[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Copps on the Fox vs Cablevision dispute

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 08:51:28 -0400

At 6:40 PM -0400 10/23/10, Albert Manfredi wrote:

Yes, I reread, and you appear to be right on this point. While I would not object at all if Fox took all of their shows off the Internet (it's up to them, since they own that content), I don't think it's fair to single out broadband users from one ISP. But if you read the article, it sounds like Fox will rethink all of its Internet offerings anyway. Almost like this is a harbinger.

BUT, the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC might be blocking their content from Google (and therefore from Google TVs) is another matter entirely. That is certainly their right. As I said, over the Internet, these content owners have every right to allow access to their content on their own terms. If they don't want middlemen, they have every right to say no to that model. (When transmitting OTA, they have to deal with the national cap. Over the Internet, they have so similar restriction.)

Who is the middleman here Bert?

Is Microsoft the middleman when you use Internet Explorer to access Hulu?

I have lots of problems with CE manufacturers colluding with only some web sites, to only allow access to those sites. Are you kidding? And yes, if Sony or any other manufacturer attempts these same tricks, I cannot fault the content owners for blocking their access. Sorry, Craig. The congloms are simply saying, we will provide the content over the Internet as WE see fit, and we won't be boxed in by CE companies and web sites colluding among themselves. We won't be coerced to make our content available to web sites that have exclusivity agreements with certain CE companies.

What collusion is happening with Google TV?

Is Google or Sony blocking access to any websites?

If you want to be critical of a device like Apple TV that only allows access to certain services, fine. But what is Google doing that is any different than accessing Hulu via a PC based web browser?

Because it's their content. They hold the cards. Just as you are NOT compelled by any third party to sell your microbrews on THEIR terms. If some retailer wants to sell your beer, along with his sideline of a female "escort service," for example, you are within your rights to refuse him your brew. It's so simple.

We cannot sell our beer to any third party. We can ONLY sell it to a distributor; once it leaves the brewery it is completely out of our hands. If we have a problem with who a distributor is selling to we can take it up with them, but they hold all the cards. The laws in Florida and most other states are written to protect the distributor. If we sign a contract with a distributor and they subsequently decide to stop promoting our product, we are shut out of the market covered by that contract. Our only recourse is to shut down the brewery and re-open under a different name with new contracts...

Not exactly the way to build a brand.

If you think I am exaggerating, here's a recent example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Brewery

Bell's was formerly available in Illinois, but was pulled from the market on October 12, 2006. In accordance with a 1982 Illinois law which protects the interests of beer distributors (the Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act), the Chicago distributor (Union Beverage) attempted to sell its Bell's distribution rights to a competitor, Chicago Beverage Systems (CBS). In meeting with CBS executives, owner Larry Bell became concerned that his full product line would not be adequately represented by CBS. Having no legal ability to prevent Union from selling its distribution rights, Bell chose what he saw as his only recourse-to pull his products from the entire Illinois market, which represented over USD $1.3 million per year for Bell's Brewery. Due to the vagueness of the law, which does not specify a "lapse period," it was thought likely that if Bell's ever attempted to return to Illinois distribution, Union Beverage's parent company (National Wine and Spirits) would have the right to demand substantial compensation from the distributor. However, beginning in late 2007, Bell's Beer began its return to Illinois. [1]

In December 2007, Bell's re-entered the Chicago market via two new distributors by creating two new beer brands, Kalamazoo Royal Amber Ale and Kalamazoo Hopsoulution. This was done for legal reasons: since each beer avoids the use of the "Bell's" name and logo, and uses a different recipe from previous Bell's brands, Larry Bell contends that these are not the same beers that were assigned to his former distributor. Nevertheless, Bell says he "expects to be sued by his former distributor, National Wine & Spirits."[2][3] Initially, only the Royal Amber Ale was made available, in draft only, at about a dozen Chicago-area locations.[4] In August 2008, Bell's was able to return its primary brands to the Chicago area, due to former distributor National Wine & Spirits' exit from Illinois.[5]

This Bert is the kind of stuff that happens when businesses run to the politicians for protection and market advantage. This is what has been going on for nearly a century in the mass mediums of radio and TV. The oligopolies hold all the cards because they provide ongoing revenue streams to governments at all levels, and a highly effective propaganda machine for the politicians.

Funny how there is all kinds of noise about "network" neutrality, when it comes to the business that is providing Internet Access, BUT, it is perfectly OK for a television network to block access to its content to specific ISPs and devices...


I would agree with your disdain if the networks were the one trying to build the walls. Instead, you have it backwards. In general, they are preventing their content from being walled in, Craig. (Except Fox and Cablevision broadband users.)

Unbelievable.

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: