Intel Rumored to Be Prepping a Pay-Per-Channel Streaming TV Servic..

[BigGameDamian]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01...tv-service-to-offer-per-channel-subscriptions

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Sweet. There are only two or three channels I really want.

 

[HailBlazers]

Bout Time!

 

[maxiep]

I'm sure the FCC will step in and demand that MSNBC be included regardless.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1#ixzz2GkSFccYf

 

[speeds]

Hmm, dunno where I'd be without my coveted "Variety Packs" from my local provider. I mean, I love having to subscribe to three (three!) horse racing channels in order to get NBATV.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hmm, dunno where I'd be without my coveted "Variety Packs" from my local provider. I mean, I love having to subscribe to three (three!) horse racing channels in order to get NBATV.

It's how they amortize the cost of the programming.

I read where Disney charges ESPN charges $5 per customer to the cable companies. Yet only 25% of customers actually watch ESPN. If they charged independently, they'd have to charge those 25% 4x, or $20/mo, to make the same money.

 

[porkchopexpress]

It's how they amortize the cost of the programming.

I read where Disney charges ESPN charges $5 per customer to the cable companies. Yet only 25% of customers actually watch ESPN. If they charged independently, they'd have to charge those 25% 4x, or $20/mo, to make the same money.

You assume that everyone willing to pay for ESPN currently subscribes to cable.

 

[Denny Crane]

You assume that everyone willing to pay for ESPN currently subscribes to cable.

I don't make that assumption. I only reported what I read.

But if half the homes have cable/satellite (access to ESPN), and EVERYONE in that other 50% actually subscribes, then the rates would have to at least double - to $10/mo.

 

[RR7]

probably won't help me any, since I'm sure Comcast won't find a deal with them.

 

[HailBlazers]

probably won't help me any, since I'm sure Comcast won't find a deal with them.

Well it is the future, the market is changing, and much like the music industry the giants need to adapt.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Something we can finally be excited about here at Intel

 

[illmatic99]

You assume that everyone willing to pay for ESPN currently subscribes to cable.

This^

I don't have cable (or a TV for that matter) because I would only watch ESPN/TNT. Charge me $5/month for those two and I'd gladly pay, but I won't pay $50+/month for channels I don't watch.

 

[BigGameDamian]

I don't make that assumption. I only reported what I read.

But if half the homes have cable/satellite (access to ESPN), and EVERYONE in that other 50% actually subscribes, then the rates would have to at least double - to $10/mo.

I really don't watch ESPN all that much except when there is basketball. You can get all the sports news faster on the internet now days.

 

[Eastoff]

It's how they amortize the cost of the programming.

I read where Disney charges ESPN charges $5 per customer to the cable companies. Yet only 25% of customers actually watch ESPN. If they charged independently, they'd have to charge those 25% 4x, or $20/mo, to make the same money.

You assume that everyone willing to pay for ESPN currently subscribes to cable.

I heard the same thing as Denny. ESPN costs a SHIT ton because of so many sports contracts, and that is what really drives up the price of cable.

 

[Eastoff]

This^

I don't have cable (or a TV for that matter) because I would only watch ESPN/TNT. Charge me $5/month for those two and I'd gladly pay, but I won't pay $50+/month for channels I don't watch.

it would actually be closer to 20$/mo for just ESPN. Right now they distribute the cost to all cable subscribers and then it's only 5$/mo for EVERYONE.