[opendtv] Re: Amazon Warns FCC About OTT Redefinition | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:15:37 -0400
On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
Affiliates enable retrans consent dollars that would be lost going direct over
the Internet. CDNs have nothing to do with it - they are just a relatively
small operating expense. The only realistic alternative is going direct with
the MVPDs, which would retain 85% of their audience and 100% of the retrans
dollars.
But they would lose the FOTA audience and political clout
You say that retrans consent is how the local broadcasters make the big
bucks. So what?
I did not say this. I said that the second revenue stream is helping to keep
local broadcasters viable. They still get the big buck selling commercials in
the programming between 4 pm and midnight, and live sports programming.
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.
The congloms are putting their programming on the Internet as a supplement to
the live linear network feeds delivered FOTA and the MVPDs. They are not
putting the live linear feeds on the Internet, except for CBS All Access, which
is only available in markets where affiliates have agreed to have their
stations carried.
First, a trickle with fewer expenses (compared to expenses now), could still
be profitable for *some*.
Riiiight.
Newspapers can (and do) deliver their content via the Internet, which is far
cheaper than printing and delivering newspapers. But they cannot make enough
from the Internet ads to do cover the cost of creating the content. So most are
charging subscription fees for the "paper cutters" who no longer pay for home
delivery.
And now content owner are having to deal with Internet ad blockers, and STBs
like the Dish Hopper, a DVR that skip ads.
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).
Where is the money Bert. How many people are paying $6/mo for CBS All Access?
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.
Retrans consent is not applied to TVE, or the non-broadcast networks carried by
MVPDs. TVE is an extension of the service a MVPD subscriber is already paying
for. To my knowledge there are no TVE apps for broadcasters.
Retrans consent only applies to OTA broadcasters.
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?
Retrans consent and reverse compensation fees. The local affiliates pay the
congloms now rather than receiving carriage fees as they did decades ago.
Would CDNs pay the congloms to run servers for them? Not likely unless they
could generate revenue like the affiliates do.
The only way to do that would be to sell ads in the network programming, buy
syndicated programming to fill out the schedule and sell ads in these programs,
and create local programming and sell ads in these programs.
In short they would need to do what affiliates do.
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."
DUH, Craig!! What do you think welfare payments are? Now, go back and retract
that "Not true."
Can't. What you are saying is not true.
Disney Corp negotiates the carriage fees for each of the networks it delivers
through the MVPDs. There is a big fee for ESPN, another big fee for The Disney
Channel, and smaller fees for ABC Family and their other rerun channels. Sling
still pays the big fees for ESPN and The Disney Channel. Disney loses the
"welfare payments" for the channels that Sling does not carry.
It's **the consumers** who have devalued the linear streams, no matter what
the CEOs might still be hanging on to.
Only some of the linear streams, not all. VOD has devalued the channels that
primarily deliver library content. The channels that will go away as MVPD
bundles slim down and add VOD access to library content via TVE.
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.
So the stuff that is best delivered on demand will evolve to on demand. The
stuff that is best delivered live - including premieres of episodic shows -
will be delivered live. Subscribers will watch both.
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."
The only live linear is NFL, and only for Verizon subscribers. Read the rest of
the articles: the traditional ZtV programming Verizon has licensed is delayed a
day, just like the shows on Hulu.
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."
And your point is?
It is another way to reach an audience with content after it has aired on the
live linear channels. The target is Millennials. And it's not free - it eats
cellular data plans; that's the main objective.
It is purely a FOTI service. You know, what you said just yesterday was a
"1960s business model.
Free? You need a mobile device and a cellular data plan. And the NFL games are
only available to Verizon subscribers.
And one more thing...
What about Net Neutrality?
You cannot access Go90 on your PC.
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:
