It's not that simple...while you subsidize sports lovers, they also subsidize content they don't particularly care for. So whether or not you win on an "a la carte" deal comes down to how popular your favorite channels are relative to production costs. You're assuming sports viewers represent a smaller % of subscribers relative to the cost of sports programming.
I actually very rarely watch ESPN or Fox Sports, but if it's 1/3 of my basic cable rate then I'm paying about $7/mo for the two. I'd put my break-even at about 3 events a year.
Bundled deal typically create a surplus because lower marketing/distribution/overhead enables the consumer and company to share in those savings. If I were to count up my favorite tv shows I watch regularly...let's just call it a dozen shows x 20 episodes would equal $20/mo (at $1 per show on Itunes, etc...). That's before watching anything else or any sports events - I'd save $30/mo dropping cable so I "subsidize" a total of $10/mo. I just don't see how that's a bad deal or a rip-off.
More networks are offering their content online for free (with ads)...so you're welcome to cut the cord if you can wait a week after new shows air. Of course if everyone were to do this then inevitably home broadband prices will go up significantly, likely increasing to a price we currently pay for bundled service (because the cable companies are going to get their money one way or the other).
Alternatively in the pay-per-episode model, content choices would necessarily suffer or popular shows would increase in price to subsidize development/launch of new shows. The only people who are really losing or subsidizing other subscribers are those who watch significantly less than the average amount of tv.
Ultimately competition and choices will better align what a consumer pays with perceived value. I'm not sure it's would be very significant for most, and talking real savings will probably be mostly driven by technology advances reducing distribution costs (i.e. high speed wireless).
I actually very rarely watch ESPN or Fox Sports, but if it's 1/3 of my basic cable rate then I'm paying about $7/mo for the two. I'd put my break-even at about 3 events a year.
Bundled deal typically create a surplus because lower marketing/distribution/overhead enables the consumer and company to share in those savings. If I were to count up my favorite tv shows I watch regularly...let's just call it a dozen shows x 20 episodes would equal $20/mo (at $1 per show on Itunes, etc...). That's before watching anything else or any sports events - I'd save $30/mo dropping cable so I "subsidize" a total of $10/mo. I just don't see how that's a bad deal or a rip-off.
More networks are offering their content online for free (with ads)...so you're welcome to cut the cord if you can wait a week after new shows air. Of course if everyone were to do this then inevitably home broadband prices will go up significantly, likely increasing to a price we currently pay for bundled service (because the cable companies are going to get their money one way or the other).
Alternatively in the pay-per-episode model, content choices would necessarily suffer or popular shows would increase in price to subsidize development/launch of new shows. The only people who are really losing or subsidizing other subscribers are those who watch significantly less than the average amount of tv.
Ultimately competition and choices will better align what a consumer pays with perceived value. I'm not sure it's would be very significant for most, and talking real savings will probably be mostly driven by technology advances reducing distribution costs (i.e. high speed wireless).
