Originally Posted by tighr
Uh, yeah. I was talking raw numbers. Of course I know that the shows he watches comes in spurts and sputters. The core fact remains the same: If he is watching 60 shows in a calendar year, you are watching over 700 HOURS OF TELEVISION. 700 hours = 2 hours a day, every day; or 30 solid days a year. That's 14 hours a week. That's 60 hours a month. I don't care how he splits them up, that is a ton of TV consumed, and as I mentioned that is before movies and sports are even part of the equation.
I'll agree that his numbers are high. Most of us simply don't watch anywhere close to that.
Granted, studies have shown people watch TV an average of 6 hours a day, but I don't think most people watch that manyshows
What I mean is, what we would pay to watch on an individual basis is far different that what is simply on when the TV is on when we're home. In other words, what do we watch when we sit down and don't really do anything else but watch. Having the TV on while cooking dinner is far different than sitting and watching TV while doing nothing more than potentially puttering about on the internet.
Right, but as I mentioned, I've already cut the cord. I'm already missing out on all those channels because I'm not paying for them. I would ONLY be interested in paying for ESPN. I don't care about TNT or FX.
Sure, If I wanted ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, FX, Comedy Central, and whatever other channels come on basic cable these days, then yes. I would pay for basic cable. But I don't; I just want ESPN, so I don't pay for those other channels either.
And as I mentioned in the other thread, there is simply ZERO basic cable package that I can obtain that provides me ESPN or any other network in high definition for less than $80. That is my price floor. I can't get lower than $80 for HD. I'll stick with my free OTA antenna.
Right, but that's only you.
There is almost no one else that would pay as high as $20 a month just to access ESPN content - even if it was full access.
What matters is what the majority would do, and you're not it. You won't ever get what you're asking for.
On the other hand, most people might be happy with smaller packages that include tighter groupings of channels for less money. Others might want a "pick 'X' number of channels for 'X' price" model, assuming the price was still less than the full banquet.
I think the latter is about is close as we may ever get, but I think most will find the fees associated with such a system will make a package seem like more of a bargain. I guarantee the cable companies will add on fees like a "choice access fee" or a "custom content delivery fee" and insist you have to have a box you pay $10 or $15 a month for. You'll also probably have to pick a minimum number of channels.
So where will those fees go? Likely exactly where they go now. I'd be willing to bet the content companies will only allow their channels to be broken up if they still get paid for those customers they currently do now. The system will merely give the appearance of not paying for channels you don't watch. Plus, you'll likely be paying something like $2.50 for Bravo (which get's around $.05 a sub now) so part of that can offset the cost of ESPN so someone else that picks them in their grouping doesn't paying $10 for them.
Very likely, you won't just be paying for channels you don't watch - you'll be paying for channels you don't even get.Edited by NetworkTV - 2/21/13 at 1:15pm