[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.
Dan
"John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/10/2008 01:06 PM
Please respond to
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[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.
Dan
Other related posts:
