From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Will we have to pay to see Star Trek?
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:21:22 GMT

In article <1687997FA.IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil) writes:
>In article <BvpEsM.55o@news.udel.edu>
>roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
> 
>>But this thread got me to thinking about free broadcast TV again and
>>how it came about.  It dawned on me that if broadcast TV could make
>>a profit without directly billing the customer, then why couldn't
>>the same be true of cable carrying only commercial channels and
>>government funded channels (CSPAN, etc)?
> 
>Except now there's an agent delivering the service, adding another layer
>to the cost(s).  Advertising budgets would have to rise significantly
>to cover this expenditure.

Well, admittedly I don't know the numbers.  But I would point out 
that surely advertising budgets rose signifcantly when broadcast TV first 
came on the scene to provide revenue to cover the expenses of running 
broadcast stations.

The broadcast station carrying a SINGLE national network or a SINGLE 
local channel can make a profit without charging the customer.
They are also an agent and they also incur costs.

Granted, the cable company costs a lot more to run, but 40 times more????
I chose the number 40 as a rough estimate of the number of COMMERCIAL 
TV channels being carried on a typical cable system.  I would think 
that there is potentially 40 times the advertising revenue for cable 
than obtained from broadcasting a SINGLE national network channel.

I'm not talking about start-up costs, but rather operating and maintenance 
costs.a  Once all the cable is laid for an area and much of the system 
for hook-ups and disconnects has been computerized, I imagine the 
actual expaense budget for the local cable company should go down alot.  
However,  has anyone ever heard of a cable customer fee going down 
(especially in an area fully satureated with cable)?  I have not.

My guess is that if you passed a law telling all cable companies that 
they could not charge the customer for basic commercial TV channels, 
they would still find a way to make a profit from advertising revenues.  

You may argue that the advertisers will balk at the higher rate.  Well, 
the higher rate should have come in slowly alongside cable, as it 
did with the advent of broadcast TV.  

Before broadcast TV, companies didn't have to worry about a sub-budget 
for TV advertising.  When TV came along, they did, however, find the 
money to advertise on it.  If cable were handled in a similar way 
(hey, Mr. Company Man, I can offer you a market with far better 
demographics for you than the broadcast channels can!), I'm sure 
the comapanies would find the extra money needed for cable advertising.

(And with regards to higher rates, I would love the 
idea of cable charging very high rates for anyone who wants to air a 
half-hour infomercial -- I think there is a strong source of unmined 
revenue down that alley.)  Bottomline: I think advertisers are just 
as addicted to TV as consumers.  Neither are going to get out of the 
game due to higher rates, so charge the advertiser and not the 
customer.  The customer is happier, a happier customer is always good 
for the advertiser and the advertiser will sneak their increased costs 
back into their product line.  (You knew you were going to pay one 
way or another -- but wouldn't it be nice to have one less bill to 
pay each month and get the illusion of free TV like we have with 
broadcast?)


Oh, well -- ain't gonna happen anyways.    Sigh.

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current