Why so little traffic from C&W

Thu Jun 7 18:20:03 UTC 2001

> PSI spent a lot of money over the last few years (perhaps more than C&W
> spent), which may also be why PSI is in financial trouble.  In the cable
> TV industry, cable companies must pay for content (e.g. cable companies
> pay CNN for the privilege of transmitting CNN on their network).  Since
> PSI has more content than C&W (as evidence by the imbalance), why shouldn't
> C&W have to compensate PSI for its content just like the cable companies?

if psi had to pay its customers to get exclusive access to that content,
then sure as hell c&w would have to pay psi (or not, if the content had no
end-eyeballs willing to pay c&w for access to it.)

i think the reasoning goes something like "your customers pay you to send
this stuff out for them, you should share that money with the folks who
do your final delivery for you."  (i don't agree with the reasoning, but i
think i understand the thoughts being thunk.)