Pay services and people with money.
30th July 2011, 23:52 at 11:52 pm #129855
This is not exactly an F1 topic but it is somewhat related considering the recent news.
Pay channels exist in many many countries and they are mostly making profits because people pay them. It is common that this pay channels having a good income since they ain’t free, to be able to buy many top series, latest movie hits and successful sports, denning the less economically fortunate of having the pleasure to see them on free TV.
My simple question is why to people pay in the first place? If people didn’t give them money when they first said they will open their channels they would have gone out of business or become free air channels and everyone will getting everything for free. Why are people so dumb?
Then i realized it comes down to people with money. They don’t care if they get taken a little advantage because it’s nothing for them. Is pocket change. But the sad thing is that there don’t care attitude is against other people. They have no empathy feelings on the matter of principle on stopping something becoming a model that is against the less fortunate than them and they have no empathy against others.
Of course this goes more than just the existence of pay-TV into even more serious matters and why there is injustice in the world in general and an excessively uneven share of wealth but it really makes you hate the economically healthy.
But in the end even if it is pocket change for them, don’t they think “i will boycott this guy wanting me to pay as a matter of principle”? Why are they so apathetic?
Benjamin Fraklin once said: “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” and i guess that is what is all about.31st July 2011, 0:53 at 12:53 am #175746
My simple question is why to people pay in the first place?
Because they can! They have the money, and they want to spend it! And that’s not the whole story! You made one wrong assumption:
Then i realized it comes down to people with money. They don’t care if they get taken a little advantage because it’s nothing for them.
They don’t get taken advantage. Instead, they feel privileged to be able to pay for premium services. It makes them different from the less wealthy. The same thing applies to everything: cars, clothes, houses, accessories. Sure, paying more promises better quality, but what you actually buy is exclusivity.
The worse part comes when the less wealthy want to show off the money they don’t have and opt to get in dept in order to obtain some of the premium products and services.
Still, the worst part comes when the rest, that don’t really need the excess, get “robbed” from some of their little joys (or big needs), just to satisfy the vanity of the “best”.31st July 2011, 1:02 at 1:02 am #175747
It’s called looking out for yourself, and it’s not simply the preserve of the rich. In fact I imagine there are a higher percentage of people on benefits or earning less than £20k with Sky as there are doctors and lawyers etc.
Of course, it only takes one Ecclestone or Murdock (or BBC executive) to take hold of the reins and mess it up for everyone else, but that’s more to do with power than wealth.
Oh, and I am affected, I dont watch TV enough to warrant the cost, but I’m not outraged.31st July 2011, 1:02 at 1:02 am #175748
So they want the poorer to be even more miserable and have even less things by supporting the pay schemes so they can show how different they are by having exclusivity.
This reminds the reason people with money also hate the existence of pirating movies and staff within the Internet even though many researches prove it has no negative effect on sales. They real reason might be simply because they hate the fact that the poor who can’t buy them are able to get the luxury of something they should only be able to have so they can mock the less fortunate.
Quite a repulsive attitude if you ask me.31st July 2011, 1:14 at 1:14 am #175749
You dont seem to understand the concept of money Solo. You earn it, then you use it to buy nice things. If someone gets those nice things without earning them then either it’s illegal, charity, or everyone else is getting ripped off.
I think someone believing they’re entitled to take whatever they want simply because they’re not physically stealing it is a repulsive attitude. If your next door neighbour started leeching your internet because he couldn’t afford the same speed I think you’d be pretty miffed.31st July 2011, 2:28 at 2:28 am #175750
Firstly at least here in the U.S. all pay TV is either Cable, FIOS, or Satellite. The channels that are only available through these services are only available there because there are a limited amount of channels which can be sent over the air. It is not technically possible for all of these channels to be Free to Air. Also at least with some premium channels here paying for them is necessary as they are ad-free.31st July 2011, 7:49 at 7:49 am #175751
@ Solo, isn’t the music industry just doing fine.31st July 2011, 9:46 at 9:46 am #175752
All I see here is sour grapes at those who can afford to watch F1 on Sky. People who have a bit of money to spend aren’t a bunch of pigs, the majority of them have earned their money and have a right to spend their money on whatever they want.31st July 2011, 9:49 at 9:49 am #175753
@solo, ur making way to many assumptions, and honestly you just sound bitter. Your theory that if no one bought sky, theyd go out of business and things would be free to air may be valid, but you thoughts that people who can afford sky only do it to stop poor people from watching certain tv shows is insane. I know many people with sky who arnt rich and show off what they have, georges point that sky isnt just for rich people is valid. And how do you know that all people with money hate video piracy etc. Your generalizations are pretty crazy and out of the blue to group anyone with money into poor haters who just want to prove they are better than themselves. Are you saying that if you won the lottery you wouldnt buy anything nice, including cars houses sky etc?31st July 2011, 9:50 at 9:50 am #175754
“Your generalizations are pretty crazy and out of the blue to group anyone with money into poor haters who just want to prove they are better than themselves”
should end “them”
@slr, well said man1st August 2011, 0:31 at 12:31 am #175755
Whilst what you say is true, most of the channels on these packages are complete tripe. Do we need 30 God channels? 100 shopping channels? 50 music channels?
Whilst its not possible to send this many channels over free-to-air, we simply don’t need to1st August 2011, 2:14 at 2:14 am #175756
I completely agree. However some of those channels actually have to pay to be included in the service as so so few people watch them. I’d kind of forgotten there was so much crap out there as I’ve come to just memorize the channel numbers for the substantive ones, but point taken.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.