[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters, Cable Spar over Retrans

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:28:20 -0500

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

>> The leverage comes from the main TV network content.
>
> No Bert. Nobody would give a rip if they tried to pull their content
> in the middle of the summer re-run season. Contract dates are
> purposely set to expire when the networks have one of their few
> blockbuster events scheduled.

So you agree with me, right? Then why sound like you're arguing? The fact 
continues to be, it is almost always the main networks' content that MVPD 
subscribers scream about. The only exception I know of being the HGTV and Food 
network flap in that one NYC cable system, late last year. And it's not JUST 
for some sports event. It's also for the prime time series. People complained, 
for example, when they couldn't get their "House" fix during a recent dispute 
with Fox.

> It is bundling that makes all of this work Bert. The ability to force
> subscribers to pay for stuff they DON'T want. The rationale used by
> the MVPDs is consistent. Without bundling, people would pay far more
> for the stuff they want because large numbers of subscribers would opt
> out; those who really want a channel would have to make up the
> difference.

Wow!! You have finally accepted this! How many times did you deny this in the 
past?

> I too support ala carte, and have for more than a decade. But it ain't
> gonna happen because the moment people can opt out, MOST networks would
> drop their subscriber fees altogether to avoid losing potential audience
> share.

It sounds like the only thing preventing this nirvana is the MVPDs. Just like I 
said. The MVPDs have a tool at their disposal, e.g. unbundling at least the 
main network channels (as DBS used to do or maybe they still do). Offering the 
channels a la carte. Or even offering to install an OTA antenna. If it ain't 
gonna happen, the fault is with the MVPDs, Craig, not with the congloms you 
continue to complain about, not of the FCC, and not of Congress.

> What power would the MVPDs have if 90% of their channels suddenly
> disappeared?

My first question is, why should the MVPDs have "power"? They are primarily a 
distribution system. If that distribution system is inherently wasteful or 
unnecessary, they shouldn't automatically retain any "power." Their "power" 
SHOULD come from performing a necessary function efficiently, and also from the 
content they create in-house. Unless you're employed by an MVPD, there's no 
reason to assume that any position you take MUST result in greater profits for 
MVPDs, Craig.

Another point is, what power would the congloms have if they lost all their 
viewership? The simple fact is, there isn't enough OTA spectrum to support all 
of the channels you get from MVPDs. And what spectrum there is, special 
interests in cahoots with the FCC are yanking away. So congloms depend on MVPDs 
for getting much of their content out.

The third point is, people are lazy, for one, and they think that being an MVPD 
subscriber makes them cool. So there's that power too.

But most fundamentally, all of your arguments sound to me like the only reason 
you keep blaming the congloms for your high cable bills is that you must 
dismiss any automatic price regulation mechanism that might make MVPDs less 
profitable.

It sounds to me like your "oligopoly" complaint is off base. I haven't seen 
ANYTHING to support the notion that the FCC or Congress are forcing the MVPDs 
to bundle their channels!!

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.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2011