site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


Dittohead

@rr.com

reply to fAcEtIOUs

Re: uverse rates

said by fAcEtIOUs:

said by Lyserjic:

$2 a pop for 2 once-weekly TV shows that aren't OTA sure beats $150 for all those channels I never used.
But your TV viewing habits aren't the average American. The average person in the US watches TV 28 hours/week. Have a household with the average 4 people and that is a lot of TV and a lot of different channels. So you have to look at that cost per person and NOT just per household.
»www.csun.edu/science/health/docs···tv_stats
And while your source may be reputable it still fails to show the average user doesn't watch all 280 channels 28 hours a week.

So logically the price model should be ala cart since 28 hours might be CNN/ESPN/FOX/HGTV.... or what ever the combination.

Viewers only need to pay for what they watch not a bunch of channels they may never watch.

If you did see this prices might go up but, it would benefit the subscriber and yes the content provider would get more revenue since users are not forced to pay for channels they don't watch.

You might do well thinking more logically not by your own viewing habits, that said if you yourself watch 280 channels all month every month.

Thursday, 31-May 17:57:41 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics