[opendtv] Re: FW: Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:36:41 -0500
On Dec 17, 2014, at 7:04 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It's the classic case of supply and demand, Craig. The owners of valuable
> content want more money, and they show the middlemen how much their content
> is worth. Subtracting content is simply a way to "prove" to that middleman
> that their request was reasonable. If no one cared, Craig, you wouldn't see
> any protests.
Withholding something I am paying for is "supply and demand?"
Wow! It's extortion Bert.
Especially when it is content from a service that has agreed to provide its
content for FREE to operate an oligopoly in the public spectrum.
> Exactly as I had estimated. Which is why TV sets were sold with tuners set to
> cable frequencies by default.
You call "just getting started" an estimate. Lot's of wiggle room there!
And no TV is set to cable frequencies by default - if they default to anything
it is the off air RF antenna input. Most cable ready TVs required a programming
sequence to deal with the variations among cable systems, and to "delete"
unused channels.
>
>> Bottom line, the networks were losing their audience and wanted
>> in on the second revenue stream.
>
> Pure speculation.
FACT.
> It doesn't even matter whether the TV networks were losing audience (which
> you'd expect, given the greater choice on MVPD nets). Even if the TV networks
> were NOT losing audience, it wouldn't make sense for them to not ask for a
> subscription fee kickback, when far less popular channels were getting one.
Why does it make sense to demand payment for something you give away to a
significant portion of your viewers; something you agreed to offer for free?
Why does it make sense to demand payment for something that expands the reach
of your service to viewers that cannot get a good off-air signal?
The fact that channels you can ONLY ACCESS by subscribing to a MVPD service are
getting subscriber fees is part of the service Bert. The subscriber fee for HBO
is about $16/mo.
Obviously the broadcasters were able to get 2/3s of our elected representatives
to agree to change the rules and cut them in on the action. Remember, at the
time the 1992 Cable Act was passed, broadcasters were ALSO asking for a second
6 MHz channel to deliver HDTV.
> After all, consumers certainly did want continued carriage of those TV
> networks. It's not like they didn't matter. Remember what I said about a
> middleman creating an infinite revenue stream, from content owned by someone
> else?
Yes Bert, people wanted access to the Networks. You cannot infer that this
means they wanted to pay more for something they could get for free.
> No, Craig. I asked you to imagine how cable TV would have evolved, if the
> system from the start could support an essentially unlimited number of
> content sources, and were mandated to be device-neutral. And your response
> was that this was impossible. So I had to remind you that the Internet is
> just such a model.
If the spectrum were infinite we could have had an unlimited number of TV
stations. If spectrum on a cable was infinite we would all have unlimited TV
channels and gigabit broadband Bert.
The Internet is not infinite. It is a network of networks, some available to
the public, some private. It is a virtual marketplace with a huge variety of
devices that can connect to supply or request data. It requires infrastructure
to provide bits via the Internet, and real money to pay for many of those bits.
Money is not infinite.
> You do not need bundles and you do not need a monopolistic content
> gatekeeper, when you have such a model. So, now that the Internet IS
> available, it's not so hard to understand why this transition is occurring.
> That was my point.
The only transition we are seeing is more middlemen offering more content in
more ways. The most popular services like Netflix are ALSO paid walled gardens.
>
>> There is no NEED for monopolistic bundles Bert.
>
> There certainly was, Craig, with 1970s cable technology. We already discussed
> this more than once (or twice, or three times).
Sorry Bert, but early cable technology did not require a monopoly on the intent
it carried. If anything it was a far more open marketplace than exists today.
The limited capacity just made access more valuable. The problem in the early
days was the high cost of creating channels to fill these systems. Satellites
made this more affordable, along with the huge reduction in cost for the
equipment needed for network operations centers in the early '80s. The cable
industry funded most of the early cable networks until these new channels could
stand on their own.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
