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

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:50:22 +0000

Craig wrote:

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. ... 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.

Then, I must not watch any prime time TV, according to what you say. Read what
I wrote, Craig. The congloms have been putting their content on the Internet
for years and years, with no virtual MVPD involved, nor any retrans consent,
and they can opt to provide live streams too, if they want to. Live streams on
the Internet are available from many TV sources, with no VMVPD in the mix, even
if not US TV networks. All of this is possible today.

BTW, Sling TV does not carry the main TV networks.

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.

We've been around this circle already, Craig, and you are merely creating one
of your usual conspiracy theories. It is precisely as I wrote. Take a look at
this again:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/1439.pdf

The FCC wrote this bill because the cable companies, which had only been around
for just over 10 years, were doing what monopolists always do. The link is a
scan, but you can see the motivation clearly stated right in the beginning. In
short, cable had been deregulated in 97% of franchises, since 1986, and
consequently basic cable rates increased rapidly. Just read those introductory
paragraphs. The 1992 bill was written for those reasons, and since I noticed
this going on many years before, it makes sense to me.

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.

Provide proof.

Besides which, the idea of retrans consent makes perfect sense, like I already
said, because cable customers were demanding the broadcasters' signals, and the
cable companies were charging monthly fees. You don't need to fabricate a
conspiracy theory to explain that, Craig. Aereo went under for exactly that
reason. Aereo was charging monythly fees, and the OTA broadcaters weren't
getting a piece of that action.

Are you going to gin up a conspiracy theory for Aereo going under?

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.

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

Other related posts: