Replies

Look, up front, I'm not defending the cable companies; it's way past time for them to unbundle the stations they offer. Especially since several networks, like ESPN, are pushing through huge prices increases. However, one thing needs to be said in defense of the cable companies. The cost to build out the original cable networks, and then increase them, and then upgrade them to fiberoptics, was huge...man, many billions. This would NOT have been possible if the cable systems didn't have a monopoly, or a duopoly, in most of the country, and the assurance of a constant revenue stream to service the debt.

Secondly, while many are cutting the cord, there still are tens of millions for whom it's a very worthwhile convenience, and are happy to pay them bill. I include myself in that group. The cable systems should be working hard to retain that group of customers.

There were several articles a few weeks ago, stating that if ESPN were a stand-alone offering, they'd have to charge about $35/month, and would people pay that? There's a certain fallacy to that argument, because the price would end up being much higher, because people would stop, and start, ESPN according to what season we're in. If you're a college football fan, the season is 6 months..so'd you'd sign up for ESPN in August, and drop it in February. So they'd have to charge you $75/ month for ESPN...that's a BIG number.