Cable Tithe

[Dr. Shane]

Parents who have cable in their homes need to know the ugly truth: They’re helping to produce the programming on those channels, even if they never watch them. Most television networks, all except the Christian ones, get paid by cable operators for their programming. A popular channel like ESPN, for example, can get up to $2.00 per cable subscriber, while a new emerging network like the Hallmark Channel may get 10 cents a subscriber. The more popular the network (popularity is gauged by how many people request the channel on a cable system), the more they get paid by the cable operators. The exceptions are Christian television networks, which generally have to pay cable operators to get on a system.

The cable system charges the customer a monthly fee (subscription payment) for the privilege of having access to these channels, then the cable operator gives a designated portion of the $30-$80 a month subscription fee to each channel in the subscriber’s programming package. And that subscription payment is critical: Most cable channels are supported at least half by monthly subscription fees. For example, according to industry reports, MTV is supported 50 percent by cable subscriptions -- 50 percent. That means a viewer’s monthly cable bill is significantly impacting the production of programming on secular cable channels. Christians might as well send channels like MTV a monthly tithe; it works the same way.

[Nan]

I pay my tithe via the telephone cable I guess, with internet banking, but with only free to air TV in this house I am not contributing to the coffers of any of the networks. Thank you for the explanation Shane.

[Gregory Matthews]

True, up to a point.

I do not pay to have access to any of the movie channels, so none of my payment goes to them. None goes to PLAYBOY, as I do not pay for access.

My TV cable bill, including taxes, is several dollars less than $20.00 per month. So, your illustrative figures are not applicatible for me.

You know, if a purchased a certain brand of canned soup, a tobacco company would recieve a small income from that purchase, even though I do not use tobacco.

[Dr. Shane]

Correct, the money only goes to the channels one has access to.

Phillip-Morris does own Kraft Foods however that does not mean that buying Kraft Foods funds tobacco. They have complete seperate books, bank accounts and financial statements. If Phillip-Morris tobacco division starts losing money it is not going to use Kraft Foods to bail it out. It will simply downsize or close that division. It is not comparable to the cable situation. With cable the subscriber is paying money to each of the channels he or she has access to.

[Gregory Matthews]

I acknowledge that they have seperate books.

I acknowledge that the cable situation is different from Kraft Foods.

I acknowledge that a few cents of my cable bill may go to a chanel that I do not watch.

However, my point still remains: If I purchase a certain brand of Mac & cheese, some profit goes to a tobacco company which they may use in any way that they please to include investing in tobacco research, or they may simply decide to make a donation to world hunger.

[Ron Lambert]

From time to time we hear of calls requiring cable companies to allow subscribers to choose freely ("a la carte") which channels they want, without any mandatory packages of channels. Any time we hear of this, we should support it.

Here is a link to an article in the Christian Science Monitor about this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1214/p08s02-comv.html

[cricket]

Isn't this the same concept as paying the home-repairman to some odd job around the house; only to find out later that the same money you've paid him was used on [some illicit behavior or addiction]?

That's just an example. Consumers cannot control where every unit of currency is spent. Consumers control only where their own units of currency are spent.

I imagine there are at least a few things in the Adventist Church budget with which the Adventist "consumer" disagrees.

[Dr. Shane]

No that example is worse than Brother Matthews' example. We pay a home repairman to do a specific job we hire him for. How he spends his money has nothing to do with us.

A better example is this. When we buy a Compact computer it comes with a Microsoft operating system. Therefore we cannot buy a Compact without supporting Microsoft. If we do not want to support Microsoft we need to buy a MacIntosh.

Many cable subscriptions come with MTV, VH1, USA, Cartoon Network which are just a few objectionable channels. There is an alternative for many of us. That is Skyangel

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, you like to argue (discuss), and sometimes people like to respond to you just to see your reaction. Sometimes they respond to you with arguements on the same level that they see yours. That may be a small acknowledgement that there is a point being made.

I looked at my cable bill and found it to total $12.16 last month. That included all taxes and local fees. Yes, I am on a package plan that provides me with a variety of channels, some of which I never watch. Yes, I acknowledge that the cable company sends a fee to each of those providers based upon my reciept of them. But, if you look at the figures, the cable company actually may be losing money on me, as it may send those companies more in fees than it collects from me. So, I actually may be financially punishing the cable company for providing me with those chanels.

Why would a busines continue to provide a service at a money losing rate?

a) To attract a larger customer base, and collect larger advertising fees.

To keep me from moving to another provider.

NOTE: I began with this cable company on a 12 month special rate of double what I now pay. At the end of that 12 month period I announced that I would not continue, and to keep me my charge was cut in half. Yes, they dropped some services that I had never used. But, I am recieving services at about half of their published rate.

As one who feel smart due to your business background and international experience, I remind you that sometimes it is to the financial advantage for a company to provide a service at a loss, as it sustains a greater loss by not doing so. Let me illustrate with a true example.

Loma Linda Foods (USA), at one time determed that it was selling RUSKETS at a loss. Financial studies predicted that it could never make a profit on it, as an increase in price would reduce the customer base. So, Loma Linda Foods stopped producing RUSKETS.

The result of that decision was that another food product immediately went into a loss. Why, even though RUSKETS had been sold at a loss, it did carry some fixed expenses. When they stopped production of RUSKETS, those fixed expenses had to be transfered to other products. There was another product that with the additional fixed expenses bagan to sell at a loss.

Another example:

I live win a metro area with two major newspapers. For years each newspaper provided home delivery at a loss. It cost them more to print and deliver thier newspapers to the homes than they recieved from thier customers. Yet they both remain in business. Yes, they have done some financial reorganization to cut thier loss, and are better off financially now than previously.

By the way, I continue to get one of the papers delivered to my home at a rate lower than published simply by telling them I will cancel and move to the other newspaper if they do not give me a good rate. I will if they don't. I am not playing games with them.

[Ron Lambert]

Sounds like with you, Gregory, companies should be warned: caveat venditor -- "Let the seller beware"!

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Many cable subscriptions come with MTV, VH1, USA, Cartoon Network which are just a few objectionable channels. There is an alternative for many of us. That is Skyangel

---

When you pay SkyAngel they in turn pay the satellite owners. These satellites also broadcast porn, Howard Stern, Muslim TV, atheist TV, ...

Your SkyAngel money is just as surely helping make these profitable as your cable TV is helping the PlayGirl Channel

/Bevin

[Jeannieb43]

Wow, Gregory, you live in Utopia, compared with the L.A. suburb where I am. I have only one cable company serving my area. And I have only one [general readership] newspaper available!

In other words, there's no competition - so no concern for the customer's wishes. The cable company, especially, has hinted they'll be cutting back on the channels offered, effective Feb. first. Then in order to get the History channel, for example, I'll have to subscribe to a higher level of service. [ugh!]

Maybe I'll have to move to Colorado.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

As one who feel smart due to your business background and international experience

---

Actually I don't feel that smart most of the time. I work with a group of business people that are much smarter than me so I am rarely the smartest in the group. However, sometimes when in discussions with others that are not so business savy, they make me feel smart (but I know better )

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

When you pay SkyAngel they in turn pay the satellite owners.

---

SkyAngel pays Dish Network to broadcast their signal. Dish Network acts like a broker. So while subscribing to SkyAngel does help DishNetwork to be profitable, none of the subscription fees go to any channels that are not on SkyAngel. In fact, I think only a few channels on SkyAngel get a portion of the subscription fees. Most of the channels pay SkyAngel to be on.

It is true that Dish Network, as a broker, broadcasts objectionable material. In the same way a freight company transports objectionable frieght like alcohol and tobacco. Internet providers provide access to objectionable sites. However Dish Network does not give a portion of their earnings to the channels they broadcast. If one subscribes to SkyAngel they can feel confident that none of their money will go to MTV, Nicolodian, VH1 or any other objectionable channel.

Not subscribing to SkyAngel because it will help Dish Network is like not riding the City bus because they provide transportation to drug dealers and prostitutes too.

[Kountzer]

That city bus analogy is a good one, albeit somewhat inaccurate. Drug dealers often drive big fancy suvs. I don't own a personal vehicle, my wife has the car. I ride the bus all the time. When gas shoots up to $10.00 dollars a gallon, I suspect more people will. I restarted my regular dish programming about a year or go, maybe less. Now, I gotten behind in some stuff, and they cut me off. I may just leave it like that. I still have skyangel and 3ABn which I receive free, due to a lifetime subscribtion I got 6 or 7 years ago. Most of the stuff I record on the dvr is from 3ABn.

There are a few good shows on cable. I like some of the history stuff. The animal shows are good. There's a show called Venom ER which is about this Loma Linda U. med center doctor who is an expert in venomous snake bites. There's another good show about learning spanish on another channel. Also, there are some good documentaries on pbs about civil rights history and this and that, which I enjoy. Decisions, decisions. I could easily get dish back, and I could easily spend that money elsewhere. We will see.

DB

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "I have only one cable company serving my area."

I have one cable company. However, I do have other competation which comes from satalite, and the telephone company. Both of these are big competation to the cable company.

In regard to the provision of TV programing, satalite is not linited to geographic areas. While there is one big satalite provider in this area, I certainly have available to me a number of satalite providers. You see, you can sign up with any salitate provider that is transmiting from a satilate that covers the area where you live. Satilate providers are generally national providers, but the signal may cross national boundries.

That aspect makes it interesting for Canada. Satalite TV providers in the USA will typically be able to provide TV coverage within parts of Canada. However, due to provisions of Canadian law, they will not provide that service through their US provider. Some Canadians prefer to recive their TV signal from the US provider. So, they obtain a mail box in the United States, and have the bill sent to that address. They also make arrangements for the cable box to be set up and activated in the US. They then take that cable box across the border into Canada, and watch satalite TV from the US provider. There are those who cater to this, for a fee.

The satalite companies knwo this and attempt, by various means, to detect those who have a US billing address, but use the box in Canada.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

There's a show called Venom ER which is about this Loma Linda U. med center doctor who is an expert in venomous snake bites

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Awesome show. I catch it when I can.