Craig Birkmaier wrote: > The economics simply do not add up for this when > the potential audience is only 15% of U.S. homes. Let them decide, Craig. You seem to relish in predicting failure. By the way, the audience is 18.9 percent, and could easily grow. Not to mention that the 18.9 percent does not include those 2nd and 3rd sets that just might get more usage with a good DTT scheme in place. > And one more thing. You keep talking about larger > audiences for the network. They already HAVE 90% of > the audience. You mean, for example, ABC already has 90 percent of the audience on a given week night? I don't think so. What I'm saying is that a network which intelligently designs its multicasts can increase its share of the viewership. It's another knob for the network to twist, to optimize its revenues. > > Some folk would much rather watch a rerun of an old > > Outer Limits show than any Monday Night Football, > > hands down. Why should a network, or a local > > broadcaster, prefer to disenfranchise these people? > > In major cities they can do this already. There are > typically 2-4 independent stations that do nothing but > counter-programming with old syndicated content. Which completely misses the point. Why should NBC happily let viewership go off to some other station? If they were to compete for these other eyeballs, they could increase their revenues at next to no cost to themselves. > If the broadcasters offer more choices in their OTA > multiplex the audience can only grow it two ways: > > 1. More people put up antennas and watch OTA shows; > 2. Existing OTA viewers spend more time watching TV. 3. Some people decide to move off cable or DBS, because now choice available OTA is adequate. 4. People watch TV in places where they don't have a cable feed, because the programming is interesting enough and the rabbit ears can pick up a good signal. 5. People who were previously spending time browsing the web spend less time at that and more time watching some obscure multicast program they have become fond of. And so on. People went to urban cable PRIMARILY because it offered much more choice. I'm baffled why it's so hard to accept that more choice OTA could equally draw more viewers. > It is a no brainer to understand why the media > conglomerates/networks are buying up cable networks. > They are buying back their audience. But that's just > the tip of the iceberg... Of course the networks want to buy the distribution media. But in any given location, you're always going to have more networks than cable systems. So it still makes sense for each network to care about its own OTA system too. > If the networks offer more choice to the OTA audience, > what benefit flows to them or their affiliates? More viewership means more ad revenues. 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.