[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:38:01 +0000
Wrong, Craig. People who subscribed to cable wanted to get the broadcast
channel on that same cable, so they could remove their antenna. They demanded
the broadcast channels, whether they could theoretically get the signal from an
antenna or not. Plus, apartment dwellers often had no option, if the apartment
faces in the wrong direction, because many apartments complexes stole the coax
network for an MVPD.
Hence, the broadcasters had leverage. Supply/demand.
Craig wrote:
> If the marketplace supported this you would be correct. But it
> did not. The MVPDs refused to pay for local broadcast signals.
And the broadcasters were totally within their rights to subtract their signals
from the MVPD net. And then, let the MVPD subscribers tell their provider what
they thought. Which is exactly what happened, time and time again.
Supply/demand.
> They carried them, including low power stations with shopping
> channels, because the FCC required this
The FCC responded to loud complaints, Craig. Of course, the low-power or
shopping channels were most likely not on people's minds, but the TV network
channels definitely were. When the government steps in, it has to be unbiased,
so the FCC could not pick favorites.
Similarly now, the FCC is trying to figure out how to ensure net neutrality.
Because THE PEOPLE are demanding it. If you don't think so, just read the
comments the FCC received.
> It took an act of Congress, Bert, to re-regulate the cable
> industry and authorize retrans consent.
I will agree only that, aside from local news and weather, the congloms
primarily deserved the extra compensation, beyond the ads. Once the conglom
signals got carried by cable or DBS, the OTA broadcaster role was mostly filled
by someone else (except news and weather). But see, Craig, you won't even
acknowledge that. You make a big deal about the local OTA broadcaster being
compensated, without thinking about who really is being compensated. All to
push a political agenda.
Ditto with Internet distribution, btw, unless the broadcasters carve out a new
role for themselves (e.g. as local CDNs, plus news and weather content).
>> Cadillacs ride on the same platform, and use the same engines,
>> as other GMs. And yet, they command a much higher price.
> Duh. They also include features and materials not found on
> their lesser siblings.
Which wouldn't even come close to justifying the difference in price. And
that's exactly what we are dealing with here, Craig. Put some of highest value
content on the walled garden net, and that content will demand at least as much
subscription fee kickback as the much less popular niche channels. And they
weren't getting it.
Here's a mind exercise for you, Craig. Imagine what MVPD nets would look like,
**if** they had been mandated to be content and appliance neutral, back in the
1970s. Imagine if the FCC mandated standard interfaces and carriage of any and
all content sources. That was not TECHNICALLY possible then, at least not the
sources part, but it is now.
Imagine how your "the bundle" fascination would have been entirely different.
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.
Other related posts:
