[opendtv] Re: =?windows-1252?Q?NCTA:_“Netflix_is_beating_cable”?Message-Id: <4BCFB0CA-F390-4144-A4C1-F50BF3F230AC@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:24:19 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> So do you pay for a Netflix subscription?
No why should I? I thought I said on here on numerous occasions that I can get
more TV content than I'm able to consume already.
>> Same answer as above. Producing content is not the issue.
>
> Really? If you can ONLY get a program from one source, for which you
> need a paid subscription, does this not make the source a walled
> garden by your definition?
Not at all. If I can go for similar (or sometimes even identical) content
anywhere else, it can't be called "walled." I wouldn't call a store that sells
Rolex watches to be a walled garden, even if it was the only store in the world
that sold Rolex watches. You can find a zillion watches in a zillion stores. No
one is limiting you. MVPDs, instead, do limit you, at least in their
non-Internet bandwidth.
> So you are OK with data caps and throttling of download speed when a
> cap is reached?
I'm not okay with that, so I choose a service that does not do that. If this
does become an issue, as it tends to be with WISPs, then that would definitely
make me look to another WISP. Or some other solution.
>> The common thread is that these components of the infrastructure,
>> which CANNOT compete adequately, have to be regulated.
>
> AND THEY ARE!
Really? Oh, so the rates MVPDs charge are regulated? Can you give me an
example of any other utility whose rates are NOT regulated? The connections and
protocols MVPDs provide are regulated? So, for example, there is a standard
"MVPD socket" that every TV appliance must be compatible with? If it wasn't for
their Internet modems providing IETF-standard protocols to Internet appliances,
the MVPDs have been making a point of making everything as incompatible as
possible.
> You cannot access the most valuable content offered by the media
> conglomerates via the Internet.
Cannot YET, as soon as it airs, perhaps. Lucky for me, I place very low "value"
on that content anyway. More to the point, like I already suggested many times,
the trend is going to be away from that. Because the congloms, which own the
content, will soon see that this old model limits them. MVPD bundles limit what
an individual conglom COULD be doing. No excuse any longer to have to worry
about bundles including OTHER congloms' content.
> If the media congloms wanted to control their own destiny, why did
> they not build a digital infrastructure that could compete with
> cable (and later DBS),
It's kind of obvious, Craig. In 1970, when a lot of this cable stuff was being
designed, the problem was inadequate OTA RF bandwidth. For those analog
channels. You got some 6-12 channels OTA, and cable, with its isolated
right-of-way, could offer well over 100. DBS, later, used frequencies not
available to OTA. It was simply impractical for each conglom to lay its own
cable system, in 1970.
Of course, this also allowed greed to take over, because TV viewers showed
rather inelastic demand for those extra channels. So the congloms got comfy
with their dual revenue streams and kept jacking up their rates. I quickly saw
this happening, so I felt absolutely no urge to become shackled. But now, the
Internet will change all of that. More choice than even MVPDs, unwalled, and
producers unable to get into the walled gardens now have a distribution pipe.
> Why do the congloms still use FOTA distribution? Because they can
> collect subscriber fees for this service from 100 million American
> homes.
You're stuck on old business models. A lot of businesses made changes to
exploit the Internet to their advantage, Craig. And some missed the boat, such
as Blockbuster, by not jumping in with both feet at the start.
>> Plus, if the congloms really wanted to increase their market
>> share, they would only have to allow overseas reception, using ads
>> that work in each foreign market.
> Why would they do this when they can sell these programs into
> foreign markets, make a nice profit, and let the "local"
> distribution infrastructure deal with selling ads in that
> country/market.
Simple. You cut out a middleman who provides no added value, you can expect to
make more money. In this case, that would apply perhaps only to the English
version of the TV program, directly provided online from CBS, ABC, etc. The
congloms might still want the programs dubbed into the other languages, so that
part would still require local input. All I'm saying is, as MVPD walled gardens
lose their grip, the congloms can expect to make more, not less.
> I would suggest that you start a social welfare organization;
> apply for a 501-4c and tell the IRS that you are going to help
> educate the public about how they are being screwed by the media
> conglomerates and the MVPD conglomerates.
No need. The public can and is starting to learn on their own, for one, and
even with the status quo, the congloms are providing a lot of good stuff
anyway. So, I don’t need soap box.
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.
Other related posts:
