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

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 01:27:18 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

ATSC 1.0 offers a freeview service too, call it whatever you like.

Actually, USDTV tried to offer a low cost multi-channel service

USDTV was not freeview. It was, instead, another subscription service.

Your ~50 channels is an illusion. You just happen to live between
several major markets; half of what you can receive duplicates the
other half, and most of the sub channels do not carry high value
content that even you are interested in.

You have very poor retention. I've already listed the channels, and how many
are local, and that number is still well above 30. And, again around and
around, you are mixing two different discussions. One is the technical
discussion, whether ATSC can provide this service or not, and the other is your
personal preferences discussion, which is utterly beside the point. Your ideas
about reception robustness have never moved beyond the state of the ATSC
reception art, ca. 2001. So those ideas are simply not valid.

You CHOOSE not to pay for the content

Just like users of Freeview. That's why it's called Freeview.

The point is that content, not technology drives this stuff.

Ah, okay, that's fine with me. I was responding only to your technology
questions. You need to be consistent with your threads.

The U.S. Broadcasters decided to punt on the technology

See what I mean? You're back on the other thread. You must be distracted. ATSC
does a decent job with our version of Freeview, and is gaining customers. The
biggest drawback now, IMO, and in the O of the millennials too no doubt, is its
limitation to linear streams.

We are awash in content today.

But not awash in competitive distribution options (well, many luddites are slow
at change, so the new options take some time to become adopted in a big way).
The article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/business/media/doubts-circle-viacom-vanguard-of-yesteryear.html?_r=0

makes that very specific point. The prices are driven down by this, not up.

Why watch a video juke box when you can access the music videos
you like on demand, and discover new stuff via your social
networks.

Yes, true. MTV was a perfect example of a linear "channel" used for something
that would have been much better distributed on demand. But that linear channel
was the only game in town, when MTV began. The same holds true for a huge
amount of TV content, and it especially holds true for the way the younger
generations expect to consume this content.

I can't count the number of times I have said that channels filled
with reruns are going to die, replaced by SVOD services.

I do have to trim your lengthy posts, Craig, so I tend to ignore comments that
I'm hoping to have addressed by other replies. But okay, since you keep
insisting on this one. "Filled with reruns" is NOT a differentiator. Linear
"channels" filled with **ANYTHING** that is best consumed not-by-appointment
are going to steadily become superfluous. That's why I keep ignoring this point
you insist on making. Aside from **some** sports, just about anything else is
best viewed when the consumer feels like it. Even the news, the very vast
majority of which is recorded anyway, even if delivered as a linear stream.

But ESPN is still a cash cow, and the rest of the content congloms
are building sports networks to compete with ESPN.

And that will put DOWNWARD pressure on the price people are willing to pay for
ESPN. That's the way the market works, Craig. Prices flatten or DROP with
competition. This is not a sign that the product is dying. It is, instead, the
natural regulatory mechanism our economy has, doing its job.

Why are Comcast and Time Warner running ads making fun of their
poor consumer satisfaction ratings? There is more than adequate
pressure on them to behave responsibly.

You're sounding so very naïve, Craig. The reason they run these ads is, now
that competition from Internet TV content exists, they have started to listen.
As opposed to ignoring their customers, because their customers had become
hopeless addicts anyway.

BUT, why do you not get that without a neutrality mandate, these same companies
would just as easily revert to their previous habits? They were starting to,
and they would have continued to. Your "trust me, this won't happen" sounds a
bit ridiculous. It happened for decades, and it was starting to all over again.

Thank you for agreeing that consumers DO have a say in this...

Customers have a say only when they have an option, Craig. Most customers cave
in easily when they aren't given a trivially easy option.

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