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.
