by Dave Zornow
Published in the Cynopsis:Weekender, 4/12/20/07
Cable subscribers have called their MSOs lots of names over the years, not all of which are fit to print. Earlier this year, politicians added a new and somewhat unexpected one: “low-income friendly.”
Iowa Representative Wayne Ford (D-Des Moines) expressed his anger at Sinclair Broadcasting in January when Mediacom cable subs were blocked from receiving Sinclair’s stations due to a retransmission dispute. He told the Sioux City Journal that Sinclair was discriminating against those who can’t afford to switch to satellite and whose only television recourse was cable. "Where is the heart?" Ford asked. "You underestimate us at a tremendous price if you think you can come in here and play this situation with Iowa."
The president of the Des Moines chapter of the NAACP, Linda Carter-Lewis, backed up Representative Ford’s concerns, noting that 25,000 of Iowa’s cable subscribers have the lowest cost service.
It wasn’t long ago that politicians railed against cable because operators were charging for “free TV” and taking programming options away from households that couldn’t afford to subscribe. I know that in the heat of battle politicians will say crazy things. But since when did cable become a “gotta have” for those who are mostly have nots?
It’s shocking, especially considering that it just might be true. Over half of adults with annual household income of $20,000 or less subscribe to cable according to MRI’s Fall 2006 study. If you include the households under $20K that have a satellite dish, almost seven of ten adults (66%) have a subscription TV service.
With 66 percent of people in the lowest income bracket having cable or satellite, it makes you wonder who Congress thinks they will be subsidizing with the $1.5 billion they have set aside for vouchers to purchase digital-to-analog converter boxes when TV stations go all digital in February 2009? Which poor, huddled, rabbit-eared, over-the-air-only masses did they have in mind? And if they really are that poor, aren’t there better ways of spending that $1.5 billion? Perhaps on DVRs to complement the digital delivery they already have? ##
Dave Zornow is President/TNG Research, a media research consultancy and applications development company that works with media sellers and research providers.
Return to: Home • Published Articles