[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters, Cable Spar over Retrans

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 07:35:01 -0400

At 4:13 PM -0500 6/8/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

No, it's simply not. You seem to have lost the thread.

First, there are multiple congloms, competing against one another.
You can call this competition if you like, but they act as an oligopoly, controlling access to the dominant platforms for the delivery of television content. They control virtually all of the content they deliver during prime time - the stuff you like to call "premium content." And they control 90% of the content delivered by the MVPDs 24/7.
Second, in every case, these congloms make their premium material available FOTA. And have not even indicated that they will stop doing so.
NO, they only make certain content available via FOTA, a franchise that has been declining in quality for several decades. Not that they are the best indication of program quality, take a look at who is winning the Prime Time Emmy Awards. HBO has been at the top for several years and many other cable shows are taking hope those statues. FOTA has become an even larger wasteland in the past decade with its emphasis on cheap unscripted reality shows.
And thirdly, the MVPDs have it in their power, any time they choose, to unshackle their subscribers. And by so doing, to give back to the congloms more precisely what is their due. Giving them far less leverage in manufacturing overly high rates.
Not certain what you mean here, but these folks are in the business of collusion. They are not going to suddenly turn on their content partners and tell consumers they have been screwing them for decades with program bundles. Instead, they are trying to extend their franchise to the Internet, both wired and wireless. In essence, they are saying, you already pay us "a bundle" every month, so WE should be the ones who control your TV experience on new mobile devices.
In reality there's not much the MVPDs can do about the situation, as the congloms control what is available, and use the leverage of withholding the limited amount of "quality programming" to secure higher subscriber fees and carriage/placement of additional MVPD only networks. IF you doubt this, look at the comments to the FCC from the cable industry in the retrans consent proceeding.
The failure in the overall business model is caused by the anti-competitive nature of MVPDs, not by the demands of the content owners.
What failure? THey have almost total control and keep increasing advertising rates, even as they reach deeper into our pockets for that second revenue stream.
And by the way, Apple's high prices are similarly afflicted by this walled garden model, closed ecosystem, which reduces the beneficial effects of competition. It's amazing to me that you can continue to be so inconsistent.
Apple's prices for the content they sell are negotiated. THIS is no different than the way that Amazon, Walmart, Target, et al must negotiate the pricing for the content they sell. In a sense you are correct, as Apple is forced to negotiate with oligopolies for program rights, and the congloms are not about to kill the MVPD goose that keeps laying golden eggs.
Let me explain it more explicitly, then. The Feds, in an appearance of being in the pockets of the greediest of the greediest companies, want to yank back spectrum from FOTA broadcasting to hand it to companies that not only have a habit of charging rapidly increasing monthly fees, but also of working hard to freeze out any competition. Through what appears to be underhanded deals (such as GM wrt satellite radio, or CE vendors who seem to do everything to favor MVPDs, in the US). 

How about explaining something "accurately" for a change.
The cellular voice marketplace is very competitive and pricing has been coming DOWN for years. When I got my first Nextel Cellular phone it cost me a couple hundred bucks a month for a VOICE ONLY service. Now we have an AT&T family plan with four iPhones, broadband, unlimited messaging and all the minutes we can eat for about the same monthly price. By comparison, my monthly cable bill has more than doubled over the same time period - I get some additional channels and HD, but the quality of the contend has NOT improved overall.
And the FCC is not yanking ANYTHING back from broadcasters. They have no power to do so without Congressional authorization. What is proposed is to BUY BACK spectrum with the money they will get for this spectrum from the telcos, which actually means that this money must be recovered from telco subscribers.
At least the telcos are willing to pay. The broadcasters want to keep using the spectrum for free AND get us to pay for the content through our MVPD bills.
Given that this TV spectrum is hardly ideal for the purposes the FCC is trumpeting, it's hard to overlook how the Feds kindly handing over the FOTA spectrum to the greediest of greediest does NOT have an appearance of fishy business.
You live right next door to the FISH WRAPPER Bert. Everything that happens in DC stinks. Why do you think people are lining up to pay off the politicians? It's the NEW American way!
And sure, the clueless consumers seem happy to oblige. I've said that innumerable times, Craig. Who do you think pays ultimately?
Consumers are not clueless, at least not all of them. The correct term is HELPLESS. They have nobody lobbying to protect them. 

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