3 ms·

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for pe

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

majewsky 8y ago
People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't know any subscribers except for soccer fans and sports bars.
- axaxs 8y ago
  Some people pay even more! I had relatives paying well over 120 dollars per month! The general pricing scheme for both phone and cable, well really most private subscription companies, is to hook people in with a deal with an absurd price after a set time is over, and tack on tons of little gotchas. It's borderline theft IMO. Those who know better then have to decide whether it's worth the hassle of threatening to cancel each year...
- 1123581321 8y ago
  Sky has five million subscribers in Germany. That looks like about 12% of your households. Basic TV in the US is free. Basic cable is about $30/mo. Case bundled with Internet is $50-100. There are some premium equivalents to Sky that top out around $200/mo. About 75% of US households pay for TV in some way. I’d say our mean and median household spending on TV is higher but there is a greater range of pricing, with $0 being quite viable if your tastes are simple.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now? The usual reason in a normal product market would be efficiencies developed over time reducing costs and competition driving prices down to marginally over cost.

People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?

majewsky 8y ago

People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't know any subscribers except for soccer fans and sports bars.

axaxs 8y ago
Some people pay even more! I had relatives paying well over 120 dollars per month! The general pricing scheme for both phone and cable, well really most private subscription companies, is to hook people in with a deal with an absurd price after a set time is over, and tack on tons of little gotchas. It's borderline theft IMO. Those who know better then have to decide whether it's worth the hassle of threatening to cancel each year...
1123581321 8y ago
Sky has five million subscribers in Germany. That looks like about 12% of your households. Basic TV in the US is free. Basic cable is about $30/mo. Case bundled with Internet is $50-100. There are some premium equivalents to Sky that top out around $200/mo. About 75% of US households pay for TV in some way. I’d say our mean and median household spending on TV is higher but there is a greater range of pricing, with $0 being quite viable if your tastes are simple.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now? The usual reason in a normal product market would be efficiencies developed over time reducing costs and competition driving prices down to marginally over cost.