 malvado6I pee on Bushes.
join:2003-09-13
00001 | it's the pay to play, stupid If the average cable/satellite subscriber had their monthly bill broken down to the day and that translated into a cost per show , i think most would seriously cut back on their tv viewing (maybe not such a bad idea).
in other words, i'll drop $45/month for cable, but at $1.50 a day, suddenly, $1 for a primetime show or $.25 for an I Love Lucy re-run gets really expensive.
with the average home watching 3-4 hours of tv a day, most would take a bundle, me thinks. |
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Could still be subscription, like Xbox live, where you got unlimited downloads for $X dollars. Programs could be downloaded a la carte, but you still paid a flat fee.
There's a billion ways to price it out that make sense, without paying a buck for some boring FoodTV program. |
|
| reply to malvado6
This would almost literally kill the sports channels since they cost more per subscriber than others. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I find it hard to believe that ESPN would cease to exist. They've got deep pockets and creative minds, I'm sure they'd soon find profitability by offering individual HD broadcasts of top NFL games for $10 a pop, which millions upon millions of people would pay for....probably with ads included.... |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to moonpuppy
It won't kill a thing. You mean they might have to stop paying jocks millions of dollars? Boo-fricken' hoo.
It just would mean that the rest of us can finally stop subsidizing sports. Sports is not a niche market, there's no reason why you sports fans can't support yourselves.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC | At the end of the day, it all comes down to two things: advertisers trying to reach eyeballs, and content owners looking for the cheapest distribution channel to those eyeballs. |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
I tend to disagree Karl.
ESPN is heavily subsidized by it's packaging with ABC/Disney channels. Hoe many people in New Jersey were complaining about paying for YES (Yankees channel) and losing SciFi to digital because the cable companies wanted to force people into the digital tiers (and get more money.)
Not everyone likes sports and, given the choice, I believe many people would opt out of ESPN if it would save them a few bucks.
As for $10 per HD NFL game, I'll take standard broadcast thank you. No sense in seeing a bad call in HD.   |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
ESPN is heavily subsidized by it's packaging with ABC/Disney channels. Hoe many people in New Jersey were complaining about paying for YES (Yankees channel) and losing SciFi to digital because the cable companies wanted to force people into the digital tiers (and get more money.)
There are a billion ways to bundle, package and price this kind of system. I doubt they'd completely dissolve, simply because demand remains in place for their content.
The worst case scenario is they have to work harder to make a little profit.
I think this kind of system is inevitable, and if telcos and cable-co's want to stick to the old "300 channels for $70" system, someone else will develop it and drain those customers anyway. |
|
