[opendtv] Re: Amazon Warns FCC About OTT Redefinition | Multichannel
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 19:59:46 -0400
Craig wrote:
Yes, the system was designed to maximize access for politicians who are
elected
on a regional and local basis. With a national medium access would have been
limited and mostly focused on the Executive branch.
Again, you seem to live in some make-believe reality. I hardly see any local
political ads on TV, and the only national debates occur during an election
season. Regardless, an informed public is crucial to a democracy. They have to
see for themselves, rather than listen to the second-hand lunatic ramblings of
political extremists. A medium that reaches everyone is the ideal way for
political issues to be aired, direct to consumer, unfiltered by whack jobs.
And it is important to consider that this market structure was also optimal
for
the coverage of State and local government affairs, and to support the
election
of State and local politicians. A nationalized medium would have largely shut
them out.
Weird alternate reality. In any case, there's no reason why locally-produced
news cannot exist, independent of national TV network news. Craig seems unable
to get beyond the way things are. The link between local broadcaster and
conglom came from a time when it was essential, and still is for OTA delivery.
That link COULD become essential again, if the local broadcaster takes on a new
content delivery role for the new medium. Otherwise, there's no reason to
assume this conglom-broadcaster link MUST remain in place.
Without the network content local stations could not exist. They would follow
in the footsteps of local newspapers.
As long as OTA still exists, the local broadcaster is essential. If OTA ceases
to exist, then the local broadcasters can continue to produce the local content
(some of them would survive this way), and beyond just that, they can also
reinvent themselves, as I've explained many times.
But you continue to promote the idea that live TV is only needed for sports.
Fortunately Daniel Grimes did a very good job of debunking that canard.
Only needed for sports, and even for that, you don't need absolute
by-appointment. And you certainly don't need to dedicate a lot of spectrum to
deliver exclusively linear TV, when the medium this spectrum is being dedicated
on is already capable of 2-way comms. Should be obvious by now. Nobody
"debunked" any of this. It's a fact of life that newer technologies created.
So stop with the crap that I am listening to you, and shamelessly promoting
the
legacy "bundle."
Hilarious. Do I need to go back and quote how many times you said "Will never
happen"? You do this all the time, Craig. You dig in on some nonsensical point,
and I can easily list the topics you've done this with, and then when you
finally figure out the truth, you twist your words and pretend you were right
all along. More examples follow.
"Murdoch said he sees the pay TV market in the U.S. taking a new turn. 'The
real story here is we will see, and we’re starting to see it already, a kind of
rebundling, where customers might say they want to have more choice, they want
to have a streaming service for $10 or $15 depending on which one it is, and
they may want to have something from their MVPDs that’s a little less
everything in it,' he said."
That right there contradicts what you used to claim, Craig. What made your much
ballyhooed "the bundle" so lucrative, so much so that you told us time and
again it would never unravel, was all the welfare payments the content owners
were getting. For instance, you think that CBS All Access, at less than $6/mo,
sold only to those who want it, is not a good deal. And yet at the same time,
you were claiming that your "the bundle," where everyone has to pay more than
$6/mo to ESPN, even if they never watch, would soldier on for all time. "Too
lucrative," you repeated time and time again. Well, it ain't soldiering on for
all time, even according to Murdoch.
I've been explaining to you forever that OTT sites can create any number of
different bundles, competing directly for subscribers, everywhere in the US (or
the world for that matter). This is what IS happening. As a consequence, your
"too lucrative" welfare payments are going to be harder to come by.
I said no such thing. I said AT&T is repositioning DSL as a low cost, low
performance broadband option.
Here goes Craig again, rewriting history. Let me reconstruct what you said,
Craig. First you stated:
Competition IS practical. AT&T is finding a niche with
lower cost, lower performance DSL service.
To which I replied:
Wrong. AT&T is not available to me, nor to much of the rest of the country,
and
no one is offering anything similar here.
Then, obviously confused, you said:
Really? You cannot get cellular data service from AT&T?
And I had to explain to you that cellular and DSL are two different things.
So once again, no. There is no credible competition for broadband service,
Craig. Wireless is not set up for unlimited use, it becomes way too expensive
still. And for cabled broadband, people simply don't have enough options,
assuming they even have more than one option. Why do I need to belabor the
obvious??
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:
