[opendtv] Re: News: Independent Networks, ACA Speak Out Against Program Tying

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:49:48 -0400

At 7:37 PM -0400 6/8/08, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

Maybe you figured it out, then.
I've had this figured out for years Bert. The problem is getting you to understand they reasons we have this situation. 



The reason DBS doesn't change the picture is that DBS can't offer the
other services cable now offers, like telephone and broadband access.
And I doubt a lot of the public wants multiple cable companies tearing
up their neighborhoods at the drop of a hat.


What an absurd conclusion.

Why would anyone subscribe to DBS and pay nearly the same amount to get less?
The fact that cable can offer additional appealing services, and offer bundling discounts, should (and by the way does) allow the cable companies to maintain their market share, despite the fact that most consumer surveys show intense dissatisfaction with cable companies. But they hate the Telcos too.
The fact that the DBS systems DO NOT compete (very much) with cable on price should tell you something. In general they are only a buck or two cheaper for similar bundles. What it tells me is that they would have a huge problem dealing with the content providers, IF they decided to offer ala carte channel selections and pricing. None of us are privy to the contracts they have for content, but I can easily imagine clauses in every contract that prohibit offering individual channels on an ala carte basis.
DBS could grab a much larger share of the market if they did offer ala carte, and the ability to save $20 -$30 per month over extended basic cable.
But that has not happened, and the reason is that they too are part of a marketplace that operates as an oligopoly, not as a free market. 



WiMAX, which is nothing but a warmed over MMDS service, could possibly
increase competition here, although for whatever reason, it did not
succeed at all in the past.
This would not be competition at all for multi-channel TV. It would, however, provide the ability to BYPASS the multi-channel systems, using a completely different business model. 


If Congress wanted this to happen, it would be as a result of their
constituents screaming for it. And then Congress would have the FCC draw
up the rules, just as the FCC does with any other comms-related activity
(like the telcos).
You mean that all I need to do is scream about our ridiculous tax system and they will stop playing Robin Hood? All I need to do is point out that the whole Global warming thing is a huge hoax and they will stop trying to convince us that CO2 is a pollutant?
Come on Bert. You are right, the Congress does listen to it's constituents...the ones who lobby for special advantages and will pay more than $3 billion for this election cycle.
By the way Bert. Congress DID respond to the public outcries about increases in cable rates that were outpacing the rate of inflation every year. That was the stated justification for the 1992 cable act. And under the guise of helping the consumer, they instead helped the broadcasters and media conglomerates use the cable industry to increase their profits with the net result that cable rates continued to increase, but at a higher rate than before this legislation.
The reality Bert, is that government regulation almost NEVER makes prices lower. It almost always increases the cost to the consumer, by protecting the incumbent industry that is seeking to be regulated. 



So however you slice it, Craig, what you want to force down everyone's
throat would include FCC regulation.
Not likely, since the first thing I would do would be to shutter the FCC and let the marketplace determine the value of our public spectrum resources. 




 So the real issue is that there are many more people driving
 many more cars, not the mileage that those cars get, which
 has been increasing over the same time period. In 1980 the
 average mileage for all passenger vehicles was 13.3 mpg; in
 2004 it was 17.1 mpg - and this includes all of those gas

 > guzzling SUVs.

Car and Driver's figures were different. However, be that as it may, the
average fuel economy imposed on cars has been 27.5 mpg for a long time,
so a figure of 17.1 now is ludicrous.


Really.

You have no credibility at all Bert.
But this does serve as a perfect example of how the government works. Manufacturers are allowed to post mileage figures on new vehicles that are unrealistic. Congress passes a goal in 1985 to get a CAFE of 27.5 MPG but refuses to force the DOT to raise the CAFe requirements on light trucks. And consumers buy what they want, not the most fuel efficient vehicles in the fleets. So the goal is 27.5, but the reality is 17.1. 

And the goal of the great society was to eliminate poverty in our lifetimes.

Oh well...



Point being, failing govt regulation, the public vote with their
wallets. And the public has voted for ridiculous waste in energy, as
they have voted for bundling of programs in their favorite MVPD.


What is ridiculous waste Bert? Do you drive a 40 MPG econo-box?
We are producers and consumers. When we produce and get paid we choose how to spend what the government allows us to keep. The marketplace determines the cost of energy. We make our buying decisions based on the cost of the products and the cost to operate them. Energy has been CHEAP. Now we are starting to pay more because global demand has increased, production has remained stagnant, and the politicians are running around telling us that the sky is falling and we are all going to burn in hellfire if we do not embrace the new religion of environmentalism.
Apparently the marketplace is working for automotive sales. SUVs are no longer in such high demand. That's how markets work. 



You seem to think that allowing more drilling off our coasts would be
the answer. Maybe you also think that allowing multiple cable companies
access to every neighborhood would also be the best answer.
Developing our own energy resources is VERY important. This implies off-shore drilling (if we don't others will, as Cuba is doing now just off the Florida coast). This implies using the abundant oil shale resources we have in the western states. This implies opening up Anwar. And it implies putting nuclear energy on a fast track. 

Why nuclear?
The simple fact is that transportation only accounts for 25% of the total energy needs for the U.S. Residential homes account for one fifth of U.S. energy needs.
IF atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a problem, then it would seem responsible to do something about CO2 emissions. Nuclear energy does not create significant CO2 emissions, and future "clean" vehicle fuel sources such as hydrogen will require a great deal of energy to produce.
So we either need to be sensible and use the best available technology to produce energy for our home and vehicles, or admit that it does not really matter. Telling the most advanced industrialized nations that they must control CO2 emission or pay huge penalties, while emerging economies like China and India are give an pass suggests that we do not have an environment crisis on our hands, but rather a political crisis of global proportions. 

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2008