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

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 01:43:57 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Sorry. The difference is that the broadcast industry in the UK chose
to compete with the MVPDs. As a result they have 50% of the market.

Apples and oranges. There is no pretense that the OTA transmitter organization
owns content, Craig, in the UK and the rest of Europe. Their equivalent of the
congloms are the industry. The transmission infrastructure is run separately.
So what you're really saying is that in the UK, the true owners/rights holders
of content agreed to put much of it on Freeview, whereas in the US, the owners
allowed only their main channels OTA (plus a lot of new subchannel content
providers), and their less popular but more numerous channels only in
monopolistic distribution media, on which they could collude ("take it or leave
it" bundles).

The local broadcast transmission systems had nothing to do with any of this,
other than transmit the content. Consequently, in the US, the OTA broadcasters
only had a "let's pretend" option of "competing with the MVPDs," as you claim.
So you're saying, in fact, "I am pretend-imagining that in the US, the local
broadcasters could have competed against the MVPDs." But I don't
"pretend-imagine" things, Craig. I prefer to tell it like it is.

As for your OTT competition, there is less choice.

Really, Craig? So, you think that online, you have access to fewer than 150-200
sources of TV content? Just wwitv.com alone gives you in the 1000s. The OTT
medium is far less restricted than the traditional MVPD media. The OTA medium,
one set up for low overhead costs, is more restricted than tradition MVPD media.

The broadcast networks could have worked with their affiliates
and independent stations to offer 30 or more channels FOTA;

Obviously, Craig, but why bother? They had well-trained people, such as
yourself, who were happy to spend higher and higher rates for their monopoly
pipe, with enforced bundles of channels. And worse, proud of it. But at least
you understand that this has nothing to do with broadcasters, and everything to
do with the congloms. "Broadcast networks" are not "broadcasters," Craig. You'd
be better off calling them "TV networks."

Here, take a look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_terrestrial_television_channels_(UK)

You'll see a lot of familiar US conglom channels on Freeview, Craig. Although
I'm sure they wish they had more well-trained pay-TV subscribers, over there.

Sorry, nothing has changed. The congloms are more profitable
than ever, and firmly in control.

And they are starting to compete over OTT sites too, e.g. CBS All Access and
Sling TV. No collusion, or far, far less collusion, Craig. Everything is
changing.

In 1992 most cable systems has about 30 channels.

I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, with analog TV (1992), even big
markets had way fewer than 30 channels. Cable allows use of adjacent channels,
taboo channels, and frequencies from adjacent markets, which OTA can't do.

Just words Bert. They had enough spectrum to do it 1992. They did
not need anything better than DVB-T.

So I repeat: I get more than 50 channels OTA now, with lots of HDTV in the mix
and still plenty of spare capacity. That's as good as Freeview. And even more,
in the UK, where the infrastructure is deployed to provide optimal coverage (as
opposed to insisting on "local broadcast stations"), two markets such a Balt
and Wash could have made better use of their allocated frequencies. So, ATSC
1.0 can easily provide as many channels as Freeview, if it wants to, and that
includes HDTV channels.

Actually they are already using the Internet to stay competitive
- it's called TV Everywhere.

You're still stuck in the past. Think more in terms of Sling TV. Not walled-in
local monopolies.

You've been telling us that more than half of all TV viewing
is over the Internet.

That's because you are so befuddled by numbers that you don't even read what I
write. I said that certainly more than 50% of all daily video consumption,
including all kinds, is over the Internet, yes. And on more than one occasion,
I showed you the numbers. Some of this video may not necessarily be called
"TV." Some of it is YouTube, for example. Actual TV viewing, as of earlier this
year, the number is over 30% through the Internet, easily.

In the US, the MAJORITY of TV content is already being watched
on demand, and whether you like it or not, the fraction of this
on demand viewing is rapidly going to online. If DVRs are still
used a lot, it's simply because THESE FACILITIES HAVE ALREADY
EXISTED. They are in place today. In time, rapidly, the trends
are too obvious to miss.

Sorry but you are wrong. I have provided numerous stats that say
more than half of all TV is viewed live,

Completely wrong, Craig, **again**. Whoa, Craig! Get this straight, will you?
*Less* than half is viewed live, as of some months ago. Once again:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/247581/time-shifted-tv-is-the-default.html

"The average viewer says that 47% of the TV shows they watch are live and 53%
are time-shifted."

http://petedeutschman.com/2015/01/27/linear-tv-dips-below-half-of-us-viewers/

"Less than half of online US adults now watch linear TV as Younger Boomers and
Generation X-ers adopt viewing habits previously associated with Millennials, a
new report has said. Forrester Research surveyed 3,166 adults aged 18 to 58 for
the Making Sense Of New Video Consumption report and found that only 46%
watched linear TV in a typical month."

Is there anything ambiguous about those words, Craig? Do you need more links
that say the same thing? I had predicted you'd be going around and around on
this, Craig. So I'll re-post these and other links, until it sinks in.

Sorry. Wrong again. A significant share of the audience likes to
watch the live premieres,

Is there something unclear about "because that's the way they are set up now,"
rather than because they prefer it this way? Do you really think that if people
had a choice, they would insist on sitting down in front of the set at exactly
9:00 PM, for that new show, instead of, say, 9:07 PM, 9:42 PM, or whenever they
finished the dinner dishes?

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