[Tfug] why not cable?

[Claude Rubinson]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:25:49PM -0700, John Gruenenfelder wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 07:23:00PM -0700, Stephen Hooper wrote:
> >If they are actually charging you less than the cost of both cable tv,
> >and internet then they are being super cool, and my whole world view
> >about cable companies is shattered.
> 
> I don't think it's time to rethink your world view just yet.  :)
> For me, it's $65 for net and no TV, or $55 for net and TV.  I'll take the
> latter, but I just know they're up to something...

Maybe someone in the industry will know better, but I would suspect
that the best way to think of it is as an incentive to be a
subscriber.  It's in the cable company's interest to have as many
subscribers as possible, regardless of whether they watch television
or not.  And, given that you're already subscribing to the ISP
service, the marginal cost of providing and maintaining your cable
service must be next-to-nothing, so they're not really losing
anything.  Furthermore, there may be potential gain if the "free"
cable service results in greater consumption over time.

C.