[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters, Cable Spar over Retrans

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 07:15:24 -0400

No matter how you choose to wordsmith and twist this, Craig, the very vast majority of what causes the huge uproar from MVPD subscribers is when main network content is subtracted from MVPDs. Content that IS available FOTA. Not your minor cable-only channels. The leverage comes from the main TV network content.
No Bert. Nobody would give a rip if they tried to pull their content in the middle of the summer re-run season. Contract dates are purposely set to expire when the networks have one of their few blockbuster events scheduled. More often than not these are sporting events like major college bowl games or the Superbowl.
We just went through this. MVPDs, on their own initiative, asking permission from no one at all, can choose to sell the main network content channels (as well as any other channels) on an a la carte basis. They can charge whatever the congloms ask, a la carte. And if the congloms tie this content to their other cable channel content, ditto. Now the subscribers pitch in exactly what they want, and the congloms get back from the MVPDs exactly what people are willing to buy. 

How naive.
It is bundling that makes all of this work Bert. The ability to force subscribers to pay for stuff they DON'T want. The rationale used by the MVPDs is consistent. Without bundling, people would pay far more for the stuff they want because large numbers of subscribers would opt out; those who really want a channel would have to make up the difference.
I too support ala carte, and have for more than a decade. But it ain't gonna happen because the moment people can opt out, MOST networks would drop their subscriber fees altogether to avoid losing potential audience share. 

You need two things to keep the system alive.

1. An oligopoly that has no real competition;
2. Ignorance of just how much of your bill is paying for subscriber fees (and to which networks).
As long as the congloms are asking for a set amount per subscriber, this is such an obvious counter-move that it makes me totally convinced we have no good guys in this debate. 

WELCOME TO REALITY BERT!
How many times have I told you that all of the rancor about subscriber fees is just theater. It provides the cover for never ending rate increases; the illusion that the MVPD is concerned about their subscribers. But for once you are right - we have no good guys in THIS debate. 




 They are not going to suddenly turn on their content partners and tell
 consumers they have been screwing them for decades with program bundles.
The message being, you are entirely off base when you place the blame for higher and higher subscription fees on the congloms. The MVPDs have it completely in their power to allow this market self-regulate as it should, and if they don't do so, it's only because they (the MVPDs) benefit. 

What power would the MVPDs have if 90% of their channels suddenly disappeared?
This is nothing more than two government supported oligopolies scratching each other's backs. 

Or to put it in terms that you might understand living around DC...
Do the Democrat and Republican "actors" attend parties and go out together to dinner, after producing the daily sound bytes? 

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