[opendtv] Re: Amazon Warns FCC About OTT Redefinition | Multichannel

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 02:09:36 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

The value of having you attempt to counter everything I write should
be obvious:

- it sets up these longer explanations,

That's the problem, Craig. You are so busy conjuring up these overly-lengthy
replies that you miss, and/or forget, most of what I'm saying, and you usually
don't even read the referenced articles. That's why we go around and around in
circles all the time. Don't believe me? Just see more of this below. And this
gets super annoying.

No Bert. I completely understand the complex web of money flowing
in and out of local broadcasters, having worked in that industry
for decades. Clearly it has tilted in favor of the congloms, as
they are the reason anyone watches local broadcasters. The days
of 25% profit margins are gone in smaller markets, but most
network affiliates are still VERY profitable.

You missed the point, Craig. If we forget about any new potential CDN role the
local broadcasters could play for online delivery, then the congloms have no
interest in keeping their local OTA affiliates profitable, right? Why should
the congloms care? The congloms would deal with the CDNs as their new middlemen.

You say that retrans consent is how the local broadcasters make the big bucks.
So what? If the congloms can get their content on the Internet as they do now,
with no broadcaster involvement, the local programming managed by the local
broadcasters would become stand-alone. At the same time, these "broadcasters"
would owe nothing to the congloms, and wouldn't have any transmitter expenses
either.

Yup. A trickle compared to what they get now.

First, a trickle with fewer expenses (compared to expenses now), could still be
profitable for *some*. More importantly, those who own the high value content,
the congloms, don't need to care. That's why TV over the Internet is a new
model. That's why it makes no sense whatever to be obsessing over retrans
consent rights for Internet delivery. That's legacy thinking, from
pre-satellite CATV days (I hear an echo).

What benefit is there to co-locate with a broadcaster, who then
has to set up interconnection deals with the local ISPs?

That's almost beside the point. If the local broadcasters can reinvent
themselves this way quickly, great. If they cannot, then that's hardly an
excuse to apply the same phony-baloney retrans consent game to Internet
delivery. Retrans consent has never applied to Internet delivery, leaving aside
the walled-in TVE of course.

Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. There would be no point in
the broadcast networks sharing significant revenues with a local
CDN that does nothing more than operating a server.

Craig, you're spewing out random words! Many distributed servers, first of all,
not just one. From the congloms' standpoint, it's the same role to the one
broadcasters play now. The congloms need to deliver their content in that
market. What "significant revenue sharing" do the congloms benefit from now,
when it comes to their affiliates, if not for that?

If ABC could have a national footprint they would eliminate
affiliates.

Not necessarily. They could either own all of the affiliates (making them
O&Os), or they could deal with a single station group with national footprint.
I've also explained this a TON of times, Craig.

With a national footprint, the networks would likely
consolidate to a handful of regional operations centers
from which they could control servers that would feed
both OTA transmitters and Internet OTT sites.

Why is this profound, just out of curiosity? Why did you feel obliged to repeat
it? A single station group would do likewise. Of course, they also have to
insert the local market-specific content.

Ridiculous. If ESPN comes with only a dozen other channels, then
it has lost the welfare payments it was getting before, from the
bloated "the bundle."

Not true. ...

The only real loss for ESPN is cord cutters who never watched
ESPN, but had to pay for it.

DUH, Craig!! What do you think welfare payments are? Now, go back and retract
that "Not true."

You are not listening Bert.

Given that exchanges above, guess who isn't listening, Craig?

No Bert. They are not devaluing the live linear services as
you claim.

It's **the consumers** who have devalued the linear streams, no matter what the
CEOs might still be hanging on to. Look back at that Ericsson survey (not to
mention the other recent stats). In the Ericsson survey, everything about
linear streams is considered either not terribly essential, or very
unsatisfactory, in need of an urgent fix. Problem is, what the respondents
complained about, wrt linear, is not very fixable. Except by going to on demand.

You are wrong about Verizon Go90 - it is only FOTI for reruns.

Another example of Craig not reading, so busy he is crafting the verbose
replies. Let me show you, Craig:

http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-launches-free-mobile-tv-service-go90/

"Go90 is free, supported by ads rather than paid subscriptions. Anybody,
regardless of their wireless carrier, can use the app on their smartphones or
tablets. It will play a mixture of traditional TV, live programming like NFL
and college football games and shorter clips commonly associated with sites
like YouTube."

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/verizon-go90-free-mobile-video-bandwidth-charges-1201587755/

"With Go90, the telco sees a revenue opportunity in selling advertising aimed
at millennials audiences, and it's making the service free to anyone, not just
Verizon Wireless customers."

It is purely a FOTI service. You know, what you said just yesterday was a
"1960s business model."

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: