$70 a month is for hundreds of channels. reason would imply that for 1 channel (say AMC) should be $1-$3 a month.
HBO has always been around $15 as an add-on so that is no shocker.
Crackle is already free... I don't see why say AMC can't sell their channel for a $1.99 a month + ads subscription.
Because you're setting the price that way you want it. And you're deducing that price by applying intuition to a concept that if $70 can pay for hundreds of channels, certainly a single channel can cost a tiny fraction of $70. Many of the hundreds of channels "we" never watch are not there because no one watches them. But, more importantly, the commercials that run on those (subjectively) undesirable channels throws lots of money into the model that we don't pay for in our subscription fee. That money flows to the Studio and the Studio uses some of that money to procure and make the programming that "we" do watch. Cut their revenue throat by killing off all that commercial revenue and you are basically expecting AMC to keep up the good work with less programming and original programming development. That likely affects the shows you do like to watch on AMC.
In other words, that we pay a faction of our $70 for channels we like now (like AMC) and hundreds of channels we don't want DOES NOT mean that that fraction covers all the costs of the channel... such that if we got our al-a-carte wish, the channel could just keep cranking out the new content and procuring it's content already in the can (like movies shot long ago or Crackle content).
As things are right now, the commercials are very important to the Studios that make the content. Kill 5 channels in AMC's bundle because we only like AMC and you kill 5 channels running commercials that you may never see that help make AMC cost whatever it costs now.
To keep it all high quality... to keep the breadth & depth of the new programming coming... any new model must replace the revenues of the "as is" model. Else, that quality or breadth & depth of programming must adjust to match up with the revenue hair cut we think we want.
Suppose you are representative of everyone. You want AMC and maybe 14 other channels out of the hundreds that now cost $70/month. So all of us cut our bill from $70 to $14/month. At the same time, we're killing huge subsidy revenues too because all the channels that formally made a lot of money on their commercials are killed off by our group decision. So the Studios lose 80% of total subscriber revenue and at least a similarly high percentage of all commercial revenues. Nevertheless, we still expect quality of what we will get on our new package to stay as high, the breadth & depth of programming we like to keep on coming AND brand new programming we'll like in the future to also keep flowing. How does that happen?
Changing the example to better illustrate the point: I want all my future Apple stuff for 80% off of what it costs me now. And I want future iPhones to lose 80% of their subsidy revenue from AT&T, Verizon, etc. But I expect Apple to just keep on cranking out all of their products at the same quality and same breadth & depth of offerings. And I expect Apple to keep innovating new stuff too. How can Apple do that under those conditions? Any time any industry suffers a MASSIVE, sustained revenue haircut, it can't keep cranking things out as before (see the fracking U.S. oil industry as a very recent example, and that wasn't even 80%).
If we get our wish for a huge price discount while still getting what we think we want, I think quality must fall to align with the new revenue model we demanded. We already have video programming made at a steep discount without professional actors, producers, writers, etc. It's called YouTube. In the existing model, cheaper programming tends to be reality shows. That's the future of television if we all get a massive discount in our TV bill AND kill off the huge subsidy of commercials running on channels we never watch.
