Are they *really* going to claim it costs *more* to provide *JUST* internet than internet and basic cable? Is it some fucked up claim that the ad revenue I don't watch makes it cheaper for them? If so, then the ads on premium should more than make up for the bloated prices....
That's the sad problem. It doesnt cost more to do so. But yes, ad revenue from showing the ads that you and others may or may not watch, does increase the revenue base - the advertisers do pay for the ads shown to x number of viewers whether the viewers actually watch them or go make a cup of coffee while the ads are showing. In this respect, them and the various channels are also getting smarter in running commercials at the same time and/or even running the same ads on channels they think may have competing shows on (I've seen more and more that if I am watching "Some SciFi show #1" on one channel and switch to "Some SciFi show #2" on another channel, that the major ad spot is the same on both channels, at the exact same time). That mentality doesnt help either, when it comes to more shows moving to Internet delivery - which then of course doesnt help us who want to get cheap Internet without the cost of (or need to get) cable tacked on.
I suspect one day advertisers and content producers will all be on board with having a good method of maintaining those revenues via Internet delivery. Some big advertisers have already jumped onto that bandwagon (for instance Reebok and Legend of the Seeker online).
Therein lies the problem. The studios and advertisers are (as always) behind the times when it comes to figuring out how to monetize their products online.
Sad huh? And thusly, for people like you and me, a combined package becomes our only alternative to get cheap-yet-fast Internet.