George wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> Thats something I just don't get. Lets say you own a TV station and
>>> can reach 100,000 households. The price you can get for advertising
>>> etc is all realted to viewers. At no cost to you someone increases
>>> your reach
>>> to say 125,000 households. What justification would you have to
>>> charge them?
>>
>> I don't understand, the new 25,000 should get it for free?
>> Regardless, you'd do the same if you owned a company,
>> you'd take the opportunity to make money.

> Lets say you are Young broadcasting and have a license to transmit
> your TV signal over channel 99 in Podunk. You use the conventional
> model of advertiser supported programming. Your signal has a finite
> range plus it is affected by things such as mountains and buildings
> so you can't
> really serve all of Podunk and to get your signal some may have to go
> through extreme means such as erecting elaborate antennas. So the
> bottom line is there is only a limited set of subscribers you can
> easily reach.
>
> Acme Cable installs a cable system that allows users in fringe areas
> or blocked by mountains or even downtown to receive your signal. They
> charge practically nothing for their cost to provide your signal and
> get to sell premium services. You gain say an additional 20% of
> subscribers. Why should Acme Cable (or satellite) pay you since it is
> really a win-win?

Gotcha. I thought you were talking about the cable company.
Told you I didn't understand.

nancy