[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:06:42 -0700

I'm simply saying that bundling helps widely-known channels put out by the
majors get distribution, and it holds back less-widely-known channels
offered by non-majors.  Without knowing the tier your channel(s) are on, I
can't know if people pay for them.


And, if you are so concerned about non-major channels, why don't you support
them by paying for them?


That point gets back to behalfism .


John Willkie



De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:00 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold


"How do you support today's small media players?  Have you ever watched
UCSD-TV?  (Available on EchoStar?)  RFD-TV?  The Outdoor Channel?  How about
Versus (currently showing 'Le Tour?')" - John Willkie 

I've heard of some and I looked into the others.   

We, too, are a small content creator (UNLV-TV, part of EDU-TV (soon to be
re-branded), Las Vegas Cox Cable 110 & 111, digital tier).   

But I am not sure what your point is.  Is it, perhaps, that no one would pay
for our content?  Are you saying that bundled channels helps these content
creators survive and allows for their distribution? 

As for UNLV-TV, we don't get money from franchise fees now that the LV Cox
franchises with the state. 


Other related posts: