how-to block ads
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
Saint Louis, MO
|reply to RJ44 |
Re: Cherry picking vs nada
said by RJ44:Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years. There will be fewer profitable areas rather than more. We would need to get rid of syndex if we want the costs of television retransmission to go down.
At least with statewide franchises they will offer it in profitable areas, and as time goes by and costs go down
, the definition of a profitable area will change to include more and more places.
If you look at the cable and television factbooks over time, coverage has gone up considerably since mandatory buildout ordinances started happening.
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
Geographic Information Science researcher
said by marigolds:I was referring to the costs of fiber optic transmission equipment, DSLAMs, routers, etc used by telcos to provide IPTV, all of which is steadily trending downwards and will continue to do so. That's the investment a telco has to foot to get into the business. Programming costs are applicable to anyone who wants to provide programming, not something that the telcos have to pay that incumbents don't.
[Costs do not go down over time in television retransmission land. With the advant of broadcast retransmission consent, the marginal costs should escalate dramatically over the next six years.
Either way, my original question still stands. Does anyone think a telco is more likely to serve a community if they have to build out in unprofitable areas as well as profitable? If so I have a great deal on some prime land in the Everglades I can tell you all about