It’s not a question of digital costing less. You still have the same costs for fiber in the ground, personnel etc. You also have hardware costs etc.

If you look at what you get as part of the digital package, your claim that digital packages should be investigated is way off the mark. If you consider the options available on a digital system (HD, Video on Demand, etc), you actually get far more value for the difference in rates.

And the fact that cable can deliver 6 digital channels in the space of 1 analog channel doesn’t mean the programming costs are static either. Every one of those six channels requires payment to a programmer and those can vary greatly.

The economy of scale for cost averaging 6 channels where one used to reside can actually increase the viewing options available while minimizing the additional expense, making the digital value even greater.

There are several factors that impact the price at which a company offers service. In the case of analog cable, there is the cost to provide the service (physical plant, personnel, programming, etc) and there is the cost of delivering an obsolete service to those who cling to it while other options are available (lost opportunity cost).

In the case of analog, it’s not necessarily a question of it being the same dollar value for the same number of channels (or the same dollar value for less channels). It’s a question of whether the costs for the operator are expanding at greater than the analog service revenue (which is declining due to the migration).

If the analog customer is costing the operator more to support/maintain, that customer may see fewer channels at the same price. But that may be in contrast to paying more for the same number of channels if all costs continued to increase.

Given that different operators are addressing this in different ways, there’s not really a “one size fits all” answer. I’m just trying to explain why the costs may stay the same, even if the channel lineup doesn’t.