I can't believe you can't just subscribe to HBO GO off of the app yet, it sucks that you have to subscribe through your tv provider. I bet they'd make more money the other way for people that don't want cable or satellite anymore.
Exactly. I think the day is coming though, a la carte "cable" tv over the net (aka IPTV). Microsoft has been talking about it for years (but hasn't made much ground in the U.S.). Supposedly Intel is up to something as well.
I know people have wanted a la carte cable (and satellite) since forever. I get about a hundred or more channels I have never watched, even once. Including the stupid home shopping channels. And there are channels I would watch if I had them. Or just read a good book.
If they went to a la cart pricing, you'd pay $25/mo or more for ESPN. The DirecTV types and Cable providers charge their customers $2 for ESPN and the many who don't watch it subsidize or bring down the cost of it for those who do.
Maybe. Although going the IPTV route cuts out the middle man "cable co./directv". However, I'm guessing comcast internet would jump.
An interesting read. http://www.thewrap.com/why-a-la-carte-cable-could-kill-tvs-golden-age/ And this, too: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/07/true-cost-la-carte-tv-high/67289/ ESPN, for example, if sold on its own, would cost somewhere in the $20 to $30 dollar range, according to various analyses. HBO, another valuable property, would cost more than the $15 or $20 per month it gets in the cable bundle. Then add in AMC for Mad Men, Bravo for Top Chef, the FX for Louie, and other sports channels for lesser sporting events, and you're nearing that average $73.44 Americans pay for cable TV. Plus, you might feel compelled to add on more channels just in case of special programming events, like Sharknado on SyFy. Even if each one of those cost less than the $10 per month, as the TV industry says they would, that's still nearly a $100 per month bill. The current system is a deal specifically because all cable subscribers are paying for channels they never ever watch. "We are all paying each other's TV taxes," Derek Thompson explains over at The Atlantic. The people who don't ever watch ESPN pay $4.69 per month, but in turn people who never watch AMC pay around $3.50 per month. "The idea is that if 100+ million households all pay $70ish a month for television, the breadth of the customer base will support a diverse and thriving entertainment business without asking any group to pay too much for what they want." Unbundling the channels would put more of a financial burden on each person. In addition, a la carte channels would have to charge even more because the audience drop would result in decreased advertising revenue. The bundle brings more viewers to channels—you can't channel surf your way onto a station you would never watch if you don't pay for it a la carte. It's also a guaranteed sell to advertisers. AMC can say, look we have access to all of Comcast's subscribers. Unbundling that would ruin everything—in theory.
