cents that your local big four affiliate loses, ESPN is losing ten times as much when you cut the cord.
So major cord cutting would almost certainly be deflationary when it comes to the fees that get paid for rights to programming and sports events. The impact on programming quality is open for debate.