[opendtv] Re: The rationale for retrans consent from local broadcasters

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 00:42:16 +0000

Craig wrote:

This is mostly false. People bought cable because it could carry a
lot more "channels" than were available OTA, and extra sports and
movies were a major reason.

Did you read the next sentence?

You are repeating what I wrote.

Not quite. This is what your wrote, both paragraphs:

People bought cable because it was a superior medium. You did not
need tall outside antenna masts and antenna rotators, as I had to
use at the last two homes where I had no access to cable. And you
did not have to endure snow and noise.

So, to expand my original reply, a cabled medium is not "superior" to a
wireless medium, rather it's a tradeoff. Cabled systems cost more, they
introduce a single gatekeeper, they charge for service an ever-increasing fee
(because they can), they are less reliable/survivable. So it's a tradeoff. And
you exaggerated what the vast majority of households had to do to get the
signal.

Then you said:

As cable added more programming, people started to subscribe to
move beyond the limited content available from the broadcasters,
and to access content without the restrictions imposed by the FCC.

Which is sort of backwards. The majority bought cable FOR that extra
programming. That's why they chased after the cable trucks. The majority WERE
NOT previously connected to CATV, which then morphed into an MVPD. That's would
be a minority, in rural areas. The majority subscribed to MVPDs for the extra
channels. Or many times, because they were forced to, when building antenna
systems were usurped by the MVPD. This is when the distribution landscape
became non-competitive, and why people flocked to it anyway.

Cable was one of many options to OTA TV. People put up big
satellite dishes before DBS.

Let's not exaggerate. Aside from the video rental store, which did not carry
live sports, there were almost no options for the non-enthusiast or urban
dweller. But yes, expensive VCRs did become available right about the same time
as cable MVPDs. Late 1970s.

No Bert. By YOUR definition they [Netflix] were 100% dependent
on programs they licensed from the congloms. Now they are only
98% dependent.

Netflix and Hulu, more similar to very big Blockbuster stores, carry all manner
of content. Yes, perhaps a large amount is from the major US movie studios, but
hardly all of it. You get small productions too, not to mention many foreign
films. Netflix and Hulu, just like Blockbuster, were never 100% dependent on
congloms' content. The content aspect of the TV equation is far more
competitive than the distribution aspect used to be, Craig.

What I said is that the cost of all shows keeps going up,
because the talent pool is limited and your "competitors"
keep bidding up the price of the most popular content.

How is the talent pool limited? This is not how our economy works, Craig. With
more competition, you get more people able to play. They won't make as much
money, at least not at first, but they will bid down the price of productions,
not up. When you have an unwalled 2-way medium, this competition becomes
viable. Before that, any meaningful competition could (and was) easily be
locked out.

There is always a lot of yelling by people who are pushing
causes. The reality is that most of the perceived "abuses"
we're just technical provisioning issues, and the marketplace
figuring out how to charge the very real cost of highly
asymmetrical interconnections.

That's only part of "the reality." I showed you articles that explained other
"realities." The more simple truth is that as soon as the Internet had become a
credibly viable competitive medium for the traditional TV distribution pipes,
that's when the non-neutral behavior started to occur. And it's completely
logical that it would. Without any meaningful local competition for broadband
service, this was BOUND TO HAPPEN. The only way you (and they) can deny the
obvious, Craig, is to say "trust me, we won't let non-neutral behavior happen."
Uuuuh, right.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2015