[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters, Cable Spar over Retrans

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:53:33 -0400

At 6:01 PM -0500 5/31/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
The MVPDs have an easy fix, which involves no one else. Decide to go a la carte pricing. If Fox pulls their content, MVPDs charge their subscribers that much less per month. Problem solved. That will force Fox and affiliates to either keep their demands in check, or charge nothing and go "must carry," or help people install antennas. 

YEAH BERT!
I've been recommending this for more than a decade. When individual networks negotiate for fees collected by MVPDs that are out of the control of the customer, there is no competition. Only when the customer KNOWS what the subscriber fee is and has the ability to opt in or out, do you have competition.
And once you have that form of competition, I firmly believe that the vast majority of channels would OPT OUT of subscriber fees.
A few, like ESPN cannot, as these fees actually are used to pay for content rather than simply going to the bottom line, as the exec for CBS recently boasted.
If MVPDs do not want to charge a la carte for their channels (and that's their prerogative), and the broadcasters want a piece of the walled garden action (and that's also their prerogative), I don't see how any impartial person can invent a single "bad guy" here. Consumers can either pay up or step outside of the walls. For the network channels, probably most of the MVPD subscribers can adopt the unwalled alternative.
I think Bert may finally have created a workable definition of what a walled garden really is.
Everyone has the right to connect to or cut the cord to the MVPD; in this respect entertainment is not as critical as say electricity, water or sewage. And I would note that the wireline phone, once considered to be an absolute necessity, is now becoming a relic, thanks to a better technology. 

The same thing may happen to cable TV.
The real definition of a walled garden is that there ARE no other options to buy what lies behind that wall.
DirecTV helped build a subscriber base via an exclusive deal with the NFL for Sunday Tikcket.
On Digital tried and failed to get enough subscribers for an OTA multichannel package via an exclusive deal with a UK football league.
Cable relies on popular channels like ESPN, Discovery, HGTV, et al to gain subscribers - the broadcast networks are NOT why people subscribe to these services, although customers rightly get upset when ANY channel is withheld because of a subscriber fee battle.
If a service, like iTunes sells content in competition with other services like Amazon, it's not a walled garden... 

It's a store.
Craig can try to make the broadcasters or the networks the bad guys, but the simple fact is, this is capitalism. If there's any threat of a monopoly creating this imbalance, it's not from the major networks. The major networks still do offer the unwalled bypass path, HD and all, and people certainly do have a choice of multiple TV networks to watch. So that ain't it.
Sorry Bert, but the broadcast networks are owned and controlled by four of the five media conglomerates. They rely on regulated oligopolies to deliver their content, and control 90% of the content inside the MVPD walled gardens.
If you want to see what would happen to broadcast TV without regulatory intervention, try this. 

End retrans consent - Stations could elect must carry or depend on antennas.

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.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2011