5 ms·

But Time Warner Cable has much higher costs per user since they have to build the infrastructure to get to those users, whereas Hulu can take advantage of the f

But Time Warner Cable has much higher costs per user since they have to build the infrastructure to get to those users, whereas Hulu can take advantage of the fact that users pay for most of the infrastructure to get to Hulu (and they may even be paying Time Warner Cable).

qeorge 17y ago
In 2008, TWC spent roughly $1 billion on video content and only $33 million on high-speed data (30x more spent on content). So the infrastructure cost per subscriber to TWC is negligible. Also worth noting, TWC made about $2.7 billion off cable TV subscriptions, compared to $145 million from advertising. So while its true that they do "double dip", its fair to say that monthly subscriptions are paying the content bills, not advertising. Source: TWC's 2008 SEC filing, available here: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/TWC/629188992x0xS950144-09-3639/1377013/filing.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/TWC/629188992x0xS9501...
- thwarted 17y ago
  Then shouldn't cable subscribers be able to get more channels without any advertising?
  - qeorge 17y ago
    I certainly think so, but that's outside the central point of this argument.