[opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:09:17 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> > I continue not to understand what this "protecting NTSC
> > franchise" means in the context of an NTSC shut-off date,
> No I am simply talking about the FACT that broadcasters are
> doing almost everything in their power to DELAY the date at
> which they must return the analog spectrum.
Which is not the same as saying that they are "only interested
in protecting their NTSC franchise." Broadcasters are clearly
interested in other aspects of this transition, such as in
gaining must carry for their (potential) DTT multicasts. It
seems obvious that broadcasters don't want to lose what
audience they have, be that OTA or on multichannel media.
That's their goal. Retaining NTSC as long as possible is only
*one* means to that end. The common denominator is so simple:
broadcasters lobby for whatever gets them easy access to as
many households as possible. Can hardly expect otherwise.
> [OTA users'] migration strategy:
>
> - Do they buy an expensive ATSC receiver/display? This could
> cost upwards of $500.
>
> - Do they buy an ATSC capable STB that they can use with their
> existing NTSC receiver? This could cost several hundred
> dollars per NTSC receiver that they want to keep working.
Make that less than $100 by 1/1/2007. Let's not exaggerate.
One would have to be a complete moron to hesitate to buy
a $100 or $200 STB, when the alternative is a subscription
fee almost certainly greater than $25/mo!
> - Do the hold out for a hand-out? Will the government step
> forward and spend tens of millions to provide, or subsidize
> STBs for this group?
The survey showed that most OTA users aren't that destitute.
> - Do they subscribe to a multichannel TV service?
For what reason? The cost of the dumb STB? Of course not.
If they want more choice, that's a separate discussion.
I agree that there are no major incentives yet. But as
broadcasters develop their multicast strategies and as good
DTT receivers at reasonable prices are introduced, the picture
will change substantially. If analog is shut off, you will see
a *major* incentive. And you have yet to prove the OTA audience
is getting smaller. At 18.9 percent, it is considerably larger
than you were saying it is. It could grow larger still, with
DTT, if the networks develop attractive multicast packages.
> What local broadcasters are MOST concerned about is that
> consumers might be able to access direct feeds from the
> networks. The reality is that MANY people are only interested
> in the Network prime time and sports content offered by local
> broadcasters; when it comes to local programming, they could
> care less.
> IMHO, if the DBS systems were allowed to deliver the
> broadcasts networks directly, bypassing local
> broadcasters, they would experience another major surge
> in subscribers.
Hold those thoughts!! Let's see if you follow this with a
consistent line of argument.
> It [media conglomeration] has everything to do with the
> DTV transition. Clearly, the big media conglomerates
> consider OTA broadcasters to be a "liability." They would
> love to end the current arrangement that allows local
> broadcasters to capture nearly half of the revenues
> generated - PRIMARILY - by the content that the networks
> provide to local broadcasters.
>
> The reality is that local broadcasters and the networks are
> on the opposite side of the table when it comes to advancing
> the DTV transition.
On the contrary, there are two realities here:
1. What you state above would be true EVEN WITHOUT a DTV
transition. Consolidation is orthogonal to the DTV
transition. And
2. What the network conglomerates want is exactly the same as
what the cable and DBS systems want. Direct access from
content source to viewers. So why does that surprise you?
> If the networks can continue to put financial pressure on
> their affiliates, and win more concessions in Washington on
> ownership caps, in time they will be able to take control of
> the entire broadcast infrastructure and use it to compete
> more effectively with cable and DBS.
Well, duh, Craig. The networks should want to be
uncompetitive? The networks are doing exactly the same
thing as their competition. They want to streamline their
operation. If it makes sense for DBS or cable to want to go
directly from the content provider to the viewer, the
same equation works for the OTA infrastruicture too.
You have already said that the viewing audience couldn't
care less about local stuff, didn't you? So if you were
consistent, you would agree that the networks have a point.
> > How do viewers get to pay ever more to watch free TV?
> For the portion of the audience that relies exclusively
> on OTA broadcasts, the conglomerates must share the
> revenues with local broadcasters.
Well, then, once again, you seem agreeing with the
networks. The solution to this rising costs dilemma must
be to eliminate the overhead. Is this what you're
saying?
Of course costs go up. When the actors of Friends ask for
$1.5M per episode, that's not big surprise. So the
networks are doing what you have already explained makes
sense: cut out the costs that provide little added value.
> One cannot look at the broadcast service in a vacuum. It
> is the interplay between the various forms of
> distribution that gives the conglomerates their power;
> and the ability to manipulate Washington to give them
> ever more economic power.
Their power of the conglomerates comes from providing
content that viewers actually WANT. As opposed to content
that viewers don't care about (as you explained above, on
local stuff).
The local OTA broadcast infrastructure and who owns it
SHOULD be a business decision for the networks. They can
benefit from having third parties provide this service to
them or not, depending on the agreements they are allowed
to make.
The influence Washington has on this, with the 35 or 39
percent national cap, can already be considered to be
very onerous against the networks. Does that same cap
also apply to cable? Why not?
Your arguments seem to be amazingly contradictory and
inconsistent.
> When my power returned after Frances, my best source
> of information was the Internet:
>
> Not my broken cable service;
>
> Not the two channels of OTA broadcasts I could receive;
>
> Not the DBS service that I could subscribe to.
Sounds like you need a better OTA TV infrastructure in
Gainesville.
When 9/11 and Isabel happened, by far our best source of
info was OTA TV and radio. Certainly not the Internet.
Cable went down during Isabel, for a large percentage of
their cusotmers.
> DBS service NEVER failed during the storm.
Local OTA service is certainly at its best choice in
these conditions, where local content DOES matter, and
where the multiple stations provide for necessary
redundancy. DBS is decent too, *if* it carries local
channels, and if the dishes stay aimed correctly.
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:
