[opendtv] Re: NAB, MSTV applaud FCC must-carry proposal for DTV transition

  • From: "johnwillkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:31:11 -0700

The g****m FCC hasn't even BEGUN a proceeding.  Why don't we wait to see IF
the FCC -- if a bill is signed by the President -- opens a proceeding?

To do otherwise is to engage in premature something or another.

Cable gets a premium for digital service -- today.  That is "charging more."

John Willkie

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Craig Birkmaier
Enviado el: Friday, August 03, 2007 7:32 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: NAB, MSTV applaud FCC must-carry proposal for DTV
transition

At 8:34 PM -0700 8/2/07, johnwillkie wrote:
>Here's where you are wrong: the FCC isn't proposing this, only one member
>responded when asked by a House panel that summoned them.  The FCC was
>against the idea, and that is your "fcc proposing legislation."

Maybe it would be best to wait and see what the FCC actually decides. 
But Martin has put the proposed dual carriage rules on the table...

It will not cost anything for cable to continue to offer analog 
versions of broadcast channels other than the extra spectrum they 
will occupy and the retransmission consent fees that the stations 
will charge. Perhaps the cable guys can use dual carriage to help 
offset these negotiated fees.

>
>Here's a hint: read first, then comment.
>
>More tomfoolery: yeah, dual carriage is a "problem" for cable companies,
>because they can only charge once for it.  Kind of funny that the real dual
>carriage problem -- broadcasters with dual illumination and no extra
revenue
>-- hasn't ever seemed a problem to you.

In theory cable cannot charge for either analog or digital carriage, 
but in practice, cable passes through all costs to the consumer. So 
the consumer will pay one way or another.

Broadcasters ASKED for DTV. They were frustrated in their original 
goal of getting 12 MHz of spectrum for an HDTV augmentation scheme, 
which would have resulted in a permanent dual transmission scenario. 
And they have frustrated everyone with their foot dragging on the 
transition, causing the 700 MHz auctions to be delayed by nearly a 
decade. If they were really concerned about that second power bill, 
they could have taken steps to accelerate the transition.

BUT THEY DID NOT.

The reason they have been dragging their feet is simple:

Retransmission Consent.

The industry is getting hundreds of millions in retrans consent fees; 
in a few years it will be billions as every station gets compensated 
by cable and DBS for their signals. Some how, I suspect that this is 
enough to cover those power bills.

>So, lil didn't supercharge satellite because it cut their churn rate by
>about 65%, it ONLY doubled their subscribership (during the same time,
cable
>subscribership dropped.)

I doubt that you can document the above statement, especially as it 
relates to churn rate. There is no question, however, that DBS did 
take a byte out of cable, once they had the ability to offer a 
comparable service that included the networks. I would only point out 
that this would ALSO have been true, IF they had been allowed to 
offer the east and west coast feeds to anyone that wanted the 
networks. Instead, they had to invest additional billions to deliver 
every local station in the U.S. It would not surprise me if this cost 
more than ALL broadcasters have spent on the DTV transition.

>
>Cable didn't notice much defection to satellite before lil.  Afterwards,
>they did.  Ask them if "supercharged" is too strong of a word.

DUH. As I stated in the previous message, the first marketing thrust 
for DBS was to provide multichannel services to those who cannot get 
cable. It took considerable additional investment to offer LIL so 
that they could compete for existing cable customers.

What supercharged cable was the ability to offer broadband, a service 
for which the DBS companies do not have the spectrum to compete. As a 
result, cable has only lost a small number of subscribers in total 
over the past decade. Where cable lost out to DBS was in the 
potential for additional growth. When you have >70% of a market, new 
growth is obviously more difficult.

>
>Once again, MUST CARRY/RETRANS isn't from the FCC, but from legislation.
It
>won't be overturned in your lifetime, unless broadcasters want it
>overturned.

What does this say about America.

The public is sucking the hind tit.

First come the interests of the politicians, who have become 
dependent on the television medium to maintain their power;

Second come the interests of the franchisees, who depend on the 
politicians to protect their oligopolies so they can charge far more 
than the service is worth;

Third come the interests of the content oligopolies who depend on the 
politicians to extend copyright well beyond its constitutional intent;

And at the bottom of the list come the consumers, who "own" the 
resource from which the political power flows, but ultimately pay 
through the nose for all of these government regulated
services.

Actually, broadcasters seem to be getting more comfortable with 
negotiated carriage. They could probably get by without retrans 
consent, but must carry is still important to all of the broadcasters 
that hardly anyone watches.

If a test case were to make it back to the Supreme Court today both 
must carry and retrans consent would be overturned. That is why an 
appropriate test case is so important.

Have you noticed that almost everything that the FCC tries to do in 
terms of granting more power to its franchisees is being overturned 
by appeals courts?  They are walking on eggshells, and it is becoming 
increasingly difficult to keep the house of cards from collapsing.

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: