Of course. There's nothing nefarious going on here. They're constrained by competition, the amount of advertising people will tolerate, and what their customers are willing to pay, but within those constraints they'll set up the business so that between commercials and the monthly fee they make the most money.
> Why can't they just charge tv subscribers the whole amount and get rid of ads on tv?
It's because doing that would mean artificially constraining their own business when they don't have to do that. So why would they?
As the article itself notes, few people buy a subscription service for one or two shows.
If Netflix can continue to bid high enough to starve its competitors of high-quality content (because it can amortize its costs over a larger subscriber base), then no competitor can grow large enough to compete without running substantial initial deficits (which Netflix can make temporarily worse if they choose to, by overpaying for content and driving prices up).
So essentially, lack of competition.
Because there's a balance where doing more would lead to much more immediate revenue loss. Few people would watch a channel with 20 minutes of commercials for every 10 minutes of show, but network TV has already demonstrated that people will watch shows with 8 minutes of commercials for every 22 minutes of show, especially if they don't have a good alternative. The loss of customers from such a move takes longer to show up in the bottom line, and it started before alternatives like Netflix existed.
> The reason there are commercials is it allows them to offer the service for less money and most people don't care.
They're not in the business of offering a specific fixed service for as little money as it takes to cover their costs; that logic would apply to a non-profit or co-op, not a for-profit company. For a for-profit company, lowering prices isn't an end, it's a means.