Originally Posted by fredfa
Now, to some points:
(Surely you jest.)
I guess the "causual day-to-day of Desperate Housewives, House, American Idol, L&O, CSI (1,2,3), Grey's Anatomy, etc would have no viewers if not for cable?
Nielsen says 86% of the nation's homes receive their TV signals from cable, satellite and telco.
Of those viewers with household incomes of $50,000 or more, the percentage is in the high 90% range.
So the vast, vast majority of viewers advertisers care about get their programming through cable or satellite.
In many places people are willing watch OTA (SD and HD) and not because cable or sat isn't available to them.
Frankly I would like to hear more about these "many places" and the residents who willingly watch their TV OTA. Nielsen says this season there are 100,213,910 TV Homes in the United States. And (as of Sept 24, 2005) 86% received their TV from cable or satellite.
So do you have any research which tells us what percentage of those remaining 15 million homes who can afford cable or satellite and have it available to them yet willingly watch OTA?
I am willing to be persuaded. I have nothing invested in what I believe to be true here. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to change my opinion.
So, are there any reference materials to back up your boldly-stated assertions of fact?
I point to the GAO of the US Government if you need facts. If you remember, Congress wrangled over what to do for digital tuners for all of those second, third, fourth analog only TV's in MSO households that ARE NOT connected and use OTA for analog reception. It would appear to me that these people CAN afford cable/sat (they already have it for one TV at least) but for whatever reason choose not to connect them. GAO estimates are 73 million OTA sets in the US with about 50 million in that second, third, fourth category.
There are also people who have sat and for whatever reason choose not to get LIL (SD I am talking about) and use OTA for their local. IMHO, if you can afford sat, your just too cheap to shell out another $4.95 a month for LIL but I think we all know someone like that.
It is also a known fact (because how many people admit here in AVSForum) that in order to get the HD they want, they put up their "first" OTA antenna even though they have sat and/or cable. I am also seeing it locally with the number of phone calls I field from people who make MUCH more money than I do, who live in MUCH nicer homes than I live in (I have been to many of them personally) who call and ask for information on setting up an OTA and these people have cable/sat. OTA is becoming just another source for programming for them, like many who have both cable and sat (and many of those people have both D* and E*). Multiple programming sources. As the telcos enter into the programming marketplace, you will see them added as an additional programming source to many upper end homes along with cable/sat/OTA. Cable wants to be YOUR ONLY programming source. That is competition cable is deathly afraid of (look how hard cable has/is fighting the telco franchising issue in Congress) and logic dictates that cable may be at their highest penetration now. With all of these additional programming sources coming on line, cable will erode, just like it has with sat. The "golden age" of cable is probably over. Will cable die and whither away? No more of a chance than OTA whithers and dies. They are all (cable/sat/telcos/OTA) all linked together and all are services the public wants.
So yes, while you can make an argument that cable/sat are more prevalent than OTA, you can also make the argument that the public will go where they feel they get the best bang for the buck and cable doesn't always win in the dominating fashion some on here would like to make us think. OTA is FAR from dead and that isn't my opinion, but is backed up by the GAO and users of AVSForum just to name a few places.