[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:54:16 -0500
> On Dec 20, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Regards
> Craig
> > 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.
Sorry Bert, I have no reason to lie to you.
The set I used back in the '80s had a switch that selected between antenna and
cable 1 or 2, and buttons to add/delete channels during programming. We still
have 2 NTSC TVs, both connected to analog cable. A Sony from the late '80s is a
bit moe intelligent. When you go into the setup menu there is an auto setup
mode. It determines if the set is connected to an antenna or cable and programs
accordingly. I have a small 13" Mitsubishi which does the same. And my new LG
LED HDTV ALSO has an auto setup mode that detects whether the set is connected
to an antenna or cable - the on screen graphic shows an antenna.
> 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.
They got Congress to give them retrans consent, then used it to take control of
90% of the content on these monopolistic pipes. The only significant change to
the TV landscape is that new content congloms -Time Warner and Viacom - were
created around the cable networks they created. In 2005 Viacom spun out CBS,
but Sumner Redstone still holds a controlling interest in both Viacom and CBS.
Disney bought Cap Cities ABC in 1995, which brought A&E Networks and ESPN into
the Disney conglom. More recently Comcast bought NBC Universal. Time Warner is
the only conglom that does not own a "major" broadcast network, although they
do own Turner Broadcasting and the CW TV network.
> 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.
So you say. Let me know when any of this happens. For now the content congloms
continue to protect the extended basic bundle, even as they experiment with
secondary OTT distribution.
> 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.
No Bert. The crux of the monopoly is the content congloms. They now sell the
content in the extended basic bundle to cable, DBS, and the first Virtual MVPD
Sony. They then sell this content to a wide range of secondary distribution
middlemen, and are starting to get into the SVOD business as well.
The distribution oligopoly includes cable and DBS companies, and the telcos.
Virtual MVPDs will rely upon cable and telco broadband, and in a few cities
Google Fiber and municipal fiber systems.
The fact that you choose to ignore is that the content conglomerates operate in
lock step, demanding essentially the same licensing terms from all of the MVPDs
that offer the extended basic bundle - none of them offer first access to this
content to the secondary middlemen, although the delay for secondary access can
be next day, if you are willing to pay a premium.
> 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.
So are you suggesting that the primary provider of high speed broadband in the
U.S. should be forced to divest this asset, or spin broadband out into a
separate company that cannot bundle TV services?
The point of the blog I linked to is that we are now seeing consolidation of
the content and distribution oligopolies.
Your only hope is that new money comes into the broadband services market to
provide real competition to the existing cable/telco oligopoly. If the FCC
decides to regulate broadband as a Title II service, it is highly unlikely that
new competitors will enter the market. Even if they do, the content owners will
still control most of what we watch, and will maintain their monopoly business
models.
> Give me numbers, Craig. Because essentially, you are wrong.
Sorry Bert, but current ISP networks are not up to the task. According to Bell
Labs there will be an 250% increase in bandwidth requirements by the end of
this decade. The linked report suggests that a major architectural change will
be required to enable the shift from mass viewing of multicasts (e.g. existing
MVPD streaming channels) to maw viewing of unicasts:
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers/Video_Shakes_Up_IP_Edge_EN_Whitepaper.pdf
> 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
The creation of new business models is certainly happening Bert. You would
expect this when a technology shift enables a fundamental change in the way
content is consumed. But this has nothing to do with he fact that the
conglomerates creating these new business models are also adapting these new
technologies to preserve the monopoly business model they are feasting upon
today. You seem to believe that this is an either/or decision point for the
content owners; that they must abandon the lucrative bundling model and sell
direct to consumers via new media "stores."
This is not going to happen Bert. Governments COULD end the monopolistic
business practices - the anti-trust laws do apply. But governments at all
levels are feasting off of the current business model as well. This strongly
suggests that the only fundamental change in the next decade will be to move
the content bundles to the Internet. This is already well underway with
authenticated TV Everywhere - instead of the time and channel program guide of
today there will be a channel guide with links to the TV Everywhere portals AND
third party OTT SVOD services like Netflix. Each channel will be able to create
their own front end, search and promotional engines.
But it will take most of the next decade to create the Internet infrastructure
to support this shift for the masses.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
