Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
With bundles watchers of sports get subsidized by the watchers of crap. Anyone who watches more TV channels is subsidized by those who don't
I suspect being sports fans on average users of this site will pay more in an unbundled system and not have the option to watch that one show you wanted on a different channel.
If you are the average viewer you don't pay for the stuff you don't watch right now. You get the stuff you don't watch for free. If 5 million people op out of tsn then the tsn fee goes up to cover it. The total bill for cable will be at best revenue neutral here. What you will end up with is paying the same if you are lucky for less channels.
This is as stupid as people who wanted 2 year contracts for phones when the correct solution was banning combining the financing of the phone with the costs of the service
|
I'm a sports watcher, and there are definitely sports channels I'd pay for. But I think it is ridiculous that the 80% or so people who almost never watch some of these expensive sports channels are forced to pay for them. TSN and the like cannot just charge what they want if they expect people to pay for them. I have no problem with them setting a price that maximizes their revenues if everyone has the choice whether to pay for the channels or not. Their revenue will definitely take a hit and they'll just have to pay less to the sports leagues, and the sports leagues will have to adjust their salaries lower. IMO that is a good thing. Carriage fees of sports channels and public financing of stadiums have subsidized athlete's salaries for far too long
Most of the crap channels have tiny carriage fees and are mostly advertiser supported. The expensive movie channels have always been a la carte.