undefined | Better HN

0 pointscuriousgeorgio9y ago0 comments

So true. It's easy to forget this point. Do the math:

Take all the content available to a cable subscriber, and the money that goes into producing that content. Take out the ads and split the bill (in addition to the relatively low costs of operating/maintaining the cable company itself) among the subscribers. That's just covering costs; now add a bit of profit to motivate those companies to stay in business.

There's no question you'd be paying more - a lot more. We just don't think the ads are saving us money because we don't know any different - that's just the way TV has been since the beginning.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

cwyers9y ago

Another way to prove this to yourself is to think, could there be broadcast TV without ads? And of course, the whole broadcast model falls apart without advertising. But without broadcast to compete with, is it likely that basic cable would be as inexpensive as it is? Even if you're of the view that costs don't matter to price, only what the market will bear, it seems self-evident that the market will bear less when there's a free substitute of reasonable quality available.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse