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

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 10:55:18 -0400



Regards
Craig

On Oct 3, 2015, at 7:23 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

And once again, that is their right. Let me put it this way, Craig. If the
customers did not raise a huge stink when the TV network signals are blocked
from cable systems, then there would be no issue at all with retrans consent.
Instead, with low consumer demand, the TV networks would opt for "must
carry." What you continue to miss is that there's a lot of demand for TV
network carriage, by the subscribers.

Nobody argues that it is their right.

Prior to the 1992 Cable Act the broadcast networks "could" have cut the cord
with cable. In a true marketplace they could have refused to support cable,
promoted the use of antennas, and created a new DTV standard that would have
offered vastly improved reception and the capacity for more "channels."

But they chose to run to the politicians to give them the power to create a new
cable content oligopoly with a second revenue stream, and a DTV standard
designed to drive consumers to the MVPDs.

The series of NYTimes articles that Monty posted provide a good overview, and
solid support for most of the positions I have taken that you disagree with.

I wonder if they have been lurking on OpenDTV?

;-)

These articles noted two significant technology changes that fundamentally
transformed the television landscape:

1. Satellite distribution of TV network signals

2. The VCR, which launched time shifted viewing and the market for selling TV
and Movie library content.

These technologies opened the door for competition with the lucrative TV
broadcast oligopoly created by the politicians and regulated by the FCC.

With the growth of TV entertainment alternatives, consumer demand for MOST of
the broadcast network content DID decline precipitously. The retrans blackouts
are focused on a tiny sliver of broadcast content that is in high demand.

How much success has CBS enjoyed with All Access?

There is no compelling case to pay $6/mo for this service, ESPECIALLY since
the content CBS relies on in retrans consent battles - the NFL - is not
available.

We don't follow Marxist ideals here, Craig. We follow market forces. Arguing
that the TV networks were doing okay previously will get you nowhere.

Sadly, Bert, you are wrong again. The politicians, and the content oligopoly
they created, do follow the Marxist ideals, or if you prefer "Cronyn
Capitalist" ideals. Market forces are not working, although they are
influencing the behavior of the monopolists.

Interesting. I wonder under what circumstances that could be changed. I mean,
a cable system is probably not mandated to offer only MVPD service, right?
They can and do offer broadband and telephone only. So I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if something creative could be done wrt not carrying the local
broadcaster signals. My bet is, this would hurt more than help the cable
systems, so they have no interest in pursuing this route.

As you have proposed on multiple occasions, there is nothing preventing the
MVPDs from creating OTT services. Dish did it; Sling does not offer the
broadcast networks or local stations.

But the cabled MVPDs do have franchise agreements, contracts with content
owners, and local, State and FCC regulations they must obey. As the NYTimes
articles pointed out, the cabled MVPDs are doing just fine. 75% of your
cherished unmarried Millennials still subscribe to the bundle, and that
percentage increases when they have kids.

This is your mantra, Craig, which I've responded to many times. The lack of
competition is created by the non-competitive delivery pipes far more than by
the number of competing content owners.

Not just my opinion. It was strongly re-enforced in the NYTimes articles. We
are dealing with oligopolies, not a competitive marketplace.

There has been competition with distribution since the introduction of the VCR.
That competition keeps evolving with technology, yet the content oligopoly is
still firmly in control of its future.

I wrote:

The broadband pipe is just the newest way to sell your bits. It has always
been
about collusion. The Internet does nothing to fundamentally change this.

As long as my ISP is forbidden from blocking sites, I'm pretty happy with the
Internet part of the equation. No matter how you try to twist your words, you
have never been able to demonstrate that mandated-neutral ISPs end up being
no different from non-neutral MVPDs.

You are happy with the table scraps Bert. You choose NOT to pay for TV and put
up with the limitations.

Even you have noted that your buddy, Les Moonves, is starting to pull the
Internet rug out from under you. What you could once watch for free on CBS.com,
is now blocked, replaced by the promotional front end for CBS All Access.

Net neutrality only guarantees access. It is no different than the public
highways we use to get to the brick and mortar stores. At least for now the
content owners are in control: As your buddy Les said in the NYTimes article.


“The days of the 150-channel universe in the home, while not necessarily
over, are changing rapidly,” he continued. “There’s going to be people who
are going to be slicing it and dicing it in different ways.”

But what does all that slicing and dicing mean for consumers? There is more
television programming than ever, and far more choice of when and where to
watch it. But in a few years, if the cable bundle as it exists is coming
apart, will people who want to watch a variety of television actually pay
more or less?


The only significant change noted in this article is that the MVPDs may lose
control of the lucrative STB franchise as Apple, Sony, Google and Amazon
reinvent the front end to the TV.

It is worth noting that Congress told the FCC to open up the market for these
boxes in 1995. It only took 20 years for a glimmer of competition to emerge.

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