----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Rettke" <Brian.Rettke@cableone.biz>
Interesting point. I'd also like to point out that putting the cost on the content providers rather than the network may raise the cost of the content service, but only to those that want that service. In effect, if the transport provider is paying for the bandwidth generated by a content provider, in effect we have another service bundled to all services offered, which increases the cost to people using Internet service but not necessarily accessing that content. Kind of the same reason TV channels aren't a la carte.
Having worked for a small cable TV network in the 90s, I have some insights into why cable systems don't sell most channels alacarte. 1) The accounting goes pear-shaped pretty quickly, or at least, it did in the 80s when that practice got started -- having to account for each individual subscriber pushed the complexity up, in much the same way that flat rate telecom services are popular equally because customers prefer them, and because the *cost of keeping track* becomes >delta. 2) New networks prefer it, and the fact that it happens makes the creation of new cable networks practical -- you don't have to go around and sell your idea to people retail; you sell it to CATV systems (well, really, multi-system operators) *once* -- generally at something like the Western Show -- and they buy it and give it to *all* of their subs as part of a tier. Makes it much easier to achieve critical mass. And finally, 3) the increased complexity of having *everything* alacarte increases the cognitive load on new subscribers to the point where they probably will consider other alternatives -- it's just too many decisions to make when you're trying to sign up. Additionally, it makes marketing harder: there isn't a real "base price, nicely equipped" to point to. In the current tiered approach, a very small group of people inside the cable system is charged with picking the channels, and putting them in the tiers, and they're the only ones who ought to have to care about that, in my mostly humble opinion. The percentage of people who want channel by channel control over their cable service, I think, is roughly akin to the percentage of people who root their Android phone so they can play with the apps and the controls that you can't get without doing that; ie: minuscule. (I actually mistyped "minusclue", but that's what those people are *not*; our only real blindspot as geeks is realizing that we're exceptional -- that most people really couldn't give a damn.) Cheers, -- jra