[opendtv] Re: ATSC STBs
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:46:45 -0500
At 6:49 PM -0500 2/23/06, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>The question remains, WHY the drought?
>
>If someone would make a good ATSC DVDR or PVR available for less than
>$1000, that would be nice. Analog DVDRs are going for spit these days.
>Adding a recent vintage ATSC tuner would make a really attractive STB,
>IMO. What's the matter with these companies?
One more time. Maybe it will finally sink in...
There is only a very tiny market for these products, and there are
significant risks involved with the sale of these products. Bert
seems to be focused on the CE vendors as the source of the drought,
however, it is the CE retailers who are primarily responsible for the
drought.
The market is limited because of the fact that broadcasters and
consumers rely upon multi-channel distribution systems for the
delivery of TV today. We can argue for several more years about how
many people still rely upon OTA reception of TV, but there are two
facts here that cannot be ignored:
1. The number is small - perhaps in the range of 15-20% of U.S. homes.
2. The demographics of this group tend to be low income homes that
cannot afford a multi-channel service, or homes that simply do not
care about TV. The tiny niche of homes like Bert's is not sufficient
to sustain a market.
But this is just one of the major issues that are keeping ATSC STBs
off the shelves of CE retailers. The larger issues for retailers are
inventory costs and returns.
It is not profitable to keep products in inventory that have very low
demand, especially when there are alternatives like integrated
receivers and STBs for the multi-channel services. Returns are a REAL
KILLER. This costs the retailer money.
There is no way for a retailer to know how difficult it will be to
establish service for any potential customer. We have had endless
discussions about the services that try to predict reception. Who can
fault a retailer from steering consumers away from a product that may
produce more headaches than revenues? The number of potential
customers like Bert and Doug, is just not worth the hassle.
At 7:03 PM -0500 2/23/06, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>That's just what makes this so frustrating. Why should a CE vendor care?
>They should only care about selling products, in competition with the
>other CE vendor.
>
>If they either:
>
>1. Keep a product off the market for a reason that only matters to the
>broadcasters (preventing rushing through ads), or
Would you buy a car dealership for a brand that has never been sold
in the U.S., with the manufacturer telling you that they will provide
no promotional support:
That they will not promote the product?
That they will not provide co-op funds for promotion?
That they will not provide technical support for the product?
And it's not just the broadcasters Bert...the public( in the U.S.)
largely gave up on OTA broadcasting two decades ago.
>
>2. Keep a product off the market to favor the umbillical services (make
>it impossible, incovenient, or expensive to receive DTT),
The umbillical service DO offer support to CE retailers, including
spiffs and royalty revenues.
As we have proven here many times, it IS possible to find receivers
and to establish OTA service, if you are willing to deal with the
limitations and the need for proper antennas and placement. This is
not an effort to make it impossible or inconvenient to receive DTT -
that problem rests entirely upon the shoulders of the broadcasters
and the vendors to whom they abdicated the responsibility for the
creation of a viable standard.
>then the only thing anyone can conclude is that there is collusion going
>on. If so, where are our safeguards? Anti-trust?
Yes, Bert, there is collusion going on. The problem is that the trust
that needs to be broken up includes the FCC, Congress, local
governments (that collect franchise fees) and the content
conglomerates that they are protecting. The CE vendors are simply
playing the game according to the rules that prevail today.
>
>That's why I laugh when people try to make the FCC the bad guy here. If
>it weren't for the FCC, we wouldn't even have the integrated TVs to buy.
The FCC is in large part responsible for this mess, although COngress
is equally culpable. They gave the keys to the hen house to the
foxes.
It should tell you something that even with FCC regulations, only a
small percentage of the displays being sold today include integrated
receivers.
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:
