 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| So what? I posted this in a similar thread in the Stars Pub:
The problem is that not all channels cost the cable companies the same amount of money. ESPN, for example is very expensive compared to say HSN, and the most expensive channels are the ones that most people would pick in an a la carte package.
The price of the more expensive channels is subsidized by the less expensive channels. If you were to get an a la carte package with just the good channels it would cost you way more than what you are paying for a package mostly full of crap.
You can't do simple math on the price of your cable bill. I pay $45 for my standard cable, which is about 80 channels. That works out to about $0.56/chan/mo. If you think you are going to get a package of 10 channels that includes the most popular ones for $5.60/mo, you are sadly mistaken.
--
This snowflake tastes like fish sticks - Ralph Wiggum |
 TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | A couple comments:
The CableCo can't just carry ESPN or CNN either, at least at a reasonable rate. They have to carry ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, etc, etc. or CNN, HLN, TNT, TBS, etc, etc. to get the lower rate.
The CableCo pays less on a per sub basis for programming that reaches a larger # of subscribers. If only 100 subscribers subscribed to a particular channel, the monthly rate that the CableCo pays for the channel would skyrocket, either causing the CableCo to drop the channel or causing the Channel to shutdown it's operations due to a lack of advertiser interest. |
