>Things like Science and the Military channel almost certainly would not survive in an a la carte world. //
This is kinda crazy; but I'm willing to suspend disbelief.
People who want to watch the station won't pay as much as the company can make from advertising to people (on that station) who primarily don't want to watch the station?
If I make shows on two channels, A and B. Then sell access to those channels forcing the carrier to take A+B when they only want A. Aren't I just charging more for A - which gets paid - but needlessly filling B with programming?
Is this just so cable companies can offer "100 stations" as a headline in their advertising?
> Aren't I just charging more for A - which gets paid - but needlessly filling B with programming?
The idea is that the subsidy takes B from losing money being profitable.
Truthfully, only the individual networks know whether the subsidy makes them additional profit or allows them to profitably air networks that they wouldn't otherwise be able to.
This is kinda crazy; but I'm willing to suspend disbelief.
People who want to watch the station won't pay as much as the company can make from advertising to people (on that station) who primarily don't want to watch the station?
If I make shows on two channels, A and B. Then sell access to those channels forcing the carrier to take A+B when they only want A. Aren't I just charging more for A - which gets paid - but needlessly filling B with programming?
Is this just so cable companies can offer "100 stations" as a headline in their advertising?