[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside of "the bundle"

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 07:51:20 -0500

On Dec 12, 2014, at 10:12 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> 
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> 
>> What had Aereo got to do with this Bert?
> 
> Everything. Already explained more than once. If I'm an antenna guy and 
> install an antenna for a client, one-time fee, no problem. If I instead 
> demand a steady revenue stream for an "antenna service," and don't give the 
> broadcasters a piece of the action, big problem. That's Aereo. A middleman, 
> asking for an infinite revenue stream for himself, by making use of someone 
> else's content. MVPDs do the same thing. Hopper does the same thing. When 
> this happens, the content owners get p*ssed. They retaliate with whatever 
> type of lawsuit makes sense for the occasion.

While all of this is accurate, it does not change the fundamental premise. FOTA 
included the word "FREE."  Broadcasters get access to the public spectrum 
virtually for free - in return for providing their programming for "FREE," 
albeit it ad supported.

All of the services you mention have costs associated with making broadcast TV 
content available to subscribers. These costs are increased when they must pay 
subscriber fees to the owner of the contenT they are HELPING, by increasing 
their audience. 

Sorry Bert, but this is just a case of their abusing their monopoly power to 
force others to collect a second revenue stream. The government should have 
told them to give back the spectrum, rather than passing cohesive laws that 
enable the double dipping.

> Obviously. If you introduce a middleman who makes truckloads of bucks by 
> creating local monopolies to distribute your content, you, the content owner, 
> can now exploit that local monopoly. In our economic system, the price you 
> charge is whatever PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY! MVPD subscribers are willing to 
> pay more, everyone upstream can demand a piece of that action. End of story.

No. Just a government enabled shakedown. It is worth noting that governments at 
all levels also benefit by taxing these services.
> 
>> Bull. Live streams were ALWAYS paid for by the ads they contain.
> 
> The price is set at what the lemmings will pay, Craig. The lemmings are 
> willing to pay extra, more than just watching the ads, the price goes up.

When you are running a government supported oligopoly market forces are 
disabled.

>> That cash cow is fraying, Craig. Let's not keep going around in circles. If 
>> MVPD subscriptions were on the increase, if "the bundle" subscriptions were 
>> on the increase, you would not hear the Moonves' and the Skippers of the 
>> world coming up with these new ideas.

Total disconnect Bert. What if 100% subscribed to the bundle? There would be no 
ability to grow, and the oligopoly would be highly profitable. Yes, the number 
of subscribers peaked a few years ago, and a few strands of a very strong rope 
are fraying, but the business model is STILL HIGHLY PROFITABLE. The content 
owners have always served secondary markets Bert - this is what they do. 

Nothing the content owners are doing threatens the bundle Bert. 

> It not only means, but it demonstrates, that you are in fact supporting that 
> local monopoly business model. You might be trying to express that you don't 
> like it, but that's a bit like whining. I'm sure you can imagine what would 
> happen, Craig, if all the Craigs in the world shaved or cut their cord. How 
> do you think the sports leagues would respond? Any guesses?

I don't like monopolies Bert. Yes, if we all cut the cord the content owners 
would be forced to change. And the overpaid actors and athletes would take a 
huge pay cut. But  this is not happening. The evolutionary changes that are 
taking place are INCREASING the profits of the content owners.

You are not the typical consumer Bert. For the nearly twenty years we have been 
trading barbs we have known this. It is part of what makes these discussions 
effective. But don't try to convince us that the sky is falling because there 
are a few more people like you out there.
> 
> And no, telling me that a particular show is only available over Netflix 
> proves nothing at all. The fact is, people are willing to bail out of HBO, 
> which also has unique shows, and go to Netflix instead. Here's a suggestion 
> for you, Craig. Shave your cord, and watch MLS over the Internet for free.

Prove that people are bailing on HBO to subscribe to Netflix.

HBO subscribers are down slightly. Netflix subscribers are up substantially. 

This does not prove that subscribers switched, although it is highly likely 
that a few did. It is also highly likely that a significant number of HBO 
subscribers ALSO subscribe to Netflix. 

I don't watch sports just for the sake of watching doors Bert. There has to be 
some level of interest or emotional attachment. I'm a Florida State fan - I 
make appointments to watch their games. I don't care about MLS - something I 
share with millions of U.S. Sports fans. ESPN is trying to help MLS develop an 
audience. They did carry the MalS playoffs on the main ESPN channels.

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: