Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nzm136, post: 713756, member: 2531"] I think that you misunderstand what you are paying for. Unless you are irrational, you aren't paying for anything that you don't want. If you are a misguided soul interested in accessing the single most boring sports channel ever assembled (the B1G) and it's packaged with a bunch of stuff that you don't want, then, assuming that you aren't irrational, you simply wouldn't buy the channel/package if the package price was in excess of the value of the utility that having access to the B1G brings you. The other channels that you don't care about don't factor into your decision-making process. You are really buying the B1G and getting the other channels for free or not buying the B1G. That's it. You aren't paying for ANYTHING that you don't want. Bundling channels together (creating tiers) and then bundling tiers (requiring basic for a "premium" tier) is just a more efficient way of extracting value from customers. It doesn't make you "over pay" for any channels. It just makes you pay closer to your limit than you otherwise would. People are jumping to the internet, because it is mostly a la carte (but that could very well change) and a la carte is a less efficient way of extracting value. That means it's cheaper. Look at my numbers. They prove the point. If content providers are smart, they will bundle on the internet. Internet bundling can be done by providing content on a site that requires a subscription and then grouping that subscription cost with other similar sites. For example, FOX, CBS Sports, ESPN (+ABC Sports) might all offer streaming sports content on their site and make "all those sites accessible for one 'low' price!" They would make much more money that way. Or at the very least, companies like ESPN+ABC (Disney) will stratify content and bundle it together. The p*rn industry has been doing that for years on the internet and they make BANK. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?