[opendtv] Re: Fewer than 2 Million have OTA DTV in US

If you've never subscribed to cable in your life, how do you know what
people complain to cable systems about?

Here's what people complain to cable about: when the cable goes out, or a
"big game" or event is interrupted, or when the channels are re-tiered and
favorite content is moved to a different (more expensive) tier, or when they
otherwise lose a source of programming they had become accustomed to.  Of
course, if they have a cable/telephone bundle, and assuming no phone back-up
systems, they don't complain to the cable company when their cable and phone
goes out.  When it comes back on, they are usually happy.

They don't complain much about missing programming they've never seen.

John Willkie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Albert Manfredi
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 12:09 PM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: Fewer than 2 Million have OTA DTV in US
> 
> Tom Barry wrote:
> 
> >The numbers I'd like to know have more to do with what is the value
> >added of a local channel? Do people really want local channels because
> >they are local? Or do they just associate the more popular local
> >channels with the network channels?
> >
> >The national network content obviously has a vastly greater economy
> >of scale and basically can have a lot more money invested in it based
> >upon the expected number of viewers.
> 
> I don't think there's much question on this. What people holler about to
> their local cable systems is when the local system refuses to carry the
> major network content, for whatever reason. It' loss of prime time content
> people get upset about, not the local ads from the used car dealership
> downtown. Not the insipid infomercials that broadcasters love to transmit
> off prime time.
> 
> I'd expect a local source of weather and occassional news would satisfy
> most
> people.
> 
> But this doesn't change anything about the viability of DTT. A viable DTT
> system does not depend on "localism" at all, as abundantly made obvious in
> Europe. It does depend on offering a "wide enough" variety of content,
> though. *If* it's true that people are abandoning OTA TV and going to
> cable
> or DBS, the oh-so-obvious solution to that is to use DTT's new features to
> make it more attractive than OTA analog is and was.
> 
> Assuming, that is, that broadcasters have any interest in doing so. It's
> equally obvious to me that if broadcasters prefer to get people addicted
> to
> umbillical services, no one and nothing will stem the erosion of OTA TV.
> I'm
> actually lucky to have two Sinclair stations within reach, since they seem
> to be about the only ones using their hours productively.
> 
> I'm often amazed that OTA TV is as successful as it is. I'm always amazed
> when my friends explain how they use OTA TV, without having anyone shove
> it
> down their throats as other TV media do.
> 
> Bert
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series.  Who will win?
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://d
> avevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: