[opendtv] Re: Apple, TV Networks Clash Over Size and Makeup of Web TV Bundle | Re/code

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:20:05 -0500

On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


So, which is it Craig? Or is it just whatever it takes for some more
knee-jerk disagreement.

It has a Disney property that is "the" heavy hitter in the extended basic
bundle in terms of subscriber fee. Aside from ESPN it is no heavier with Disney
content than other congloms, but is lacking other popular networks that keep
Sling from being a viable alternative. So you can jerk your knee all you want,
but it does not make Sling a dominantly Disney service.

"Major money maker," used for only 38% of TV content viewing. Something is
out of kilter. Something is also out of kilter when more than 80% of cabled
network capacity is dedicated solely to what people use 38% of the time.

Wrong numbers. Hang up and try again.

And what delivers profits is not necessarily the same as what people watch. The
big rap about MVPD service is having to pay for stuff we don't watch.

"Throw in the towel?" Doesn't that imply loss, or desperation?

Apparently to you. Fortunately not to the people actually making the decisions
like your friend Les.

You are the one suggesting that they change business models based on trends,
based on small percentage changes in the market.

I keep wondering why you always say these things. Why so invested in old
solutions? The new distribution methods are more flexible all around, and
most certainly beneficial to consumers. Yet, like repeated "freudian slips,"
you persist with these telling reactions.

The new distribution methods are being embraced. My MVPD subscription now
allows me to access the content I am paying for in many new ways on multiple
screens. That is not an "old solution."

What would be better is if I could pay for only the channels I watch. But that
has nothing to do with the flexibility afforded by the Internet. ANY MVPD could
sell digital channels on an ala carte basis - it is more difficult to
enable/disable channels on the analog tier. And they do sell different bundles
and add on channels.

But the content owners are preventing ala carte. They require contracts that
bundle all of their networks if you want any. They tell us we may get what we
want someday, but not for now.

Sorry Apple, but we won't let you upset the CARTel.

Must be why I can only find uninteresting, mass market,
lowest-common-denominator ISO 400 film in stores these days. Even in
photography stores.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=35+mm+film&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A35+mm+film

The majority of Hollywood movies are still shot on 35 mm film. And there are
many commercial large format applications where film is still used extensively.

And then there is print paper. Most drug stores still have printing systems,
most of which are leased from Kodak.

Kodak missed the boat on the digital camera revolution...

It's your understanding of that word that is flawed, Craig, which is why you
fail to convince us. You believe the content owners think the future is your
luddite linear streams, on broadcast channels, and the old school MVPD "the
bundle."

Not me. There's far more to TV entertainment than the live linear channels,
just as there is far more to music than FOTA radio. But that does not mean that
live linear is dead. It's just one option, albeit a very popular option, that
will continue to be a component of larger "packages."

You are the one missing the forrest for the trees. You extoll the virtues of a
new technology, then disregard the fact that the legacy business models can be
updated to integrate those virtues.

You like to cite CBS All Access as an example. It is a good example.

If it is ever allowed to fly unimpeded, it may represent what every network in
the MVPD bundles will offer:

- Access to the live linear feed(s) via both the umbilical service and via TV
Everywhere, anywhere you have Internet access;

- Immediate access to current shows that have aired recently on the linear
networks (no C3 or C7 Windows);

- On demand access to library content and sports replays anywhere, anytime, on
any device.

In short, everything you want and one thing you do not want - to pay for this.

There is nothing to keep the content owners from taking this path - they have
already traveled well down it. There is nothing to force them to stop
protecting the lucrative bundles, even as they add capabilities.

It's not. Even the CEOs have been saying so. You fail to understand trends,
always have. Plus, see the first quotes in this post. You also like to
knee-jerk disagree, and then retract, while pretending you're not retracting.

The only trend I see is that the content owners are staying the course, and
making more money licensing content to more stores, none of which threaten the
core business model.

I already explained that to you, Craig. Apple had nothing to offer that the
CDEOs need. That speaks volumes, yes. The CEOs do not need to add middlemen
who don't add value. Why should that be the least bit surprising? Comcast
decided the same way, for exactly the same reason. You take this personally,
as a loss for consumers, but it's not.

Thanks for making my case. They are content to extend and protect the business
model that has been working for decades. Apple and others who seek to offer the
public a better business model are simply shut out.

It is not that Apple has nothing to offer; it is only that they want to offer
what consumers want at a lower price. That's called trust busting.

Unfortunately, the politicians and regulators are all in with the content
owners and the legacy MVPDs.

A bunch of false statistics deleted...

Collusion is a lot more difficult in a competitive environment. It's obvious
why, Craig. Most people, when they have an option, don't put up with it. Only
you worry about what the content owners or MVPDs would rather you do. And
comply.

The environment has been "competitive since the mid '90s. There have been
legislative edicts to open up the market. Unfortunately there were also
legislative edicts - like the 1992 Cable Act - that created the current
oligopolies in the name of consumer protection. And now a new broadband
oligopoly is being created via Title II regulation.

There is NOTHING the Internet alone can change about this sorry state of
affairs - it is just a platform to create virtual stores. Unless the content
owner WANT to support improved competition - and there is no sign that's the
case - there will be no competitive threat to the MVPD bundles.

So the inverse - we won't sell individual networks to anyone
is by definition collusion.

How absurd. Not selling to other third parties is the most obvious example of
lack of collusion, Craig. You see CBS and Disney both going it alone, or
close to alone, without insisting they must collude with other congloms.

Those example are irrelevant.

It might be or not, depending. The value proposition has to be right for the
content owner. On the neutral Internet, an option is also to go it alone. All
depends what the third parties demand from the deal.

Going it alone is not viable for CBS - they are getting nowhere fast.

Every content owner can put a high price tag on an ala carte version of their
service - that is exactly what they have said they would do for decades, if
forced to stop bundling all of their networks in the licensing deals. That does
not create competition, or a market.

Consumers want a variety of content sources; 10 - 15 per family member is
typical. The obvious answer is to keep the cost of each network where it is
today (i.e. average subscriber fee) and let people choose the ones they wish to
pay for. But that is not happening, and will not happen soon.

They buy access to content. If only one channel is needed to get access to
all the content, the average joe is perfectly happy. The term is misused, so
you extend the colloquial use of it to something technical, and totally miss
what's going on. People are proving with their actions that it's not the
linear stream they seek. It's the content, usually viewed whenever they want.

Yes we buy content, and increasingly we are paying for improved access to that
content. Linear, catch-up and VOD, across a range of devices that may or may
not be connected to an umbilical cord. Nothing you state suggests that any of
these options is going to go away.

Except that old school subscriptions have been dropping since 2013. First
time ever. I guess you think the CEOs can ignore this.

Actually they've been dropping since 2008, along with the number of middle
class families in this country. But the numbers are not that significant and
are not accelerating.

They are still well above 80%. And when Millennials have families, guess what?

They subscribe to a MVPD bundle.

Really Craig? So, who do you pay your bill to for TVE, and who decides how
much content you have available TVE?

There is no bill for TVE, just as we have no clue what percentage of what we
pay for MVPD service gets redistributed to each of the content owners. We have
some good guesses, but that's it.

The content owners decide what content they want to make available via their
TVE sites. Access to each site is based on subscribing to the related linear
service, and verification via a MVPD authentication server.

So TVE is essentially a cloud service that is included with a MVPD
subscription. You can compare this to the content you can access from Amazon
based on paying for your Amazon Prime membership.

Can you get exactly the same content TVE as the Comcast subscriber?

Yes, if I subscribe to the same channels.

TVE is simply not just another OTT site. Give it up.

Agreed. It is a business model designed to extend the value of a MVPD
subscription, AND a technology that makes it possible to view the content you
pay for via both the traditional umbilical service AND via the Internet.

The operation is virtually identical to other OTT services, and in some cases
may be supported by the same cloud infrastructure. Once an asset is placed on a
server, it is just a question of access rules. Hence, A&E may put an episode of
the Walking Dead up across all of their OTT services. If you are Bert and are
unwilling to pay, you may wait 7 days to see that episode. If you are an MVPD
subscriber accessing the TVE site you get to watch it immediately.

Regards
Craig


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2015