[opendtv] Re: Amazon Warns FCC About OTT Redefinition | Multichannel
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 01:47:06 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The reason the broadcast networks are important is they helped the
political establishment reach voters and fundamentally change
public opinion. In return they were granted a lucrative oligopoly
that has been extended well beyond the limitations of FOTA
broadcasting via cable, DBS, and most likely the Internet when
the FCC starts regulating Virtual MVPDs.
What a weird perception of reality. Initially there were only the big TV nets.
That made them important. The only game in town. Using these nets to distribute
information about political candidates made, and continues to make, perfect
sense. A democracy depends on this. The big TV networks continue to be
accessible to everyone, with or without MVPD, which continues to make them
important. Point being, it's not the local news and weather that make them
important, although that too matters. But there is NO REASON to tie the local
news, weather, and public affairs programming, produced by your ABC7 affiliate,
with the ABC network. Not unless you are watching OTA, or in a CATV time warp.
It's already not a necessary linkage, over MVPD nets or over the Internet.
Linear TV is not going away. 23 million people watched the
debate Wednesday
And only had the linear stream as their anywhere-close-to-live option. Linear
has a few uses that will soldier on, mostly sports, and even those can be
improved upon. You do not have to offer strictly by-appointment TV, even for
such events as the debate. I should be able to start watching it from the
start, even if I'm 5 minutes late in turning on the TV.
The MVPD business is still where most of the money is. Yes, it is
being forced to change for several key reasons:
Here you go again, Craig, finally accepting something I've explained forever,
by reciting back what we all know. And btw, the "on demand" reason is not
really valid. On demand was already available from cable nets before a
significant fraction of the population had broadband access. I've said this
many times, and provided proof.
Skipper is already considering making ESPN available as an
OTT service, even after having done almost as much with
Sling TV.
Funny how you qualify what ESPN had done with Dish Sling,
after saying they left the bundle.
They did leave your "the bundle," Craig. Dramatically so. But Sling TV is still
not quite ESPN as a stand-alone OTT site, like HBO Now. Why do I have to
belabor the obvious?
I posted a story yesterday about James Murdoch and his
views on how the bundles will evolve. You seem to have
ignored it,
Because you did not post it. Simple enough. And we have already heard from
James Murdoch in the recent past. He never said anything that approaches your
stuck-in-the-mud thinking about MVPDs, Craig. Quite the opposite.
The hurdle for Virtual MVPDs is to offer the ability to access
ALL of the sources of programming that most MVPD subscribers
watch and pay for.
That's not a hurdle for OTT sites, though. They are already starting to do just
that, and furthermore, as people continue to shave and cut the cord, this
change becomes more attractive. That's why I keep telling you that what the
content CEOs are actually doing is all that matters here. Sling TV is an OTT
site that carries ESPN, with no help from the FCC's new definition, thank you
very much. Amazing how that happened.
It is crystal clear that the congloms are NOT giving up on
the broadcast affiliate business model, because that is
the source of their political clout and the lucrative
second revenue streams.
This makes no sense. The networks carry the national debates already, with no
content-involvement from local stations. The local stations may carry a
relatively small amount of local political coverage, and can continue to do so,
even if not affiliated with a network (e.g. over the Internet, along with their
other local programming). We even have a local cable TV channel that has been
this for many years (News Channel 8). Not a new idea, Craig.
AT&T is finding a niche with lower cost, lower performance
DSL service.
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.
Really? You cannot get cellular data service from AT&T?
And Craig thinks that cellular data is carried over DSL? Wow. Sounds confused
to me.
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:
