[BostonCard]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

It's an open question whether, on net, viewers would come out ahead or behind if they unbundled pay TV channels.  I suspect that households who have a narrow range of television interests and don't really care to channel surf, will come out ahead, while those that like a bunch of different channels or like the variety of channel surfing will do worse without their choice, in essence, being subsidized by others.  There are also the channels that one would want to watch for a single show.  Is it worth getting Fox Sports 1 for one or two Stanford football away games a year?  Is it worth getting FX just to see The Americans (great show by the way) or AMC just to watch the Walking Dead?  But I can tell you that unbundled, a lot of television channels will go for about >$10 a month, so it wouldn't take a ton of channels to get you back to your $100+ cable bill.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would call satellite/cable only channels like ESPN "pay-to-view" in order to reserve the term "pay-per-view" for one specific event.

In an unbundled world, it's not that you'd be paying $100 extra to watch the Pac-12 network, you'd also be paying much less on the rest of your bill because you wouldn't get all those networks that you don't watch now (e.g., whatever that hunting channel is, etc.). With unbundled online streaming, most of my current $200/month cable bill would disappear. If $100 is too much, then the price would be less. You're right, though, that the fans on this board are more committed than the average fan; probably 80% of the sports I watch on TV is Pac-12 and that's got to be very atypical.

It's an open question whether, on net, viewers would come out ahead or behind if they unbundled pay TV channels.  I suspect that households who have a narrow range of television interests and don't really care to channel surf, will come out ahead, while those that like a bunch of different channels or like the variety of channel surfing will do worse without their choice, in essence, being subsidized by others.  There are also the channels that one would want to watch for a single show.  Is it worth getting Fox Sports 1 for one or two Stanford football away games a year?  Is it worth getting FX just to see The Americans (great show by the way) or AMC just to watch the Walking Dead?  But I can tell you that unbundled, a lot of television channels will go for about >$10 a month, so it wouldn't take a ton of channels to get you back to your $100+ cable bill.

BC