> Honest question, why not?

Value for money. Most households don't spend their lives watching 4-8h of content every day, I'd think.

I'm likely to watch maximum 12h a month. So 6$ an hour? No thanks. And I'm talking maximum. Most months I spend 6h watching in total. That brings it up to $12 / hour.

Pay-what-you-watch sounds better to me and many others. Show me a gradually increasing bill in the top right corner of the UI and I'll manage. Or give me only one subscription -- much less than $70 though -- and then you distribute my money to the proper rights holders. I shouldn't care who owns what, nor should I be bothered switching services.

It doesn't matter if I'm a billionaire as well. Again, value for money.

I have been thinking of something similar Pay-what-you-watch with a twist. You have to top up a minimum amount ( Say $20 ) and not charged per view on credit card. Think iTunes Credit.

The Video should also last for at least a week once you borrowed it. ( Which is similar to 5 days old DVD rental except the 2 days postal time being instant. )

I wonder if it is a business model worth exploring.

But didn’t the cable TV cost include the content delivery and hardware? You need to add the cost of your internet connection on top of that, plus whatever box you use to play to the TV etc.

Kind of - the content delivery for Cable TV was basically free. It all just gets blasted down the cable and the box filters out what you're not supposed to have access to. So arguably, you were paying to have a restricted service.

The hardware was often subsidised (although I recall at one point having to pay an extra €99 for a sky box), but assuming a set top box cost €100, that's 1.5 months of payments to pay for the box, the rest is the subscription cost.

> You need to add the cost of your internet connection on top of that, plus whatever box you use to play to the TV etc.

Only if you exclusively use the internet for this content. And the vast, vast majority of TV's come with apps for Netflix, Prime etc these days. Those that don't, a streaming stick is ~£35.

$840 a year just on watching TV is heaps. $4200 over 5 years. That's a fair wack cash.

No it isn't. Compare that to any other activity and the price would be similar for how often you do it. If you eat out once a week you'd be paying a similar amount if not more. Most people watch things more than once a week.

Yeah I get to eat out on date night with my partner maybe twice a year if we are lucky. We get takeout maybe once a month. More likely once a quarter. This is a huge amount of money for entertainment.

It's not just TV though, it's TV & movies. I used to go to a blockbuster equivalent with my parents most Fridays, and we would rent 3-5 movies. Usually it would be 1 new releasae and some from the back catalog. I was only about 14 so I don't know exactly how much it cost, but the "New Release, only €5.25" poster is etched into my brain. I'd guess we did that 3 out of 4 weekends, spending probably €10 each time, which is about half of that cost.

> That's a fair wack cash.

I never said it wasn't, but (I would wager) it's most households primary form of entertainment. It being ~2% of the median household's income it's good value.