Craig Wrote: > The problems with the U.S. DTV transition ARE NOT technical. They are > political and economic Political/economic interests impact most business to some extent, especially when conducting government regulated enterprise. This doesn't mean that other significant circumstances are not in play - which they clearly are in the DTV transition. One can as easily make the argument that CE members are partially responsible for the current DTV malaise due to the these companies continuing to push non DTV product and poorly functioning DTV product, while failing to advise customers of such products near term obsolescence or it's known operational deficiencies. To some extent this is understandable since the companies might have suffered significant loss of sales had they done so. This being the case, is it reasonable to demand that broadcasters do more than they've currently done* to hasten the DTV transition when faced with a crippling business loss for doing so? * = Broadcasters invested many $ millions constructing and operating DTV facilities even though there was no near term hope of a consumer demand for this service and where reception was clearly problematic. Should reception and other problems have been resolved, there was still no way of gaining the needed ratings attribution for those homes viewing DTV services, which is critical to the broadcasters sales effort (it is a business after all). Fortunately such dynamics are improving, which will speed the transition based upon a more reasonable deadline. >>You do write a monthly article for Broadcast Engineering magazine, which >>is >>CEA advertising supported . > > Really? I was likely incorrect when suggesting that you're strident anti broadcast position is due to a CEA bias on your part. After all of these years I should know to never to attribute such actions to skullduggery when a simple ignorance of the fact is a more likely possibility. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx> To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 6:07 AM Subject: [opendtv] Re: Wright Issues Call To Copyright Action > At 9:30 AM -0700 10/30/04, Dale Kelly wrote: >>My mistake was in using the word "employed", you are clearly a consultant. >>Does such a title somehow anoint you to be an objective observer? > > I guess that depends on how a person actually uses their role as a > consultant, and the track record they have established over the years > in terms of objectivity. > >>You do write a monthly article for Broadcast Engineering magazine, which >>is >>CEA advertising supported . > > Really? > > Yest there are a number of advertisers that ALSO have CE divisions, > but frankly, any CE company is wasting their money if they think they > are going to reach consumers of CE products via Broadcast > Engineering. And I have absolutely no connection to the advertising > side of the business. The ONLY "influence" I get are the press > releases sent to me directly, or forwarded to me by the magazine's > editors. We publish an editorial calendar every year, and many PR > firms (and manufacturers) try to make suggestions about including > their products in any given topic. Anyone who reads my columns know > that I am not a shill for any manufacturer or product. > > As far as any relationship or favoritism for the CE industry or the > CEA, I'd suggest you look at what I have written over the years. > Let's just say that my relationship with the CEA has been luke warm > at best over the years. > > It is true that my opinions about the copyright issue tend to be > closer to those of the CEA than the mass media conglomerates. This > should not come as any surprise. The CE business is strongly affected > by copyright law; the CEA has been quite adamant about protecting > Fair Use rights. > > If you look at my work in this area, you will not find much if any > "promotion" of the CEA or their views. I have been consistent in my > belief that our copyright and patent laws have been abused by the > special interests who help finance two billion dollar election > cycles, like the one we are in at the moment. I have been consistent > in my contentions that it is completely unwarranted and unnecessary > to implement the content management restrictions that the media > moguls are lobbying for. I have been consistent in my contentions > that the current perceived problems with piracy are the public's > reaction to the way they have been abused by the content oligopoly. > > But MOST IMPORTANT, I have been consistent in my opinions that there > are simple technical solutions to these problems. But more important, > rampant piracy is a strong indication that the marketplace is NOT > working; that the special interests are trying to exact unwarranted > premiums for content, and bundling stuff that consumers do not want > with the stuff they do want. > > There is ample evidence that consumers will pay a fair price for > content. It is after all a huge business where consumers spend > hundred of billions annually in the U.S. alone. There are examples > all over the place of successful new products with relatively > painless content management restrictions. DVDs have been a huge > success, in large measure because of aggressive pricing by many > distributors. Apple's iTunes demonstrates that it is quite feasible > to SELL music online at reasonable prices, without the bundling that > makes CDs ridiculously expensive. > >>Your published and posted opinions on broadcast >>issues has significantly changed to the negative over the last couple of >>years and now seems to echo that of the CEA, even in your increased use of >>hyperbole. > > Obviously, you only seem to be familiar with my recent work. I have > only been writing for BE for the past three years. Prior to that I > wrote for Videography and Digital TV (aka Television Broadcast). IF > you would like, I can send you at least two dozen articles that are > critical of broadcasters and the U.S. DTV transition since 1990. Or I > could send you some of the comments I filed with the FCC in the > Advanced Television process. I HAVE been working on this problem > since 1992. > > There is no hyperbole in the reality that the US DTV transition > is NOT working, at least with respect to OTA broadcasting. ON the > other hand there is MUCH hyperbole about the notion that DTV > broadcasting is about to turn a corner in the U.S., thanks in part to > the arrival of receivers that work. > > The problems with the U.S. DTV transition ARE NOT technical. They are > political and economic, based in the reality that broadcasters have > been used to assemble and maintain the media oligopoly that is now > being exposed as the political propaganda machine that it is. Some > consumers are even beginning to understand that the perceived > animosity between cable, DBS and broadcasters is just a smoke screen > to prop up a failing business model that forces most Americans to pay > an unwarranted premium for bundles of programming that they do not > watch and should not have to pay for. > > In short, there is no marketplace for mass media content, it is a > tightly controlled oligopoly. And the Consitituional notion of a > public commons for intellectual property has been turned on its head, > thanks to the political and economic power wielded by the media > moguls, who seek to have total control over the distribution of high > value content. > > > 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. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.