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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:13:52 -0400

This is getting old. One last response...

On Oct 13, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The distribution pipe that the MVPDs do not need.

They do not need the pipe, but they do need the content.

So, as you see, you are still pretending that the broadcasters own the
content.

Give it up Bert.

The networks and syndicators own the content, and they use the broadcast pipe
to deliver it. Why?

Because the politicians and regulators protect that pipe and grant it
tremendous leverage over the MVPDs via retrans consent. End of story.


The FCC is talking about dropping the exclusivity rule? So, evidently, Tom
Wheeler also understands the true state of affairs. Besides which, aside from
sports, anyone with a broadband connection can get the TV network content
direct from the conglom site, even now. So this "power" you talk about
applies only for artificial reasons, and applies only to the linear streams
in MVPD nets.

Talk is cheap. And sports is the exclusive content that pays two-thirds of the
bills.

Let's see if Wheeler can get the rest of the FCC to drop the exclusivity rule,
and if it even matters if it is dropped. The real test is whether a MVPD will
be able to I,port a distant station to replace one that withholds it signal
during a retrans battle. I can virtually guarantee you that the networks won't
let that happen.

Where have you been, Craig? The congloms have been doing this for many years.
Maybe more than a decade. They don't need any "virtual MVPD" at all. They
also don't need any special hardware (unless you're talking about CDN
services). And what's more, all they have to do is say so, and they can
provide the live streams too, for free or for pay. All of these options
already exist.

None exist other than Sling and Sony Play Station Vue, which is currently
available in only seven markets.

So as I said, the price hikes, from the local monopoly, were a given.

Thank you for confirming that this is yet another case where the law of
unintended consequences was at work. This was a political gift to the
broadcasters, and assured that the content on the MVPDs would be under the
control of their friends in the content oligopoly.

What you claim is that the 1992 bill was to regulate the MVPDs, because they
had become local monopolies.

They were always local monopolies - they did not become that.

What they became was a competitor to the broadcast oligopoly, rather than a
service that extended the reach of broadcasters.

And what I respond is that regulation was required, since they had become a
local monopoly, but it didn't go nearly far enough. So I have no idea what
you're complaining about. If that bill had not been written, your rates would
have gone even higher. That's what happens with monopolies, Craig.

We were told that regulation was required because the cable industry was
behaving like the monopoly they were; terrible customer service and rate
increases that routinely exceeded the rate of inflation.

What the politicians were told - by the broadcast networks - was that they
could take control of the content if they were given retrans consent. This is
about controlling "the message." Having a few allies in the media to get that
message out.

End of thread!

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. 10-2015