[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside of "the bundle"
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:57:27 -0500
On Dec 14, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> And that makes them a monopoly?? Look up the work, Craig.
Actually an oligopoly Bert. It's been around since the early days of radio
broadcasting. No other source of TV content is guaranteed carriage on cable
systems. If you prefer a different term fine - but oligopoly is correct.
>
>> For decades they were more than happy to allow CATV systems
>> extend their reach, without demanding payment for their signals.
>
> You keep missing the point. CATV systems carried just broadcasters signals,
> and charged only nominal fees (or were tax-supported).
And your point is?
> Then cable systems piled on a lot of extra channels, in the late 1970s
> initially, and charged rapidly escalating prices. I know, because I lived
> through that era. Every new ad wanting to lure me in had a higher basic fee.
> Higher and higher.
>
And your point is?
> And still, even with the added niche channels and the rapidly escalating
> fees, whether Craig liked it or not, his fellow MVPD subscribers bitched all
> the way up to the Supreme Court, if their favorite network TV channels were
> ever interrupted. Those main network TV channels were in greater demand than
> any, except maybe ESPN.
What court case about access to broadcast signals was brought by MVPD
subscribers went to the Supreme Court?
Those broadcast signals were 100% of the market before cable started to offer
alternatives. People did not subscribe to cable to get the broadcast signals
they were receiving by antenna, unless the quality of off-air signals was poor,
as was the case here in Gainesville, where several networks could not be
received off-air at all. People subscribed to cable to access alternatives to
the broadcast networks. And even if someone chose cable primarily to watch the
broadcast networks, why should those networks receive additional compensation?
Their LICENSED business model is FOTA, compensated by the money they charge for
commercials - to the extent that cable subscribers watch broadcast network
programming, it's a wash. To the extent that they stopped watching the
broadcast networks, too bad. This does not constitute a reason for the
broadcast networks to charge retrans consent fees; they are already being paid.
> Putting all of this together, the broadcasters had every right to demand
> their extra pound of flesh, in our US economy. This isn't some socialist
> country, Craig, where the government decides what a business should earn, or
> where the government can enforce anything as lame as, "but you were making do
> with ads alone before!?"
If the marketplace supported this you would be correct. But it did not. The
MVPDs refused to pay for local broadcast signals. They carried them, including
low power stations with shopping channels, because the FCC required this and
prohibited the importation of broadcast signals from distant markets. It took
an act of Congress, Bert, to re-regulate the cable industry and authorize
retrans consent. You can call it crony capitalism, socialism, whatever floats
your boat. But it is not capitalism.
And there is no requirement for a licensed station to run ads - just the nasty
reality of economics 101 - businesses need revenue to exist. Except for PBS,
which now gets by with government subsidies, faux ads, and begging.
>
>> I am not demanding the broadcast signals.
>
> You submit to a monopoly, you have to do what they allow.
You mean what they are required to do by regulation if their monopoly.
>
>> But the politicians and the oligopolies make demands
>
> Total BS. Politicians do not force me to submit, Craig, and the "oligopolies"
> are quite clearly competing against one another, on their respective OTA
> channels and on their respective OTT sites. And they make their content
> ad-supported only. Neither politicians, nor congloms, seem to be making
> unreasonable demands.
Unbelievable!
>
>
> Cadillacs ride on the same platform, and use the same engines, as other GMs.
> And yet, they command a much higher price. Take a look:
Duh. They also include features and materials not found on their lesser
siblings.
Most smartphones use Gorilla Glass - that does not make all of them iPhones.
>
> You miss the point again. I was describing demand elasticity. If you don't
> get that, your complaints are unconvincing.
No Bert, you are describing substitution. If you cannot afford steak, eat ramen
noodles...
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:
