HDTV Magazine
Welcome, Guest  •  Sign In  •  Register  •  Help
Receive instant notification of new columns: Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
HDTV Almanac - Rather Switch than Pay?
by Alfred Poor on February 4, 2010 Category: General Interest

Brand loyalty remains an important part of many consumer markets in the U.S., but according to a new report by Strategy Analytics, subscription television service is not one of them. A recent survey found that more than 2 out of 3 cable subscribers would change providers if they were offered a 20% discount. For the smaller number of people who subscribe to television from a phone company, such as Verizon or AT&T, that number is cut in half to just 1 in 3.

Perhaps more telling is the fact that fewer than 22% of the subscribers overall felt that they were getting “value for the money”. With “100 channels and nothing on”, consumers are starting to question the return they get for their monthly subscription. The rapid growth of services such as Hulu and Netflix streaming movies is another indication of consumer dissatisfaction with the current choices.

From where I sit, one of the primary problems facing cable companies — and to a lesser degree, satellite services — is that they were established under a different set of rules and market conditions. In return for investing in running cable throughout a community, a cable company was given the right to provide the service to those homes. Now consumers are faced with a number of alternative choices, while cable costs keep rising year after year. One easy way to lower cable bills would be to offer a la carte pricing, but that will no doubt result in a huge drop in revenues because subscribers would opt out of all but a handful of favorite channels. But if cable and satellite services don’t do something soon to address the consumers’ concerns, they will will find their customers voting with their dollars and looking elsewhere for their video programming.

Posted by Alfred Poor, February 4, 2010 5:00 AM

Reader Commentary

Reply
GiovannaVisconti • Feb 4, 7:28am
Some--perhaps many--of us in NYC have no choice other than Time Warner with their increasing fees every time you turn around and their absolute inability to deliver acceptable customer service when there are service difficulties or--god help us--billing issues!

There are many obstacles to being able to switch from Time Warner to some other provider. TW is the only game in town for many of us. A competing service isn't allowed in because of the city's interference in so many ways.

AND...if you live in an apartment building (and most of us do!), and don't happen to face the Empire State building...well then...you can't switch to a satellite provider. Additionally, many buildings won't allow you to place a dish on the building's exterior outside your window anyway even if you DO happen to face the right direction.

As always, those of us who live here know that this city is behind every curve imaginable while soothing itself with such meaningless slogans as "the world's greatest ...
Reply
alfredpoor • Feb 4, 7:36am
Giovanni, I feel your pain. I know that NYC is not very friendly to television consumers, but I guess there are some advantages to living in the city or else there wouldn't be so many people doing it. I do understand that Verizon has started running optical fiber into many apartment buildings, which does provide an option, but given the number of buildings involved, it will be years before the can make much of a dent.

I don't know what the answer is for major urban areas such as New York, but I suspect that some form of broadband will take the place of the phone and cable TV pipes that we rely on now. Whether it will be a WiMax-type wireless solution, or a physical one like the FiOS optical fiber, I don't know. But I suspect that this is where we're headed for getting information into and out of our urban homes.

Alfred...
Reply
GiovannaVisconti • Feb 4, 8:10am
Hi, Alfred,

Thanks for such a swift reply! ...
Reply
alfredpoor • Feb 4, 8:27am
My apologies for mangling your name. As someone who is called by many variants of my first name, I can understand.

I saw the Sharp four-color LCD HDTVs at CES and they were impressive, especially with metalics like gold and brass. But would it have been so stunning if it had not been shown with a typical set next to it? I'm not at all sure. As for white vs. RGB LED backlights, the RGB approach does make it possible to do some correction for ambient light temperatures, but I think the benefits of reduced part count (thus increased reliability and lower assembly costs) for white LEDs will probably win out. And they're making some great strides in the white LED technology. (One company just announced a white LED with 100 lumen per Watt efficiency.)

As for local dimming, the jury is still out for me. I like high contrast and a deep black is the key to a great image. But I have to believe that the local dimming must introduce some sort of visible artifacts, simply because there are im...
Reply
GiovannaVisconti • Feb 4, 8:41am
Thanks so much, Alfred, for these insights. I really appreciate it.

I was wondering about artifacts too. It seems with every pronounced advance come artifacts. :)

Sigh...I was going to opt for one of Sharp's LE700 series sets if only because they DO use back as opposed to edge-lighting even though the system is "proprietary," whatever that means in this case. I believe one thing it means is there's no local dimming.

According to sources I've read, electricity usage in the LE700 series is way below the other majors. This is a major consideration for me. (You wouldn't believe my monthly electric bills, but I don't want to turn this conversation back to life in the big city and what it really costs.)

Have seen the LE700s in person and PQ looked excellent, BUT... of course they're running at torch levels in the store. So it's hard to tell if there are any real PQ differences from the set next door....
Reply
Richard • Feb 7, 11:08am
I would suggest putting a calculater to your suspicions... The difference in savings is marginal for the individual and the main issue at hand is the decrease in power consumption your energy provider sees due to a mass volume power reduction for your local power grid....
Reply
GiovannaVisconti • Feb 8, 8:28am
Thanks, Richard. I understand what you mean about overall usage as viewed by the electric company.

However, in New York city the reality is that change in the usage of just one appliance can have a startling effect on one's Con Ed bill.

My apartment building was constructed in 1937. It was rewired in the early 1970s, and nothing's been done since. You wouldn't believe my monthly electric charges for a studio apartment (that's New-York-speak for an apartment that doesn't have a separate bedroom: one large living room, small kitchen, small bath, small entrance hall).

Last summer was one of the most remarkably mild in the city's recent history. My Con Ed charges went from $132 to $109 per month--mostly because of far more limited a/c usage than usual.

Not to compare a TV's electricity consumption to that of an a/c, but a TV using over 100 watts less than another (estimates are from Home Theater Magazine's comprehensive listing) could make a big difference in my case. During...
Reply
akirby • Feb 8, 9:59am
Let's see - 100 watts times 6 hours per day times 30 days per month = 18 Kw/hours. Best I can tell Con Ed is charging roughly 8 cents per Kilowatt Hour (worst case).

That's $1.44 per month. Maybe we could take up a collection..........
Reply
GiovannaVisconti • Feb 9, 7:44am
Hey "akirby," hello...

You live here?

If you DO, and don't think $109 per month is an outrageous monthly electric charge for a studio apartment then there's not much else I can say. (And that's on level billing too, BTW.) I've no doubt that amount will jump back to the vicinity of $132 shortly. I'm planning on it.

Anyway, I DID say PQ is the most important consideration (with reliability right behind). But in my case lowering monthly electric charges ain't to be sneezed at. So taking that into consideration makes sense for me.

Now I'm certainly not asking that a collection be taken up...but what the hey...if you'd like to, I won't stop you! :) :)...
Reply
akirby • Feb 9, 8:30am
No, I don't live there. I was only pointing out that it doesn't matter whether you're spending $109/month or $1000/month, the DIFFERENCE between one tv and another is only 100 watts which equals less than $2/month.

Or to look at it another way - going with a TV that consumes 100 watts less than another TV will only save you $2/month. In my world, that would be a non-issue....

More from Alfred Poor

» - Currently Reading

More in Category: General Interest

About Alfred Poor

Alfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets.