BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Rob
Re: I get 99 channels...
Sure it would be.
For example in my area you can get basic cable from Charter for $50 amonth. You get 75 channels. That's 67¢ a channel. Now say I only watch 10 of them. Under ala carte I could just get those 10. I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channles. So 10 channels is $20. That's much cheaper than the way it is today. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| said by BF69  : no way cable companies should be allowed to charge... Well that's the problem we've been facing with cable cos. Comcast just raised the rates on their cable service while posting profit earning quarters.
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Except that ESPN would jump to an HBO pricing model of multiplexing for $15/subscriber (or $8-$12 per individual ESPN channel), because ESPN would lose millions of non-sports watching subscribers who would no longer watch figure skating, WSM, or extreme sports once a month while otherwise watching other expanded basic channels.
More specialized channels like Sci-Fi and HGTV would have to jump significantly just to stay in business.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
60529262
join:2007-01-11
Chicago, IL | Sounds good to me. Let 'em jump. |
|
John T
@northgrum.com
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :I seriously doubt that Charter would or should charge $5 per channel. Seeing as how they only pay ESPN $3 and they are the highest cost, no way cable companies should be allowed to charge $5 a channel. Say it's capped at $2 a channel which is more than enough profit margin for cable companies on most channels. Nope, wouldn't work that way. ESPN is $3 a person when everyone gets ESPN. People love their ten channels, and don't care about the others. If you have a la carte, then a bunch of people who don't care about sports drop ESPN. But the people who remain are more likely to be fanatical sports fans, so Disney/ABC raises the price for ESPN for all the cable providers.
Sure, some channels might still be close to free. But the channels loved by the most people will be more expensive than they are now. Probably, on net, it would be better for people with unusual tastes and worse for people with normal tastes to have a la carte. |
|
