[opendtv] Re: Broadcasters Ready to Fight
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:15:21 -0500
At 1:33 PM -0600 1/6/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
And that's his point. You are still focused one whether or not HDTV
is premium tier of an MVPD. What he is saying is simply that HDTV
would become the exclusive province of MVPDs. Here's the specific
part of the quote:
"FCC officials, along with just about every member of Congress, told
the American Consumer that, if they bought a digital television or
invested in a DTV converter box, they would be able to receive for
free additional multiple program channels and/or HDTV programs."
He is NOT talking about cable or DBS. He is talking about HDTV and
multiple programs on FOTA DTT channels.
And they are receiving these services. The problem is that the vast
majority of U.S. homes are not using this service, and are paying
subscriber fees to watch this content on their MVPD service.
The ability to use those new TVs is not going to go away. The viewers
went away.
Whoa. This is not 1991 anymore, when no one was seriously talking
about stopping analog TV transmissions yet. You're forgetting all
the recent PSAs the FCC had broadcasters air, not to mention the
numerous web sites, extolling the virtues of DTV to the viewing
public. All to justify WHY they were taking away analog FOTA TV.
They did not take away anything. FOTA still exists. And as you point
out the new service provides better pictures and more content than
the one it replaced.
One can argue that a decision to make another transition could be
considered a "bait and switch" tactic. But, in reality it is just
going to be another transition.
One can also argue that these transitions are typically market
driven. We saw music distribution move from live performance to
records, to 8-track tape, to compact cassette, to Audio CD to MP3 and
Internet streaming, all without significant government intervention.
But TV remained frozen for nearly fifty years because of the
government/broadcast partnership that propped up NTSC.
At some point the public interest must ALSO be served. When the
public loses interest in a service that is grossly under-utilizing a
valuable resource it is appropriate to consider alternatives.
> And why are broadcasters entitled to more than one stream?
What have they done to justify an expansion of THEIR franchise?
That's like asking why automakers were "entitled" to introduce
heaters and windshield wipers in their cars.
Rubbish.
Broadcasters were GIVEN a valuable public resource to create a
service that has been propped up for more than 100 years (if we start
with radio), by government enforced scarcity and regulatory largess.
Radio survives because almost every American still uses it, although
much less than they once did.
The marketplace has moved on with respect to TV, although the
government is still heavily involved in the regulation of broadcast
competitors.
Broadcasters were entitled to offer more programming, but they chose
to stay with a business model based on scarcity. This allowed cable
to eat their lunch.
Broadcasters paid a pretty penny to transition to DTV, and they gave
up a large proportion of the spectrum previously allocated to them,
so they are fully entitled to extract all the functionality they can
out of the new technology, without the govt cutting them off at the
knees. The FCC is NOT supposed to be an agent for the MVPDs, Craig.
Give me a break Bert. The cost for the transition was little more
than their normal engineering budgets. Stations continuously upgrade
their facilities. The only extra cost was operating two transmitters,
which is what the broadcasters ASKED FOR.
No broadcaster gave up any spectrum. EVERY ONE got a 6 MHz DTV
channel to replace their NTSC channel. The only thing that changed
was these channels are packed a bit tighter thanks to technological
evolution. The truth is that broadcasters are wasting less spectrum
now than they did with NTSC; unfortunately they are still wasting
vast swaths of spectrum to protect the channels they are using.
The technology exists to give every broadcaster 18 Mbps with half the
spectrum they are using today. No need to eliminate HDTV or multiple
channels. But there is no incentive to do this when they can get paid
to use cable and DBS to carry their bits.
Broadcasters COULD HAVE gone to the FCC in the late '80s and said
they wanted to COMPETE with the multichannel systems; that they
wanted to use the spectrum they occupied to deliver 50 channels to
every home AND HDTV.
Instead they chose to protect a dying business model and to get the
politicians to give them a cut of the action from their new
competitors.
There's plenty of evidence around the world showing that purely
mobile broadcast TV services are not very successful.
And there is good reason for concern that Mobile will not save
broadcasting in the U.S.
But there is also an issue of technological evolution that is
enabling new mobile devices.
When the first mobile TV services were introduced, people only
expected to use a cell phone for making phone calls ( I also used my
as a substitute for a wristwatch.
Now I routinely use my iPhone for most of the same tasks that I do
with a personal computer, including watching video.
I think that the growth of smart cars, netbooks, and new tablet
devices is going to fuel interest in mobile video.
That being said, I don't have much interest in watching entertainment
video on mobile devices, unless I am stuck in a situation (aka air
travel) where my options are limited and I need to kill time. But
this does not mean that there is not a HUGE business opportunity to
develop TV content that IS appropriate for mobile devices.
All the more reason for broadcasting to reinvent itself and create
this content.
Why would anyone expect a mobile-only DTT in the US to be enough to
support OTA broadcasters, when DVB-H has been so lackluster
elsewhere? It's all about gaining ADDITIONAL viewership, not
wholesale dropping one population of viewers for something purely
speculative.
Yup.
But you are wrong about dropping one population to serve another. A
properly designed service will STILL provide high quality TV to fixed
receivers as well as mobile receivers.
There is no reason to fear that you will lose access to the content
you now get from broadcasters, EXCEPT that the congloms may decide to
give up on FOTA TV. And that has nothing to do with a spectrum
grab...it's just business in America.
And as you acknowledged, HDTV is mainstream these days. Even the
folks at Best Buy know that HDTV sports are best when picked up OTA.
It would be unconscionable for the FCC to yank that away from OTA
broadcasters.
Yes HDTV is mainstream. NO it is not necessarily better when picked
up over the air - I have recently noted that it may be worse if the
HDTV program is part of a multiplex.
To the best of my knowledge, cable is not downgrading broadcast HDTV
signals. DBS still is in some cases (especially local into local),
but they are improving HD quality as more capacity becomes available.
And a significant portion of sports is no longer available FOTA. It
is becoming too expensive for the broadcast networks, who must
compete with cable sports nets that have subscriber fee revenues to
pay for those absurdly high priced sports rights.
Meanwhile, a new poll should be taken in the relatively near future,
to see what the digital transition has achieved. Just so you and I
can stop inventing numbers that support our prejudices.
I'd love to see it. But every survey I see says that the broadcast
networks are still in decline. There may be a few new DTV viewers,
total MVPD viewers are up, not down.
Seems I remember that you believe, as I do, that the MVPD
business model is just as endangered as the broadcast business
model.
IMO, longer term, yes. Several pieces need to fall into place first,
though. Forcing the issue prematurely would only make it easier for
the congloms to gouge consumers.
The only thing that will be forced "prematurely" is the death of the
network affiliate relationship. The congloms are leaving too much
money on the table to keep broadcasting alive. As I stated
previously, they will milk the MVPD relationship for all it is worth
until they can make more money going direct via the Internet.
S0 don't worry about the politicians taking away your free TV. The
next shoe to drop will be the decision by one of the major networks
to deliver exclusively through the MVPDs and the Internet.
Most likely the first to go will be NBC after the dust settle around
the Comcast acquisition.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
