[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters Nix Low-Power DTS Proposal
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:25:23 -0500
At 8:33 PM -0800 2/5/10, Dale Kelly wrote:
-Once again I suggest that your skewed analysis not combine
Broadcasters and Network Conglomerates (who have worked for a number
of years to devalue
broadcasting) into a single category. You clearly know the difference but
to acknowledge such does not support your entrenched position(s).
I do acknowledge that one cannot define all broadcasters with a broad
brush. Clearly the economics are far better for a Network affiliate
in a top 50 market than an independent in market 100. And I
completely agree that the conglomerates are killing broadcast TV,
even as they milk it for every retrans consent dollar they can get.
One could make a strong argument that broadcasters COULD have pushed
for a much different approach to DTV, one that would have placed the
service on a competitive par with MVPD services. The success of
Freeview and other multi-channel terrestrial services in Europe
demonstrates that such an approach would have been viable; and this
has as much (or more) to do with the business model as the
transmission technology.
Question: Have you even considered the fact (surely you have) that
within six months of entering the DTV transition ,where
"broadcaster" finally had the ability to begin that long road to
ROI, the FCC announced plans to pull the RF rug out from under them?
IMO broadcasters would have an actionable grievance were this fraud
not committed by the government.
I believe the question is seriously flawed. For most stations the
actual cost of the DTV transition has already been paid. One could
construct an argument that looks at the ROI in this investment, but
it would be extremely difficult to isolate the effects of the change
in transmission technology from the effects of the effort of the
congloms to suck the life out of broadcasting and the effects of
competition from alternative delivery platforms.
And any analysis of ROI would necessarily require an analysis of what
"could" have happened if broadcasters had invested in other
technologies which "might" have had several upside benefits including:
1. Support for a more competitive business model (e.g. Freeview).
2. Support for IP data services that would off-load traffic from
two-way wireless networks, and therefore reduce the need for the FCC
to find new spectrum for the service tat the public is voting for
with their dollars.
Question: When was making a profit from major investments, that
create business
where none previously existed and also provide a public service, a
bad thing and something for which one owes contrition?
No one is questioning the value of broadcasting, or the investments
that made it possible in the previous century. Many are questioning
the decisions made over the ensuing decades that allowed broadcasters
to monetize their spectrum and turn a scarce public resource into a a
secondary market that placed billions in book value on this public
resource in the hands of corporations. Corporations that have made
profit margins that are significantly higher than most other
industries in the U.S.
And one must seriously question the wisdom of both broadcasters and
their regulators, to make major investments to SUSTAIN a business
that is now irrelevant to the vast majority of U.S. citizens, while
denying those citizens the highest economic use of a scarce resource
that has been mismanaged to support the insidious growth of political
incumbency.
The public deserves better.
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:
