View Single Post
Old February 9 2012, 09:57 PM   #93
Patrick O'Brien
Patrick O'Brien's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
AviTrek wrote: View Post
Because pay-to-view would be spun as cutting edge future of TV, while DTV is bottom of the barrel content.
Well said AviTrek.

These days on's Video on Demand service offers a 'season pass'.
some shows are $.94 while others are $2.84 per episode.

Let's compare 2 other 60 minute dramas:
iTunes offers Desperate Housewives for $.99 for a 48-hour rental,
$2.99/episode for HD purchase
or $49.99 for a season pass while another show Glee is $57.99 for a season pass.

If the next Trek series were not broadcast on a linear TV channel in the USA I'm guessing the above would cost the same.
Even if it were syndicated-only I think the price would still be the same cost as above.

Alternatively in the USA only if CBS Television were to make deals with most of the
Top 10 Largest Cable Companies by subscribers
* 1. Comcast Corporation
* 2. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
* 3. Cox Communications, Inc.
* 4. Charter Communications, Inc.
* 5. Cablevision Systems Corporation
* 6. Bright House Networks LLC
* 7. Mediacom Communications Corporation
* 8. Suddenlink Communications
* 9. Insight Communications Company, Inc.
* 10. Cable One, Inc.
Verizon Fios
AT&Ts U-verse
for on-demand only distribution of the next Trek series
It would then not need a linear TV channel even though CBS owns a number of channels.
All CBS-owned channels could promo the show as video-on-demand only. Sort of like "pay-per-view" but allowing viewers to see the show at any time instead of at a particular time like a pay-per-view boxing match.
I would be willing to pay a fee along these lines to watch a new Trek TV show. If people are paying this kind of money to watch Desperate Housewives (which sucks!), then a well written Star Trek series should do fine
Patrick O'Brien is offline   Reply With Quote