Craig Birkmaier wrote: > Offering a slimmed down multichannel service at a slimmed down price > via OTA broadcasts has not proven to be successful. It is difficult > for a 20-30 channel service to offer the 10-20 channels that YOU want > to watch; if a slimmed down service only offers a few of the channels > that YOU now watch, it is unlikely that you will choose to save > $15-20 per month and give up the stuff you want to watch. You are > still writing a check, its just a little smaller. and > The bottom line is obvious. The technology exists to deliver 40-50 > channels of content reliably in EVERY TV market via OTA broadcasts. > The reality is that broadcasters "chose poorly." I'm not sure how these two fit together. It would seem that if you could offer 40-50 OTA channels then a service like USDTV could operate as a shared billing service to allow some of those channels to be premium channels with better content and fewer ad's. And all the existing MSO models suggest there would be a market for this at some price. - Tom Craig Birkmaier wrote: > At 4:27 AM -0700 8/11/04, John Willkie wrote: > >>So, you are now asserting that broadcasting is not valuable? Perhaps to >>you, but even that is inconsistent with your previous posting calling >>non-payments to be payments. To bring it full circle, do you think that >>cable company are making your "payments" for something that has no value? > > > You are twisting my words to your purpose...unsuccessfully! > > Of course the content offered by broadcasters is valuable. In and of > itself, however, it does not have sufficient value to cause people to > give up their multi-channel services and go back to an antenna > (exclusively). > > As I noted, the big networks once again control 90% of the audience. > Half of this is still via the content they push through the broadcast > networks. The other half is via the cable/DBS networks that are NOT > available to OTA viewers. > > Consumers now accept the reality that they must subscribe to a > multichannel service to get the broad spectrum of content they want > to watch. They also accept the reality that they must pay even more > to watch content that is not cluttered with commercials. It is in > this environment that broadcasters must learn to compete. > > Offering a slimmed down multichannel service at a slimmed down price > via OTA broadcasts has not proven to be successful. It is difficult > for a 20-30 channel service to offer the 10-20 channels that YOU want > to watch; if a slimmed down service only offers a few of the channels > that YOU now watch, it is unlikely that you will choose to save > $15-20 per month and give up the stuff you want to watch. You are > still writing a check, its just a little smaller. > > If, on the other hand, you can offer 20-30 advertiser supported > channels for free, you may attract a share of the audience. This has > proven to be the case in Germany and the UK. > > > >>You really have no guess as to what's viable due to biases. A rotor (or >>multinational array) is more expensive and troublesome than stringing >>hundreds of kilometers of high-grade cable, providing linear power back-up >>circuits, line amplifiers, drops, etc? > > > You really have no clue about the realities of consumer behavior. > Fact is that the cable and DBS infrastructures already exist. That is > the reality of what broadcasters must compete with TODAY. > Equally important, the cost of establishing service is not paid by > the broadcaster; the consumer must invest in the receiver, and any > antennas, rotors, etc. necessary to achieve reliable reception. > > The standard for service today is Plug & Play. Once the cable company > or DBS service is installed, you just pick up the remote and surf. > Broadcasters must equal this experience if they are to be > competitive. IF you need to play with a rotor, or move the antenna > manually, you are not competitive. > > The bottom line is obvious. The technology exists to deliver 40-50 > channels of content reliably in EVERY TV market via OTA broadcasts. > The reality is that broadcasters "chose poorly." > > Regards > Craig > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > > - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at > FreeLists.org > > - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word > unsubscribe in the subject line. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.