manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Figures don't lie but you can lie with figures......
If you were to be allowed to go ala carte, pricing would be higher, and your channel selection would go down the tubes. Content delivery may change this a bit, but for cable and satellite, you are stuck for now.
I'm not going to re-type it, so here is my last response to "ala carte channels": »Re: That Didn't Take Long!
For instance..on DISH Network, the Baby Channel is an ala carte subscription channel that is $9.99 a month, if bundled with other ala carte subscription channels that are more widely desired then it would drive the price down as there would be more subscribers to cover the cost that the cable/sat provider is paying.
Dang it, I said that I wasn't going to re-type it again.. At least it's worded a bit differently.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
SD6
join:2005-03-26 | It sounds like you are assuming that the cable/sat company pays a fixed price for the channel. That is not correct in my experience the price paid is calculated based on the number of subscribers. |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| This is an assumption on my part, but an educated assumption:
Let's imagine for a moment and use fake numbers:
The cost that the cable/sat provider pays to say, ABC for example, is based on blocks of subscribers, not per subscriber so say the cable company is paying:
$100 per month for 0-1000 subscribers
$200 per month for 1001-2000 subscribers
$300 per month for 2001-3000 subscribers
etc.
If you have the channels bundled up and there are 1000 people "paying" the monthly cost even though they don't watch the channel, it is being spread across the group of subscribers versus if only 500 people are "paying" the monthly cost. The cost to the cable/cat provider just doubled (and the cost is passed on to other subscribers that are not paying for those channels..you expect the cable/sat company to pay the difference  ). The cost that the cable/sat provider is paying versus the cost that the subscriber base is paying is not linear.
I realize that the above numbers are not correct, but it gives a good idea of how broad based bundled cable/sat tv offerings benefit every subscriber. The same goes for obscure channels that you may watch that others do not. They help pay for you to be able to watch that channel.
Clear as mud?
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| That all works in a macro sense that there are more channels available being subsidized by lots of eyeballs that never ever see them.
However...
You can't take that and turn it backwards to say that because there are 500 channels now the cost is lower. If you only watch 10 of them and only have watched 10 of them since 1996 and your bill has increased 193% in the last 10 years, your cost per channel watched has certainly not gone down.
Otherwise the NCTA could use 950 throw-away channels to claim that even with a 100% rate increase cable TV rates are now only 10% of that when there were only 50 channels.
Even Enron would have balked at that math.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
