I'm happy to pay for quality content while filtering out all the jibberish I would otherwise get by watching it on cable TV. And I don't have to pay the $100+ per month that Comcast jacked me up to with fees, equipment, and constantly increasing monthly subscription costs, which would always go up without explanation or warning.
For those of us who are picky about our content choices -- and especially those of us who don't really give a crap about sports -- cutting cable makes a lot of sense. I wish cable providers offered a lower-cost option with no sports package, but sadly, that's the bread and butter of the entire cable TV business model. So I'm stuck paying largely for content I don't consume.
Bundling is a raw deal for those of us who don't care about the bulk of the bundle. (To say nothing of the silly equipment costs, etc.).
It's a raw deal for the cable companies, too. They'd rather do an a la carte format, but the networks bundle themselves. It's like this, ABC, which owns ESPN (one of the most watched TV networks) says that if you want to carry ESPN, you have to carry ABC Family, and ESPN 3, etc.
Cable companies do offer a low cost bare bones option. It is called "basic cable." It's a few bucks a month (around 10-15ish) and when I had it, it was about the first 15-20 or so channels.
Yeah, the problem with basic cable is that you get only the basic cable channels. There is no great way to sever, say, HBO and Showtime from ESPN-XYZ, etc.
No, I am meant that $1.87 is absurdly high compared to how much money AMC makes from cable viewers. See the analysis a little further down, it's less than 40c per episode.
