[opendtv] Re: Disney COO Staggs Backs Pay TV Bundle | Broadcasting & Cable
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:16:58 -0400
On Sep 14, 2015, at 12:23 AM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, Craig. You started by insisting that your much-loved "the bundle" would
never break up. Well, it has.
Sorry Bert, but it has not.
You still cannot get ESPN and the rest of the most popular networks that have
been part of the extended basic bundle without buying A BUNDLE.
EVOLUTION means something. It says that this business is not static; that it
will change, as it has for decades, with the underlying technology.
You completely ignore the fact that I have been writing about these changes for
more than a year, and reject out of hand the most significant changes that are
EMBRACING the shift to OTT delivery of TV content, like TV Everywhere.
Now someone writes what is essentially a platitude, to placate the nervous
nellies, and you latch onto this for dear life. All he's saying here is that
we'll be seeing any number of different "bundles" over time, which is kinda
obvious. The smaller the bundles are, and the less diverse in the content,
the less welfare payments subscribers will be handing out.
I have been talking about the demise of rerun channels for a long time. They
served their purpose for more than a decade, providing the content congloms
with the ability to offer access to their content libraries in a world where
"on demand" was technically challenging. We have talked about the role that
packaged media (VHS/DVD) played in monetizing these content libraries, then the
evolution to download services like iTunes.
You reject the notion that while the rerun channels have become unnecessary,
which obviously means smaller bundles, that other networks have grown in
importance.
The top shows on networks like Fox News, A&E, AMC, TNT, Disney, Discovery,
HGTV, and ESPN now deliver ratings that rival or exceed those on the broadcast
networks. These core networks deliver a larger audience overall than the four
broadcast networks on average. They will remain the core of "the bundle" even
as it slims down, disconnects from the umbilical, and muscles up with OTT
services.
The stats in this report about the top cable networks and shows mean something
- they are a significant part of what people are watching every day:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/this-weeks-cable-ratings/
The most important point being, were it not from the unwalled Internet
competition, you would never have seen this happening.
Perhaps. But TV has been evolving over our entire lifetimes. Technology has a
way of forcing these changes; the Internet is no different than the satellites,
VHS players, DVDs, and DVRs that fundamentally changed the way we watch TV and
movies. Everyone adapts - both the entrenched players and the new kids on the
block that blaze new trails.
The MVPDs used the DVR to help end the reliance on appointment TV. Comcast was
offering in-band VOD before SVOD OTT services became feasible. This is just
another evolutionary step.
Need I remind you that the content congloms were caught flat footed by both the
VCR and the creation of new cable networks? Or that they used the VCR to create
a huge home entertainment business? Or that they used their political clout to
take control of THE BUNDLE?
Or that they are enabling these new OTT services by selling them the same
content that they have been using to fill the now unnecessary rerun channels,
and making even more money as a result?
Funny how Craig can miss the important aspects of this.
First, the companies that invested in creating the Internet had no stake in
making it non-neutral and walled in. The congloms were not among those.
Huh?
What industry is the 800 pound gorilla of the ISP industry today?
You slam the MVPDs, but the cable systems, and to a lesser extent the telco
MVPDs are making your OTT services possible. How can it be that the walled
gardens you despise are the same companies that are tearing down the walls?
"He looks but does not see...."
Second, as I've repeated many many many times, the neutrality of the Internet
was initially assured because it used Title II telephone lines.
Who was the 800 pound gorilla in the era of telephone modems Bert?
Hint: "You've got mail."
The Internet was successful because the concept was open and something we could
get behind. The public made the Internet a success, not modems.
The cable guys thought they had the upper hand. The Time Warner Full Service
Network test bed in Orlando was going to extend the walls to e-commerce. The
servers and routers wound up in a dumpster thanks to the Internet.
Third, the TV media companies HAVE ALREADY shown their true colors. They
initially were unwalled, competing against one another over neutral NTSC OTA.
Then the competed over neutral NTSC CATV. And then, since these cable nets
were not Title II, they changed their modus operandi. They took control of
the subscribers, in their "take it or leave it" manner, because they were the
only game in town.
Because they had the political clout to take control.
Because the bundle gave them a lucrative second revenue stream.
And because the FCC could not place content restrictions on the programs that
moved over those cables.
They are about to do the same with the "open and free" Internet.
Fourth, it did not take a long time, after the Internet became capable of
carrying TV streams credibly, and people took notice, that the ISP nets
showed interest in butting into this TV over Internet scene. We've been over
this, remember? Which platforms HBO Go would support, over a given ISP, and
playing games with Netflix streams (no matter the denials).
Just smoke, no fire. These issues were resolved without the FCC getting
involved. Now we have something to worry about, as the FCC is going to regulate
yet another oligopoly.
For some strange reason, Craig seems to have become totally enamored with
this non-neutral operation, to the extent that he wants the Internet to
evolve that same way. How truly odd.
I am enamored of real competition and the ability of industries to work things
out without the heavy hand of government. Unfortunately, if the courts don't
overturn the Title II decision, favored oligopolies will continue to rule the
information superhighway.
Network neutrality is a nice idea that has had no teeth.
Really Craig? I can call any telephone number on earth, essentially, without
having to be told that the number I'm calling belongs to a different network.
Without Title II, I see no reason why the broadband providers would NOT
revert to what they did so successfully in the past.
Why did they not do this without Title II?
And it kind of makes me laugh to see the denials that this could ever happen.
Absurd, right? It already has happened, initially with the phone companies,
then with MVPDs, and doggone it if we didn't start seeing it happening also
for the Internet. Just hints, perhaps, over the Internet, but you'd have to
be totally distracted to have missed the early warnings. And what's to stop
them, Craig, except for Title II? What's to prevent an MVPD/ISP from doing
what is clearly and obviously in their best self-interest, as the telcos
attempted way back at the beginning of the previous century?
Title II is what will allow the MVPD/ISP complex to continue to thrive as a
government regulated oligopoly.
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:
