[opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:35:05 -0500
At 11:08 AM -0500 1/21/09, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Did I imply otherwise, ever?
I do not have the time or patience to review years of archives to
prove a point.
Let's just say that you have been one of the main participants in the
discussion about the interpretation of the 85% rule, and that you
always have tried to get the last word...
Look back at the subject heading of those Topica posts: Broadcasters
hate digital-TV proposal. Why did they hate that interpretation? Because
it would have them shut down OTA NTSC before enough OTA customers had
switched over to digital. That's all there was to it.
Broadcasters were RESPONSIBLE for the 85% rule; kinda difficult to
say they hated it.
They knew that it would be impossible to shut them down because the
rule was open to interpretation and could be litigated for years.
The FCC, however, needed to push their agenda, in order to free up
spectrum.
The FCC had nothing to do with the amendment to the 1997 Balanced
Budget Act that imposed the new rules, which were specifically
created to overrule the FCC 2006 deadline.
The broadcasters WANT the transition to end.
Yes, now. Having the hard date forced on the viewing public, there is
now nothing but additional costs involved in your "retaining the NTSC
franchise." So now it makes sense to hurry this thing through, at least
for the broadcast stations, if not for the major networks themselves,
apparently. So much for retaining the NTSC franchise (although I must
confess, I never fully understood what that meant to you).
There are three factors at work here.
The costs associated with simulcasting are certainly the major factor.
But the main issue was retransmission consent. When the rules were
imposed in 1997 the FCC had not yet ruled that the primary digital
channel of a broadcaster would be covered by retrans consent. Even
after the FCC did rule that the primary channel would qualify for
retrans consent, the broadcasters still lobbied hard for ALL of the
services in the multiplex to be covered.
And then there is the third major factor - the economic demise of the
broadcast industry.
The precipitous decline in broadcast ratings has changed the
fundamentals of the business, not to mention the precipitous decline
in the influence of the NAB on politicians. By 2006 the broadcasters
no longer wielded enough power to prevent Congress from imposing a
hard deadline; meanwhile, those who coveted the spectrum to be
recovered were gaining in influence, as the politicians became far
more obsessed with the need for new revenues as budget deficits spun
out of control.
By the way, Craig, I also predicted that the STBs would make a tidy
profit for at least some time. They would sell quite well during the
final transition period.
Hmmm. can you provide ANY evidence that these boxes have been
profitable? I seem to remember that you bought at least one at fire
sale prices.
No doubt the CE industry is making a few bucks on the boxes they have
developed for the NTIA coupon program - why not get a cut of the
government cheese? But the stores are filed with stacks of these
boxes that HAVE NOT sold. It is unlikely that the NTIA will use all
of the money available for these boxes due to the poor redemption
rate. What is far more important is that the options for full
featured HD capable boxes are still very limited; the market for
these boxes is very small, due in part of the requirement to include
ATSC receivers in new TVs.
And, they certainly have done, by any measure.
Even though the CE manufacturers, for whatever reason, had to be dragged
in kicking ans scremaning to make them available. (Back in 2004-2005
time frame, it was practically impossible to find STBs in stores, and
completely impossible to get any up-do-date 5th gen STB products.
Remember?)
By any measure the NTIA boxes have NOT been a huge hit, nor have they
been a big revenue generator for the CE industry. Let's see whether
all of the funds for these boxes are actually used. My educated guess
is that there will be a bunch of these boxes on fire sale in a few
months for less than $50 WITHOUT a coupon.
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:
- » [opendtv] DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Albert Manfredi
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Bob Miller
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Albert Manfredi
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Bob Miller
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Shutt
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Tom Barry
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Tom Barry
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Tom Barry
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Shutt
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Shutt
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Tom Barry
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Willkie
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Bob Miller
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Shutt
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Frank Eory
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - Bob Miller
- » [opendtv] Re: DTV Delay Bill Introduced - John Shutt