[akgoel]

I'm sure ESPN could, but they probably wouldn't. Online streaming on this scale would essentially become pay-per-view, and the pay-per-view revenue for most games would not match the current broadcast revenue. Would you pay $50 per football game you wanted to watch online? I only say that because I used to pay $20 for a Houston Rockets playoff game on pay-per-view in the mid-90's, and they went away from that model once the broadcast revenue from having every subscriber pay into a bundled package overcame the pay-per-view model.

[pedalpete]

I think you're assuming the pay per view model would not change as well. Pay-per-view makes a fortune, but only appeals to a small set of the audience due to the currently high-costs. However, if we use the superbowl as an example (huge adverstising costs, and large audience).

110 Million people watch the superbowl, a 30 second commercial costs about $3 million (time slot fee only). Are there more than 30 commercials during the superbowl? I couldn't find that number, but 30 seems like a lot, so let's go with that. The revenue per viewer is about $1.20. So even if the cost to watch the superbowl was $4, the broadcaster would still be making more than they currently are with the advertising model.

Where this breaks down is the amount of time people spend channel surfing. I think as people channel surf less, they'll watch less, which is why the model of paying directly for each piece of content is a challenge.