Re: a la carte won't save most people any money

Author	All Replies
marigolds Gainfully employed, finally Premium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO	reply to G_Poobah Re: a la carte won't save most people any money said by G_Poobah : Actually, your logic is so fatally flawed it's laughable. By YOUR definition, the content providers get the SAME AMOUNT MONEY no matter how many people subscribe? In what magical land (north korea) is that true? Let's carry all the way to the extremes, using the model you posted. So if only 3% of the subscribers get ESPN, then it would cost 126.56/month per subscriber. That's what the math comes out to. So of course, ESPN still gets the same revenue with only 3% of the people willing to pay for it? ESPN BY ITSELF could not support the rates it is charging. Even at 100% subscription, it's getting 3.90/person. Please explain how I, the customer, am forced to pay 3.90/month for something I don't want. If I use the corporate apologists argument of 'it's not necessary', then YES, I agree with them. I don't want ESPN! I don't want to pay for ESPN! I WANT to vote with my pocketbook, but wait, I CAN'T. Cause I can't get the channels I DO want to vote for with my money unless it comes in a package with ESPN. If you don't see the total hypocrisy of the corporate apologists line there, then you must be blind. His logic is not that flawed, it is just missing an element. ESPN has to get the same amount of revenue because they have to pay for all of those sports programming contracts. If ESPN was getting only 3% of the subscriber base, they would cut back significant on their program offerings so that their costs can meet their revenue. Keep in mind, if ESPN were forced to drop these offerings they would just end up going to the broadcast networks who have must-carry status and they still would come out of your pocketbook. And ESPN gets way more than $3.90/person. Somewhere close to $11/person in ESPN/ESPN II areas and $15/person in ESPN/ESPN/Classic areas. Sounds like a lot, but its no more than HBO. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association
	to forum · permalink · · 2005-12-02 11:09:07 ·
Skippy25 join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO	ESPN and others will simply need to renegotiate their fees or be forced to charge unreasonable fees for their services to those that do want it. Since this would hurt them and the events wanting to be broadcasted I think they will easily come to terms on this. I agree many channels will lose subscribers as they should (and be cancelled), but many will also gain subscribers. I know people, including myself, that do not have certain channels because we would have to purchase another package that has several others we don't want. To me the cost for all those "extras" is not worth it for the very few channels I want. Beyond local channels their are only about 8 or 12 other channels I would get. Only about 6 of those would be for myself and my wife, the rest for my kids. Sure I am willing to pay more for HD and DVR service, but is it worth an additional $12 a month on top of the already bloated fees I pay now? I personally say no, but I may reconsider that when I can get the channels I want for less then I have to pay for all the crap I get now.
Skippy25 join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO	to forum · permalink · · 2005-12-02 13:23:24 ·


Sunday, 08-Nov 19:20:55	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. page compression OFF