[opendtv] Re: All HBO Shows Are Leaving Amazon Prime in 2018
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:50:44 -0400
On May 9, 2017, at 10:00 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Exactly, Craig. What's new? What's new is that only the Internet
made this possible. What's new is that OTT sites in potentially
large quantities can now compete, to sell TV content bundles
that people really want. *And* they can compete everywhere. That's
what's new. And yet, you're still stuck talking about "lynchpin of
[legacy] MVPD bundles," as if that even matters.
What crap.
It has been possible to access TV content on demand since the late '90s on
digital cable systems.
All that has happened here Bert is that technology has enabled a new and better
way to sell TV and movie content.
And yes, it is enabling companies to create new types of content bundles, with
both live and VOD content, commercials or no commercials, and to buy or rent
individual programs on demand.
And yes, the lynchpin MVPD models matter Bert. About 90 million U.S. Homes
WILLINGLY pay for these bundles.
Consumers added new VOD bundles that offered commercial free
access to most of the content they used to access via VHS and DVD.
Funny how the evolution of technology has an impact on consumer
behavior...
And you still miss the obvious. In all of your examples, you miss that your
"lynchpin of MVPD bundles" is pure legacy thinking, BECAUSE you missed the
innovation that matters most. And yet, not like we haven't been over this
1000 times.
I missed what Bert?
That the technology now exists for the content congloms to cut out the legacy
MVPD middlemen that helped them drive the price for MVPD service up to nearly
$100/mo? That the content congloms can now sell the same bundles via the
Internet for half the price?
I do not see any innovation here at all Bert, except perhaps in the design of
the Internet such that the creators of these OTT bundles can bypass the
bottlenecks that have made it difficult to use the Internet to deliver
individual streams to millions of homes simultaneously.
But to do that they needed the cooperation of those nasty legacy MVPD systems
that now provide the high speed broadband services used to replace the
dedicated one-way video networks they compete with. They needed "fast lanes"
and collocates servers to make it all work reliably.
And then there are the innovations that matter most to those of us who actually
PAY for these bundles.
1. The ability to access the content I am paying for on my mobile devices, via
ANY Internet connection.
2. The ability to access most of the program libraries from the networks I am
paying for on demand.
3. The ability to buy bundles of content that can be viewed without commercial
interruptions.
Let me try this: there is no "lynchpin of MVPD bundles," once the MVPD
service is no longer offered by a local monopoly, but rather TV is available
from a virtually unlimited number of sources, available TO EVERYONE. That
phrase is just quaint old legacy thinking. Without that monopoly walled
garden that restricts you to their choices, there's no "lynchpin."
Let me try this: Why are the content congloms recreating the extended basic
bundle via all of these competing VMVPD services?
The monopoly garden walls have been breached Bert. But they are not going away
over night. You continue to be unable to comprehend that they have the ability
to compete too.
And you tell us that we must have protection from these monopolies, which we
are still beholden to if we want to access competing TV services. That we need
the FCC to regulate these ISPs lest they block our access to their competitors.
Could this be nothing more that a quaint reliance on the anti-competitive
exemptions provided by governments at every level to cash in on the basics of
modern life?
Water
Electricity
The Internet
Each bundle will have to compete on its own merits. You won't be able to cram
ESPN down anyone's throat, whether you call it "lynchpin" or not. ESPN will
exist in some bundles, for those who give a hoot, and will be totally absent
in many other very attractive bundles, for those not addicted to sports.
Funny. Did you read the article Monty posted about Disney's earnings and Iger's
comments about the new Internet bundles?
Subscription streaming TV services such as DirecTV Now, Hulu and Sling TV are
becoming as valuable in distributing ESPN as traditional pay-TV services,
Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger said Tuesday.
...
But the growing lineup of Net-delivered live TV services -- the most recent
entrants are Hulu's live TV service and YouTube TV -- has brought in new
subscribers. Disney didn't provide numbers, but Iger said, "we’ve seeing
really nice growth, there but it’s nascent and the growth that we have seen
in number of subs has not made up for the (other) losses."
The new subscription Net TV services "have concluded that launching new
platforms without ESPN is very challenged," Iger said. "Launching it with
ESPN gives them an ability to penetrate the marketplace in ways that they
would have been able to without."
Apparently ESPN remains a lynchpin for the new VMVPD bundles. But you are
correct, consumers have other options that do not include ESPN, or much of the
other content that makes up 2/3's of what we watch. And some of these "stupid
people" actually subscribe to a MVPD service AND a VOD service like Netflix or
Hulu.
Regulators will have nothing to say about this. As long as Internet
serviceces is STRICTLY NEUTRAL, the people decide. If instead Internet
service is not neutral, then we're back to your walled in models, where the
ISP gets to decide, and where your quaint "lynchpin" ideas may survive.
Pure garbage. Regulators were already interfering with neutrality.
So, your repeated "lynchpin of MVPD bundles" sounds like so much obsolete
nonsense, Craig. That's why it keeps falling on deaf ears. It's totally
unconvincing.
Yes Bert. YOU ARE TONE-DEAF.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
