[opendtv] Re: FCC's spectrum plan gives broadcasters food for thought
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:32:41 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Yes, in larger markets independents have been able to survive on
> a few table scraps, but few if any create any content; they simply
> survive on retreads and movies. Thanks to the proliferation of UHF
> channels the necessary infrastructure was in place to support the
> addition of the Fox Network and a bit later the CW and My Network
> TV. Fox managed to grow to rival the big three. The others have
> struggled at best.
You're talking recent history. I was saying that before the cable era, OTA
broadcasting was expanding. I agree that now, with cable, many channels that
WOULD have gone OTA just get on cable instead.
> The opportunity existed when the FCC opened the proceedings for
> what became the DTV transition to ask for the ability to compete
> with the rapidly growing Cable industry. Instead, the NAB and major
> broadcasters chose to tie up the spectrum with HD, rather than
> developing a new infrastructure that could have offered at least 30
> channels in every market including a few HD offerings.
You really have to change your mantra, Craig, in the face of realities. HD
turned out to be essential. And 30 channels are easy for just about any market.
The fact is, Florida is egregiously underserved by OTA, and you think that is
because of technical constraints. It's not. I think you are confusing political
people on the take with technical issues.
> Nobody is saying that broadcasters could compete with 500 channels
> and Internet access. But THEY COULD have countered the growth of
> cable by investing in new infrastructure and content.
Until DTV, OTA broadcasting was severely at a disadvantage. With DTV, they have
improved. They could be even better, but they have improved. The simple fact
continues to be that cable has gobs of spectrum that OTA cannot have. That's
beyond debate.
With DTV, I regularly use at least 6 more program streams than I had access to
with analog. That's me personally. In addition to the main networks, I do watch
This TV, Retro TV, France 24, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and Euro News. All
programming that was unavailable OTA before. So, this is without leveraging the
cable networks. Now the FCC wants to yank it away, going back to OTA the way it
was in 1950.
> Not false assumptions. There is adequate spectrum to use
> at least half of the available channels in every market.
> Geographically isolated markets could offer even more channels.
This is as doable with ATSC as it is with any other scheme, given that we have
single-market TV broadcasters here. You are completely wrong on this, Craig,
and have been for years.
> MVPDs rightfully are concerned about collecting subscriber
> fees for what is supposed to be a FREE OTA service.
Craig, the MVPDs can just drop the OTA networks that demand money. Those
networks that use retrans consent, DROP THEM and stop whining. See where that
gets you. This is business, Craig. I can charge whatever the market will bear.
The broadcasters don't have to give MVPDs charity.
> What the MVPDs are growing concerned about is that so much money
> is on the table now that it is becoming possible to offer
> economically attractive alternatives to cable. And when this
> happens, the content oligopoly can cut out almost all of the
> middlemen.
And good for them. I see no reason to become so partisan about this.
First of all, the "content oligopoly" would also be threatened, with the
dismantlement of walled gardens like the MVPDs. Because anyone can create
content over the Internet.
Secondly, I see no reason for rushing to the defense of the poor helpless MVPD
oligopolies, as opposed to the content oligopolies. If anything, the MVPD
oligopolies are far more capable of surviving, because they can morph into
broadband providers, and still deploy walled gardens along with that broadband
service. As the DC Circuit ruled. So honestly, I have never been able to
understand your arguments about this.
The bottom line is, FOTA broadcasting is no threat to MVPDs. The American
public is far, far too self-indulgent to go en masse to FOTA TV only. The
content oligopolies cannot threaten MVPDs either. MVPDs provide Internet
broadband, MVPDs are not being forced to let others use their infrastructure,
MVPDs can afford to create their own content, and with the self-indulgent
American consumer, MVPDs can go ahead and jack up their rates to whatever they
please. When 85 or more percent of households scramble to get hooked up and
addicted, what can any MVPD possibly have to worry about?
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:
