[opendtv] Re: Bob likes COFDM
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:25:08 -0500
At 1:59 PM -0500 3/28/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Can you be more specific? What govt reg is preventing
>an affiliated OTA station from airing the productions
>of small, local producers, say off prime time, instead
>of infomercials? I mean, other than a simple business
>decision of that station (wanting to maximize revenues),
>what's preventing this? You seem to be against business
>using a simple profit motive. Like in these two quotes:
Profitability. They make more money with infomercials. And ratings;
they can buy a syndicated program with a proven track record and get
better ratings, which allows them to charge more and thus make
greater profits.
>
>> The local broadcasters is going to take the MOST
>> PROFITABLE way out. Benovolence to independent
>> producers is not a trait one associates with
>> broadcasters.
>
>and
>
>> Even if you could buy a station, you are at the mercy
>> of the programming oligopoly for content that will
>> attract a meaningful audience.
>
>So what? What makes this any different from any other
>business? And more importantly, how is govt forcing
>stations to operate any differently from any other
>large scale business? The small independent station
>has to consider the taste of the masses to get a large
>audience, or remain a niche station catering to the
>few. And risk going out of business.
OK Bert. Let's just blame it on the people.
You can cater to the masses or to small niches.
Cable/DBS does better with the niches since they can accumulate an
audience nationwide, which they can then sell to specialty retailers.
Local broadcasters have little incentive to cater to niches, unless
they were designed from the start with that business model. Hence we
see religious radio stations and LPTV stations that are supported by
the donations of their patrons.
>
>"Most profitable" and "benevolence is not a trait"
>are the common denominators of all non-charitable
>businesses, are they not?
No. Many businesses are benevolent. Even broadcasters, who on
occasion will help raise money for worth causes. But in the case of
broadcasters, they use these opportunities to meet their public
service REQUIREMENTS, which is part of the deal for the spectrum.
>
>> Perhaps the best comparison I can offer is what is
>> happening in the music business. We are seeing more
>> and more artists choosing to go direct, selling CDs
>> out of the trunk of their car (or their website)
>> when they do live performances. Some even encourage
>> file sharing to help make their music more popular.
>
>Exactly. And there's nothing the large-scale music
>business can do to stop this. Similarly, as Tom points
>out, a film producer can use the Internet and unicast
>file transfers to get his stuff out there.
Nothing?
IF they win at the Supreme Court they will not only shut down most
file sharing, but may stifle innovation in many related areas where
the technology is being used legally. At the very least it will
dampen innovation, as any company with assets would be liable for the
illegal uses of a product.
>
>TV is a large scale, mass medium. It takes a large
>scale, mass audience to operate TV profitably. The
>payoffs are big if you can get on TV, and that's
>probably what most aspiring producers are looking for,
>ultimately.
You have defined one segment of the TV industry. This is not
surprising since it is the only segment that you have experience
with. But there are other segments that operate profitably serving
niche audiences.
I do agree that the lure of making it big in TV Land is a driving
force. This is one reason that the industry can get away with paying
the people who are NOT in front of the camera less than people with
similar skill levels in other industries.
It is amazing how much people will put up with to climb the TV ladder.
>
>I think the same applies to film studios and movie
>theater chains.
To a large extent this is true. But the independent film industry is
thriving. The ability to gain distribution at festivals and through
direct DVD/Tape release does support the independents. To a limited
extent this is also true for TV production - actually they are one
and the same as many of the programs being shot by independent film
makers are shot with 24P camcorders.
>As far as I can tell, to use a scarce resource such as
>RF spectrum set aside for TV, you need to be a large
>scale outfit. I don't find anything wrong with this.
To support the infrastructure needs I agree 100%. We don't need
multiple broadcasters in each market, however, to do this. What we
need is a well designed transmission infrastructure and a policy that
forces the large scale companies to use profits form the larger
markets to bring the infrastructure in smaller markets up to the same
standards.
If we then decouple content from carriage, and create a TRUE
marketplace for the bits that are delivered via this infrastructure
we will have the best of both worlds.
A reliable distribution system that is paid for via the fees that
content creators pay to have their bits delivered.
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:
