[opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:50:58 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Broadcasters may well be INTERESTED in gaining multicast
> carriage, but they ARE NOT entitled to such.
That's your opinion. The original purpose of the digital
transition, ca. 1991, was to fit HDTV within 6 MHz. After
1995, when SD and ED were incorporated, everything
changed. HD was not mandatory, and what broadcasters
could do with their bandwidth became an open question. As
you well know, the FCC left a lot open to innovation by
the broadcasters.
> broadcasters were VERY concerned that the FCC and/or
> Congress would decide to allocate only 2 MHz of spectrum
Which proves nothing. Just because the broadcasters
*worried* about something doesn't translate to them not
being *entitled* to their 6 MHz. They evidently are
entitled, or the 6 MHz would have been taken away.
> Retaining NTSC as long as possible protects broadcasters
> from additional competition,
Speculation. Maybe it also protects cable, DBS, and/or
incumbent cellular operators from competition. It all
depends on who these new users of the NTSC spetcrum
would be. But the obvious reason for retaining NTSC is to
retain their 18.9 percent AUDIENCE. The rest is just
speculation on your part.
> It's not going to happen. The royalties alone make this
> impossible, and new layers are still being added.
Again, your opinion. Motorola already claims $67 for ATSC
stand-alone STBs by 2007. Perhaps they know something
you're missing.
> You can call me a complete moron, but why the hell would
> I buy an ATSC receiver at ANY price, given the reality
> that I CHOOSE to subscribe to a multi-channel service?
> You seem to believe that anyone who choose to pay for
> improved programming choice is a MORON.
That's your choice. If OTA TV isn't enough for you, then
you have a choice. But to claim that someone would pick
a subscription service in order to avoid paying the $67
or even $200 for an STB is rubbish. That would be the
moron I was referring to.
> The point that I made yesterday, which you choose to
> ignore, is that many people are not going to change
> until some external stimulus forces the issue.
Didn't ignore anything. The stimuli I listed were better
OTA service than they get with NTSC, and even more, the
shutdown of NTSC. And I also mentioned availability of
high quality and low cost STBs, which are finally on the
way.
> It is possible that the media conglomerates could
> create differentiated networks for the broadcast
> multiplexes, however, it would be far too costly to
> fill them with original content.
Perhaps so. But these guys have loads of content to
choose from. And too, if this scheme proves successful,
added costs might be worth the investment. With DTT,
it's not like they have to fill dozens of channels.
Just maybe one to three more than the main channel.
How hard is that for them?
> The Networks ALREADY control 90% of Cable and DBS
> content, and a portion of the monthly subscriber
> fees. All that is left is to offer a more competitive
> multichannel package via OTA transmission so that
> they can collect the subscriber fees too. But to do
> this they need to get rid of local broadcast
> affiliates.
But you're missing something. It's not just the networks
that are unable to compete head to head with multichannel
systems. It's also folks like Sinclair.
According to FCC definitions, DBS companies can *each*
have a national "reach" of 100 percent. And they do.
Cable companies I don't know. You say maybe 30 percent
reach for AT&T? But that 30 percent reach is for hundreds
of channels, and there's not much to prevent them from
increasing that reach. Yet, Sinclair cannot exceed 39
percent, and they also have local restrictions to worry
about too. Correct? So how is that fair to OTA?
You favor a system with more regulation to fix this.
I don't think that's the only way given the way OTA
systems work. Because multiple OTA networks can coexist
in one location, ensuring lots of competition. But we
have been over this too many times. My only point was
that Washingotn's regs do *not* favor terrestrial
broadcasters to the extent you keep claiming.
> A small percentage of the audience still watches local
> programming - i.e. local news. The networks only care
> about profits.
As do the cable and DBS providers. And that means cutting
down on overhead, for all these systems. So if you rail
against one, then you must rail against the rest.
> No. The rising costs dilemma is a canard. It
> is simply a reflection of the HUGE amount of many
> that is being generated by entertainment television.
> Costs will rise in proportion to revenues.
And revenues rise in proportion to viewers willing
to pay.
New flash, Craig. These dollars are all perfectly fair
game. Do you watch sports? Yes? Is it an expense you
can avoid? Yes. Are you being coerced? No.
The demand creates the cash. People demanding expensive
cable packages for more sports are what is driving up
the price of these mercenaries. It's not the other way
around, as you seem to think. The huge DEMAND came
first, not the huge profits.
> Uhhhh. They could just say NO!
Indeed. So can you, but you don't.
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:
