[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Copps on Internet openness
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:12:37 -0500
At 6:24 PM -0500 11/20/10, Albert Manfredi wrote:
Therefore, your incessant griping about retrans consent is totally
off the wall. Your high cable bills ARE NOT caused by retrans
consent. Let's keep remembering this fact.
Sorry Bert, but they are.
The increases have come in several waves; the first wave was less
insidious than the one we are riding now.
The first waves accompanied the increase in the number of channels
made possible by the upgrades to the cable plants over the past two
decades.
The original analog plants could only deliver about 30 channels. In
the late '80s and early '90s most systems upgraded to a 550 MHz
analog infrastructure capable of delivering about 79 channels.
Typically the extended basic tiers grew to 40-50 channels with the
rest dedicated to premium cable channels.
These upgrades coincided with the the 1992 Cable Act which gave
broadcasters retransmission consent. All of the networks except CBS
used their original retrans consent agreements to launch new cable
channels to fill up the increased capacity of the upgraded systems.
Virtually all of these new channels received minimal subscriber fees,
following the practice established by Turnerand Time Warner for the
channels they launched in the '80s. CBS demanded and received cash
compensation.
As a result, rather than the 1992 act controlling the ongoing
increases in cable rates, the rates continued to climb, based on the
ability of the MVPDs to increase rates as they added more channels.
During the '90s the industry went through another upgrade cycle to
750 MHz plants. These plants typically carried the same number of
analog channels - initially, the additional bandwidth was used for
digital cable, broadband and additional premium tiers. Some systems
added channels to the extended basic analog tier by moving premium
analog services to the digital tiers. Rates continues to climb with
the adition of new channels.
During the second half of the '90s the broadcast congloms went on a
buying spree, gobbling up most of the new cable networks that they
did not start. By the end of the decade they owned about 90% of the
available channels in the extended basic (analog and digital) tiers.
In the past decade most of the original retrans consent deals
expired. This time the congloms went for rate increases for their
cable networks, and they started to demand cash for the broadcast
channels. These increases are passed on to consumers.
So it is clear that retrans consent has been the most powerful tool
in the congloms arsenal to demand ever higher carriage fees.
That being said, Bert is somewhat correct; retrans consent is now
used primarily for the broadcast channels, but in many cases the
agreement still involve a bundle of channels both broadcast and
non-broadcast. For example, the recent agreement between Fox and
Cablevision covers Fox 5 and My9 in New York, Fox 29 in Philadelphia
and the cable channels Fox Deportes, Fox Business Network and Nat Geo
Wild.
Bert is correct that it is not necessary for the congloms to use
retrans consent if they want to withhold non-broadcast content that
they own. .
No. They moved to cable for all the stuff you CANNOT watch with an
antenna.
Stating the obvious doesn't respond to my point.
This content that 85 percent of households seem to crave, Craig, is
it local or is it not? Do you and Copps really believe that people
flocked to cable for the local junior college pottery class?
What has local got to do with it Bert? We both agree that Copps is
off-base. But local is just a tiny part of broadcast TV these days.
The only local content people have watched in significant numbers is
news, and that audience is dying.
I have a bit of experience with this Bert. Just ask Cliff; we
produced about 10 hours a week of local public affairs programming at
WLCY-TV in the '70s as part of the agreement to squeeze WLCY into
channel 10. Nobody watched...
Why punish broadcasters, by yanking away even more of their
spectrum, for not offering what NO ONE WANTS ANYWAY?
HUH?
Now you agree with Copps?
Only a small percentage of the population wants broadcast TV Bert.
People stopped watching because of what they DO OFFER.
Anyone for Ice Skating with the Stars?
And please look at my comments about Doug Lung's article.
Broadcasters are offering more channels than at any time in their
history. And still hardly anyone is watching.
Regards
Craig
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
