Craig Birkmaier wrote: > > If so, why isn't it all a matter of how they > > re-negotiate with the cable companies, once they > > develop their DTT multicasts? All they would have to > > do is incorporate one or two of their more > > popular cable channels in the DTT multiplex. > > The pot of gold at the end of the cable/DBS rainbow is > the monthly subscriber fees that the conglomerates > collect for EVERY home in a market that subscribes to > extended basic cable. If they offer these channels free > in an OTA multiplex, cable and DBS will rightly get > really pissed off. But the conglomerates don't need to worry about whether cable and DBS get POed. This is business. If they offer this now-cable-only content FTA, along with the traditional FTA channels, then won't the conglomerates and their affiliates get more of the ad revenue? So why isn't this just a simple business decision for the conglomerates? More ad revenue vs some amount of $ per subscriber per month and no ad revenue? > In order for broadcasters to compete in a multi-channel > world, the underlying business model must change. > Rather than exclusivity, the economic basis must shift > to payments for what a distributor actually delivers. > This would likely lead to ala carte pricing, where you > pay only for the channels you want. Seems to me that the rest of the business world is full of different sorts of redistribution arrangements. The advantage of an OTA distribution infrastructure is that you don't need to make it work like cable or DBS. It can be exclusive yet at the same time competitive, because multiple exclusive networks can co-exist throughout a market. I don't see why this feature of OTA distribution should be discounted. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.