Replies

Let the market sort out what survives and what doesn't. I suspect there's more market for the educational channels than one might first imagine. Many people I talk to watch those channels exclusively (History, Discovery, TLC, etc)

I'm sure it will, but what I want to point out is that the pricing will be structured in such a way as to affect people's choices. I suspect that a lot of folks think that "a la carte" means that every channel costs the same to them, and they only pick (and pay for) the ones they want. But it's not going to be like that, where every channel costs $0.95 - instead, narrow channels like Discovery Health and BET will cost you $0.35 per month, and big popular channels like A&E and Fox News and ESPN will cost you $7.95 per month. You'll likely subsidize smaller channels anyway, whether you like it or not.

instead, narrow channels like Discovery Health and BET will cost you $0.35 per month, and big popular channels like A&E and Fox News and ESPN will cost you $7.95 per month

Would it work that way, or in reverse with smaller, more specialized channels commanding a higher price to cover fixed expenses? I wonder how it works now. I suspect that individual companies do not charge the cable company equally.

If every channel cost the same, that would imply subsidizing. What you just described is a free market. Not the situation we have now. The only way buying a more expensive channel would subsidize a lesser expensive channel is if the parent company of a more expensive channel owned a lesser expensive channel.