3 ms·
I often see this sentiment; does anybody actually have anything to back it up? The underlying thought seems to be that TV packages must be more profitable for
by massysett 11y ago
I often see this sentiment; does anybody actually have anything to back it up? The underlying thought seems to be that TV packages must be more profitable for multichannel operators than Internet. Is that true? Your cable operator has to split the TV bill with content providers. Comcast acts as ESPN's bill collector (good deal for ESPN, they don't get the hatred from the rising bills.) With Internet there is no bill to split. I once read that Internet is more profitable for Comcast than TV.
- izacus 11y agoI can't give you data for US, but at the telcos I worked for, TV was the ONLY profitable part of the package. Internet and phone subscriptions were barely covering the operations (partly due to usage of obsolete copper technologies instead of fiber). They were all scared to death of becoming a dumb pipe and are hedging their bets on selling content.
- HelloMcFly 11y agoWhy else institute 300GB data caps when there is no problem with congestion, and make incremental charges for exceeding those data caps at $10 per GB? Why else roll-out their own streaming service that doesn't count against those caps, and allow other major players to pay them for that access? They're positioning themselves to continue to cash-in on those wishing to access television-like content.