3 ms·
This is why we can't have nice things. The argument for bundling is that it subsidizes production of the long tail of TV programming that would never exist if
by vinceguidry 11y ago
This is why we can't have nice things.
The argument for bundling is that it subsidizes production of the long tail of TV programming that would never exist if each production had to stand on its own feet.
But cable providers can't be satisfied with the status quo. They want more and more money, so they are killing the golden goose. Americans were perfectly willing to pay $30-50 a month for cable. Industry greed has kicked that up to $70-80.
It boggles my mind how utterly stupid they were to, not just negligently let this happen, but to work as hard as they can to force consumers to look for cheaper alternatives.
- wfo 11y agoThe scenario is as follows: ESPN is the reason people buy cable. Without it cable is dead. Cable companies MUST have ESPN so ESPN has an enormous amount of leverage and use it to extract as much cash as possible. In this case cable providers are just the middlemen; either they say no to ESPN and lose all their subscribers, or raise the rates to untenable levels slowly and eventually lose all their subscribers while making a boat load of cash on the way. They unsurprisingly chose option B.
- cjf4 11y agoYeah, cable TV is ESPN and vice versa. Cable TV was basically invented by ESPN and ESPN will die (at least as it currently exists) with cable.