[opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:02:49 -0700
Nothing in ala carte concepts I have seen would provide you with access to
channels that aren't already in tiers and packages.
So, ala carte wouldn't provide you with what you want, as long as cable
keeps in the gatekeeper position. TV via internet is another matter.
Whatever did happen to AmericanPop.com? The channel never launched, and
Rainbow was behind it.
John Willkie
_____
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Enviado el: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:47 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Analysis: Broadcast's $1 Billion Pot of Gold
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:
