[opendtv] Re: Digital TV: Brazil to Adopt Anything But the American System
- From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:59:38 -0500
Last Sunday I was invited by my next door neighbor to watch the Super Bowl
on his Panasonic rear projection HDTV. He subscribed to Dish HD and
local-into-local. The entire system was set up by a Dish subcontractor,
including the two dishes required to receive all of the various services he
subscribed to.
We watched the entire Super Bowl in 4:3 SD pillar box because my neighbor
did not have an off air antenna, and didn't understand that Dish
local-into-local for our market was 4:3 SD only.
The local ABC affiliate (my former employer) still enjoyed the added
eyeballs of my neighbor and his invited guests added to their Nielson
rating, but we didn't enjoy the HD that the local affiliate was providing
because of consumer confusion. After explaining the need for an off air
antenna in order to receive network HD in our market, my neighbor said it
wasn't worth the hassle because most of the HD he watched was sports and
movies, which were off of the dish anyway.Where is Broadcasting's advantage
there?
I would wager that 9 out of 10 HDTV sets in the US of A are tethered to
either a DBS or Cable system. The advantage that a broadcaster has over DBS
or Cable is the ability to reach receivers without the need for a tether to
the wall. ATSC is simply another tether to the wall, leading to the rooftop
antenna instead of a satellite dish or cable head end, but still a tether.
Imagine how successful FM radio would be if you could only receive it with a
fixed rooftop antenna.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Digital TV: Brazil to Adopt Anything But the American
System
> You guys just enjoy your daisy-chains, don't you? Pardon the intrusion of
> an adult.
>
> Here are the competitive advantages of broadcasters:
>
> 1. Over the air, ubuquitous reception (of various quality)
> 2. Exclusive access/market exclusivity to first run (and re-run)
> programming that is entertaining, arrives at a regular, predictable
> schedule, and WHICH TRUMPS ALL OTHER PROGRAMMING IN THE MARKETPLACE. 90
> million people watched the super bowl this last weekend. Were it only
> available on cable, the number would be much smaller.
> 3. Broadcasters do charge viewers anything but their time; even
> pubcasters merely ask for contributions (although I believe this will
> change in the future).
> 4. Free local programming on local news, public and cultural affairs.
> 5. A broad audience of all social/cultural/demographic/sociographic
> strata.
>
> These advantages are distilled by cable as "the prime-time network HDTV
> programs." It's great positioning, if you enjoy jaundiced attitudes.
>
> Cable/satellite has NONE of the above. The highest rated program on cable
> is the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. It's national audience is smaller
> than the number of people watching the middle-ranked Spanish language news
> broadcast in New York City. And, as Bill O'Reilly likes to point out, the
> ratings of his third rebroadcast (at 2 a.m.) of beats the live broadcast
> of his much-touted competition on MSNBC.
>
> A TV station in the smallest TV markets produce MORE local programming
> than the largest cable system in the nation, Cox Cable San Diego. That
> facility produces about one hour on their own per week (Padres games are
> actually produced by the Padres and branded Cox and distributed
> exclusively on Cox.)
>
> When cable produces "news" it's done as a joint venture with real news
> organization, and is always done cheaper than even the current state of
> broadcast TV news. It's always branded and marketed as a Cadillac.
>
> Cable is a telephone company that pimps itself to be better than a
> broadcaster. The least popular broadcaster in a market has better
> positives than any cable company -- nobody is really happy to pay for
> cable, PARTICULARLY for carriage of local TV stations. It's easier to
> whine than connect a cable. The cable response is to sell a larger bundle
> of services to existing customers. That will have diminishing returns, as
> they get more and more competition from satellite, ISPs, and telco for
> those markets. Cable could compete on the local programming basis, but
> the likely response will be more PEG (public, educational and governmental
> channels)
>
> Cable has a declining market share and has for several years, and the
> market decline is faster than the decline of local TV audiences caused by
> cable "competition."
>
> Satellite has even more disadvanges; sure you can get access to a wide
> variety of national channels. People prefer local channels that FOR FREE
> would give them the same access.
>
> You guys go on with your mutually penetrating "insights." Just don't
> expect me to watch. I like to watch train wrecks, but that requires two
> opposing bodies to actually be making progress -- of sorts.
>
> John Willkie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
