[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:31:01 -0500
Craig wrote:
> I never had a set where the analog tuner was set to cable frequencies by
> default. That is at least four sets.
And I flat don't believe you. Although I do believe that you would not have
known whether they were set to cable frequencies or not.
> MSNBC and CNBC were created as part of this first use of retrans consent.
> Most
> of the others were acquired when Comcast bought NBC Universal. I could
> provide
> lists of the networks created by the other networks, like FX, ABC Family,
> ESPN,
> to name a few.
>
> What does this tell you Bert?
This, and your other examples, tells me that content owners knew they were
distributing this content over monopolistic pipes. Therefore, and I've
mentioned this many times already, they took advantage of the situation.
Now take the example where there is no single gatekeeper of content sources. In
that situation, the various content troves will go out of their way to offer
something more attractive that the other guy. So maybe at first just one
conglom will agree to a different formula, and he will gain more viewers than
the competition. Then others will follow. Very much what is happening now.
> You might want to read the rest of this blog Bert, as it lays out the
> history,
> AND it explains why the current wave of consolidation between the content and
> MVPD oligopolies is causing concern about the vertical integration issue
> again,
> especially as it relates to program access for OTT Internet competitors.
I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me of something that I already
know. The crux of the monopoly here, Craig, is still that cable. The fact that
the cable also owns some of the content just makes the situation worse, that's
all. Take away that non-neutral, proprietary,
not-enough-of-them-to-compete-effectively cable, and the problem vanishes.
> Sorry Bert, but there is nowhere near the capacity needed to support a major
> shift to Internet delivery of unicast streams to the masses.
Give me numbers, Craig. Because essentially, you are wrong. Although the really
funny thing, I was the one telling you this about 12 years ago, and at that
time, naturally, you didn't believe me. I told you then that it would take
about 10 more years at least. Isn't that the way it always goes with your
arguments?
> You can have an infinite number of
> people trying to compete - we agree on that. But you have a finite number of
> content suppliers who are regulated and required to sell their content on a
> non
> discriminatory basis to everyone...you can see where that got us.
Already addressed that. So here we go again: No government anything can prevent
content owners from creating new business models. None. If the government
forces non-discriminatory practices for doing things the ancient way, MVPDs, no
problem. The owners of content are the ones who see that decline is suckers,
Craig. All that matters is what THEY are doing. Recent example: FX.
Bert
Other related posts:
