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

  • From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:46:40 -0700

I think I agree.  I'm a bit confused as to were we are at in the 
discussion right now.

I desire a la carte for several reasons; one of them is so I can buy just 
the channels I want.  But I don't think I am against an MVPD from also 
offering them all together and selling them at one price, either.  I, 
personally, would not buy that way, even if the price of a few channels 
equalled the price for the whole package.  I would hope to have a savings 
but that is not my ultimate goal.  If I had young children, like so many 
people I know do, I would tighten that list even smaller.

I know that some have argued that it would hurt the small producer who 
does not have a broad interest or audience.  But then, perhaps they should 
look to other funding and revenue streams.  I know we (UNLV-TV) have.

I would definitely support non-major channels and I would gladly pay for 
them if they delivered content I wanted to consume.  In fact, this is 
largely why I want a la carte: to pay them rather than MTV.  And perhaps 
their might be a bigger purchasing audience for some non-major channels 
than previously thought.

But I am not well informed to the extent that a la carte would affect the 
industry.  But in my viewpoint, it makes sense to offer it.

Whether the MVPDs should be required to offer it is another subject with 
additional issues that I am not qualified to speak to.  Many of them make 
sense to me.


"John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 01:06 PM
Please respond to


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

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: