[opendtv] Re: A competitive marketplace
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 01:32:35 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
I am not arguing from the point of view that everything will remain
static. I am simply saying that these shifts take time, and in the
end a large percentage will continue to pay for (V)MVPD bundles.
First, everything "takes time," so that banality can be avoided. Secondly, you
keep trying to prove yourself right by redefining MVPD. It doesn't work, Craig.
Yup. And it is likely we will see new VMVPD bundles that are more
attractive,
As you do here. Next thing you know, Netflix will creep into Craig's definition
of VMVPD.
But **not** as "restricted MVPDs." They are growing rapidly
as neutral-mandated Internet infrastructure service providers.
No they are growing as regulated geographic oligopolies,
Again, they are growing rapidly only because they sell neutral broadband
service. You are disingenuous to pretend otherwise, Craig. Their legacy
business is declining.
They can bundle multiple services under one bill;
If you feel overwhelmed by the number of monthly bills you pay over snail mail,
Craig, tired of having to go to the post office, we are already way beyond
where this. You can have your bills consolidated, for one, or you can have them
paid automatically. Sorry, but your argument is antedeluvian.
Neutrality is not relevant to this discussion; it is broadband and
can deliver anything.
Maybe that's why you continue to miss what's going on? Neutrality is totally
relevant. Neutrality means that other organizations, other than those who own
the wire connecting to your home, can sell TV content now. And neutrality also
means that those own the wire to your home can also sell TV content to other
homes that their wire doesn't connect to. Big sea change in what technology
allows, but totally dependent on a neutrality mandate.
There is no reason to believe that ANY MVPD can significantly
reduce the cost of MVPD service, as everyone is paying about
the same for the content.
Once again, as long as that pipe is a local monopoly, the owner of the pipe,
and the congloms whose content fills it up, can do whatever the heck they
please. This changes when the pipe's headend is no longer the only source of
content. I'm sure I've explained this a ton of times. ESPN agreed to unwall
itself, to go to an OTT site, for exactly this reason. So did HBO. Because
non-luddites were getting out of their grasp.
Legal restrictions and the contracts they have for the content.
More proof of Craig's circular arguments. Here's the way this went last time,
Craig. I said that MVPDs can now sell content outside their old walls. You
responded as you did just now. I responded by saying that contracts can be
rewritten any old time, as the situation changes. And you responded, "at least
you understand that things are changing."
Can we move beyond? You simply have to quit arguing in circles. It's a waste of
time.
What monopolists?
Viacom
Disney
Time Warner
Comcast (NBC Universal)
Twenty-First Century Fox
CBS
Amazing! Craig redefines MVPD, and he also redefines what monopoly means. Look
it up, Craig.
Sling is a "reduced fat" VMVPD bundle Bert.
You are simply wrong. Dish didn't even go to the FCC to ask any questions about
their new "VMVP" designation, they did not go to the FCC to whine about wanting
more content, and the FCC's definition will very likely include the need to
offer linear TV network content. So, sorry Craig. You are not convincing in the
least.
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:
