[opendtv] Re: FW: Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 02:49:48 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The simple fact is that all sets can tune go both, and
> this fature has been standard since some time in the '80s.
The simple fact was that in your hasty disagreement, you ended up being wrong.
TVs started to be sold with cable frequencies set by default at about the time
when ~50 percent of TV buyers had cable. So it's hardly surprising that around
that same time, the broadcasters, who were providing some of the highest values
content for those MVPDs, would get serious about being compensated like the
lesser channels on the MVPD. If anything, one wonders why it took that long.
>> Read my lips, Craig. In the US economy, the seller charges
>> whatever price the customer will bear.
>
> Not for FOTA TV.
We are *not* talking about FOTA TV, Craig. We are talking about MVPDs. The MVPD
can charge whatever the consumer will pay, and by extension, the content owners
can do likewise, for anything carried over the medium. If the content owner is
a conglom/associated broadcaster, nothing changes. You are using a private
medium, Craig, and a local monopoly to boot. (Just out of curiosity, how did
you not anticipate this state of affairs, back in 1980? I had.)
> Yes I am willing to pay the subscription fee because I value
> some of what I am paying for. Will this continue to be the
> case? That depends on how much they raise the price and if
> better alternatives become available.
And that's all that matters. So as long as you and other like-minded
subscribers exist, the MVPD has every right to raise its prices, and the owners
of content ditto. There is no call for "cable neutrality," so at least as of
now, with little competition, the only mechanism to control the price of cable
is cable cutting and cable shaving.
> And for now, limitations in broadband deployments limit the
> number of homes that can simultaneously watch content from
> the Internet.
That objection was one for 10-15 years ago, Craig. You're a little behind the
time. ISP nets have been increasing capacity steadily. So instead of vague
words, explain to us what the limit is, in your mind.
>> Sorry, Craig. Early cable technology was one-way broadcast,
>> single source to multiple destinations, purely frequency-
>> divided, analog tuners in the STBs, and only one
>> infrastructure in any given neighborhood.
>
> And what has this got to do with requiring a monopoly on
> content?
Once again, it should be obvious. One single funnel for all content, amount of
sources limited by bandwidth (because content was always broadcast). The MVPD
becomes the single gatekeeper, can set rates pretty much wherever they want,
and the owners of content can take advantage of that too. And Craig keeps
paying more.
As opposed to no single gatekeeper, any number of distributed content storage
sites available, if one subscription site crops up that asks too much, a dozen
others will emerge that charge less (or charge nothing), if one show costs the
consumer too much, a couple of dozen other shows of that same ilk can easily
emerge. Why do I have to explain this, Craig?
> The Internet does not invalidate the gatekeeper model. It
> is FULL of them.
That's pretty funny, Craig. If the Internet is crammed full of optional
gatekeepers, I guess that pretty much invalidates any thought of having a
single, monopolistic one, right? Or is this another one of those trivially
obvious points that has to be painfully debated for weeks and months?
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:
