3 ms·
This sounds really awesome, but I cannot see this being really effective. For individual channels, they can just make it extremely cost-prohibitive to purchase
by tyre 14y ago
This sounds really awesome, but I cannot see this being really effective.
For individual channels, they can just make it extremely cost-prohibitive to purchase single channels. Want ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. There are some people that will take that, but I wouldn't count on it.
Same goes for cable bundling. You don't have to take ESPN with ABC, but you can either have either one of them for $15m each (making up numbers), or $15,000,001 for both.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but these companies are experts in ignoring what people want. Without very careful checks, they'll find a way to keep their margins (which, given that they own the content, they absolutely have the right to do, as much as it upsets me.)
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>ESPN? $20/month or you can get 20 channels for $25/month. But if you never watch ESPN then even saving $5 is worth it. There are plenty of people who pay for cable exclusively for HBO, and since HBO and ESPN don't share a parent company they're not going to want their networks to be bundled together. And it also allows you to make sensible decisions like specifically refusing to pay for HLN because it puts Nancy Grace on the air.