[opendtv] Re: Latest 5th Gen
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:29:21 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> 1. Must Carry, re-transmission consent, and local-into-local (SHIVA),
> are fundamentally tied to the NTSC franchise. These regulatory perks
> guarantee the survivability of the OTA franchise, while giving the
> media conglomerates a powerful tool to retain control of the ENTIRE
> television audience. In short, TV is the most lucrative public
> franchise ever granted by a government - it is hanging by a tenuous
> thread that cannot sustain another Supreme Court legal challenge.
>
> NTSC is " The Goose that lays the Golden Eggs."
The problem here is that it is not a "steady state". The media
conglomerates own all the national networks and those networks for the
most part do not rely on must carry. And owning the desirable content
those networks probably do not even have to have a local broadcaster to
effectively negotiate (re)transmission consent cable/DBS since they own
or hold the IP rights.
Thus each year the non-O&O stations become more marginalized under this
system. Every time a local contract comes up for negotiation it is
probably possible for the networks to squeeze a little harder since the
local station is in turn offering less value added. Eventually the
networks may find they do not have contracts for some localities and,
instead of broadcasting there, just set up local ad sales agents before
selling directly to the cable companies in that area.
Then one more local broadcaster is left living on must-carry to
distribute their reruns and infomercials.
For instance Jax no longer has a UPN affiliate, though instead of going
directly to cable it was picked up by Fox to broadcast much of the prime
time after hours.
Is there anything in place I've overlooked that will stop this process?
Where is the value added of the locals that will allow them to
bargain competitively with the nets in the future and not be bypassed?
And where is the incentive of the nets to even care about OTA? Isn't
Viacom now talking about separating broadcasting from content again?
Or are the locals mostly all going to become must-carry non-affiliates?
Do non-affiliates have a successful business model in this?
Do they just expect to get multiple must-carry, broadcast at 1 watt and
have the cable companies carry 6 infomercial channels each, with little
broadcaster overhead except ad sales? I don't think that is going to
happen, but maybe.
- Tom
> At 2:43 AM -0500 3/22/05, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>I still cannot comprehend the unreality of it all. It simply does not
>>make sense that this is happening in the US. How can we as a country act
>>this stupid? And it goes on. I have not been quiet about my attitude
>>toward LG and 8-VSB in talking to anyone there including those who
>>developed the 5th generation chip. I have told them we more than prefer
>>COFDM, we intensely dislike 8-VSB.
>
>
> What is so difficult to understand Bob?
>
> This really is SIMPLE.
>
> Terrestrail television broadcasting exists in the United States today
> for two reasons, neither of which have ANYTHING to do with technology:
>
> 1. Must Carry, re-transmission consent, and local-into-local (SHIVA),
> are fundamentally tied to the NTSC franchise. These regulatory perks
> guarantee the survivability of the OTA franchise, while giving the
> media conglomerates a powerful tool to retain control of the ENTIRE
> television audience. In short, TV is the most lucrative public
> franchise ever granted by a government - it is hanging by a tenuous
> thread that cannot sustain another Supreme Court legal challenge.
>
> NTSC is " The Goose that lays the Golden Eggs."
>
> 2. Poliitical control. The NTSC franchise is the most powerful
> political tool ever conceived by our elected representatives. While
> it is financially lucrative for the franchisees, it is politically
> potent for for the politicians. It is the only Television service
> that reaches into nearly 100% of U.S. homes. It provides a powerful
> stage for political actors, who have used this stage to bring about
> radical changes in social mores and Federal government intervention
> into just about every aspect of governance that our Forefathers
> delegated to the States via the Constitution.
>
> The collusion between the politicians and their NTSC franchisees is
> unprecedented. Consider two current events:
>
> 1. The Baseball steroids scandal - when the big fish were testifying
> before Congress last week all of the national networks turned over
> the stage to the politicians for a bit of Grandstanding.
>
> 2. The Terri Schiavo case - this is an unprecedented intervention of
> the Federal Government in the affairs of the States.
>
> Without the National stage, would either of these issue have been
> raised to the current level of hyperbole by the politicians?
>
> Bert likes the idea that the TV franchise should be updated to
> reflect unspoken realities. We all know where the real power lies,
> with the National Networks, so why keep up the charade. Just
> eliminate localism, and let one set of voices speak for the Nation.
> Perhaps Bert has become infected with the "Inside the Beltway"
> mentality; the belief that an omnipotent National Government knows
> best what we need and is in the best position to take care of us.
>
> It is very difficult to conclude that the shift to a powerful
> centralized government, which our forefathers so feared, could have
> taken place in such a short period of time (about five decades),
> without the collusion of a powerful national media, under the control
> of Congress.
>
> The only conclusion that can be drawn with respect to the "politics"
> surrounding the ATSC standard, is that the so called "DTV Transition"
> is working perfectly. Replacing a system that protects the NTSC
> franchise with one that would actually allow TV broadcasting to
> become competitive again would be political suicide. Going the
> additional mile to make this system open to ALL content providers -
> without political gerrymandering - is unthinkable.
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
