[opendtv] Re: Wha' Happened to the FCC?
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:18:33 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> At 5:06 PM -0600 3/5/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>>
>>> Seems that the broadcasters have the advantage in terms of
>>> must carry/retrans consent.
>>
>> You have to update your assumptions, Craig. The assumption in what
>> you say that the "local broadcaster" is the sole source of some
>> really high quality content that all local MVPD outlets must have.
>> Instead, with the congloms changing the way they do business, that
>> assumption is becoming wrong. So the local broadcasters have to get
>> more buying power to compete, and that ain't going to be no mom and
>> pop operation.
>
>
> Uhhhh Bert. These are not assumptions; they are facts. We have a
> market based system and the Federal regulations require that cable and
> DBS systems protect local broadcasters; and additional regulations
> allow these broadcasters to ask for must carry or retransmission
> consent on cable systems and DBS. NOBODY can own a national footprint
> for OTA TV.
>
> And there is NOTHING to stop existing broadcasters from doing what
> Scripps Networks has done. That is, create national networks that can
> be delivered via infrastructures that DO provide a national footprint
> (although they must negotiate carriage with every individual system to
> gain this national footprint).
>
> And the Internet provides an INTERNATIONAL footprint.
>
> You are dreaming about a different world in which broadcasters (and/or
> station groups) collaborate to create high value content and
> distribute it via a national TV infrastructure that is not currently
> possible because the media conglomerates are in bed with the politicians.
>
> As you say, the mom and pop operations are at the mercy of the system.
> And the station groups have mostly missed the boat with respect to
> getting into the content business.
>
>>
>>> The MVPDs have the advantage in that they have the content that
>>> most people are watching - I'm not talking about the stuff that
>>> is available FOTA.
>>
>> Again, you have to update your assumptions. I'm past the point where
>> OTA stations transmit what you seem to assume they always have and
>> always will transmit. And by the way, OTA stations are also past that
>> point, although not past enough yet. They too can transmit at least
>> SOME of what you claim "most people are watching."
>
> Not bloody likely. We've already been through this. They cannot afford
> the content. Ads alone cannot support service that are ALSO getting
> subscriber fees. The only way to compete would be to charge for the
> signals as USDTV tried... and failed.
>
> Don;t you get it Bert - the media conglomerates have this tuff locked
> up...
>
> FOR NOW.
>
> OTA broadcasting is not going to change that.
>
> The ability to access (and pay for) only the content you want is going
> to change this, and that is going to happen via the Internet.
>
>
>>
>>> And they have the ability to collect subscriber fees and
>>> compete for local ad dollars.
>>
>> Oh, and you forgot the biggest advantage MVPDs have. The MVPDs also
>> have the advantage of paying for large fleets of trucks, salaries,
>> medical, retirement, vacation time, for substantial workforces in
>> every single market. No, not just news crews and the local talent.
>
> Advantage? This is overhead that the consumer must also pay for.
>
> It is the direct relationship with the customer that give cable and
> DBS their advantage.
>
>>
>>> Obviously if they chose to create a Freeview like system they
>>> would not be able to demand carriage and compensation from
>>> competitors.
>>
>> Not true. The American consumer is lavish enough that I'm convinced
>> most of them would continue to want MVPD service. It's just that the
>> equilibrium would shift some, as it MIGHT already be doing a little.
>> Depending whether the rules change, the OTA broadcasters may continue
>> to be the sole source for some of that network content, or not. I
>> don't know. With this FCC intent on demolishing FOTA TV, you just
>> can't tell what they'll do next to prop up MVPDs.
>
> You missed it again.
>
> If Broadcasters were to work together to create a Freeview-like system
> they would be in direct competition with cable and DBS. They WOULD NOT
> be able to demand carriage or retrans dollars. If they were lucky they
> might still get the competitors to carry them, if the high quality
> network content were not available directly from the conglomerates.
>
> In other words, they MIGHT be able to convince the politicians to let
> them build a Freeview system and be given the same access rights to
> content as cable and DBS. But it is unlikely that they would continue
> to have the same affiliate relationship with the networks. Not sure
> how they would sell enough ads to support it without subscriber fees
> though.
>
>
>>
>>> Please explain how a national footprint helps ANY local
>>> broadcaster or station group?
>>
>> That's obvious, Craig. The same way a supermarket can undercut a mom
>> and pop store. It's called buying power. "Local broadcaster" may be
>> nothing more than a local RF outlet of an OTA network.
>
> So how would you do this? Let the congloms own all of their affiliates
> and let existing broadcasters create new national networks?
>
> And these new networks would have buying power to compete with 6
> companies that own (and produce) 90% of everything we watch?
>
> Why did I not think of this. It's so simple...
>
> :-(
>
> Regards
> Craig
>
>
As you say the more popular (mostly network affiliate) broadcasters are
afraid of competing with cable because if they offend cable they
probably cannot get retrans consent dollars. But I wonder, what about
all the stations that have no prayer of getting cable to pay for them
anyway. These are all still shoved onto cable because of must-carry
rules but they don't have to worry much about losing cable as a customer
since that won't happen anyway.
Now these may be low budget stations that mostly cannot afford to
produce much expensive content and none of them would have the economy
of scale to spend as much producing content for a local audience as
someone else could for a national audience. But why don't they take
turns, sharing each others very prime content. If they all got together
they could figure out a way for some of them once in awhile to spend
some money and produce something of national interest. When that
happened they could get voted onto the island somehow and have all of
them show it, sharing the shows revenue a bit.
I know, very vague idea. Does anything like this occur now?
- Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
