[newfreep]

Not so fast.....excerpt from the article:

We’ve been skeptical of Intel’s ability to make a dent in the TV market. If it somehow manages to deliver this unbundled channel option, we’re more optimistic Intel could have success.

Before anyone gets too excited, Janko Roettgers at GigaOm is skeptical it happens. Roettgers knows the TV business very well.

The reason its unlikely to happen is that content companies don’t really want to see cable blown up. It’s been very good to them.

Last summer, Peter Kafka at All Things D poured cold water on the idea of Intel unbundling. Not only is going to be hard to make it happen, it’s unclear if it would even save money for cable subscribers:

Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base

[Paine in the Neck]

The reason its unlikely to happen is that content companies don’t really want to see cable blown up. It’s been very good to them.

That's one good reason. The present structure is welfare for a lot of bad actors, writers, directors, producers, etc. They will not want to have to actually compete.

Another roadblock Intel will likely encounter will be gov't. Specifically, if the left sees this new, unbundled structure as cutting into their voice, they will try to crush it. And they will see it as cutting into their voice. Where has leftist programming ever succeeded in an open market? People just don't want it.

[bgill]

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base

Not to mention that some channels won't get enough subscribers making them go belly up. Of couse, if they could, that would lead to more profiling which this admin seems to be geared toward. Subscribe to FOX and the Outdoors Channel you're a white gun grabber.

[Boogieman]

“So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base”

They say that like it’s a bad thing. Socialism isn’t good for governments, or for cable channels. If ESPN had to compete in a freer market, they would either deliver a better product, lower their prices, or lose out to competition that could do one of those things. Either way you slice it, consumers win.

[oh8eleven]

So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base
That's known as the free market. If a broadcaster/company like ESPN can't make it based solely on its subscribers (and advertisers), then bye-bye.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I watch ESPN, Foxsports , TimeWarner Sports,...all delivered by Veriaon FiOS.

Don't increase the cost on me....it is enough already.