[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 01:33:44 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> They got Congress to give them retrans consent, then used it to take
> control of 90% of the content on these monopolistic pipes.
How does that make sense? They got retrans consent for the FOTA program content
because they were (correctly IMO) claiming they should be compensated as other
cable-only channels were, when this stuff was sent over cable. The fact that
these same congloms also produce much of the cable-only channels is a separate
issue.
The congloms, however, knowing that their material was sent to the majority of
households over a monopoly pipe, could then make other demands, e.g. on how
these programs would be bundled. It's a lot more difficult to make such
demands, if you have a ton of different distribution schemes available to any
household. And when you see CBS and HBO going direct to consumer, that signals
a tremendous change.
> The only significant change to the TV landscape is that new content
> congloms -Time Warner and Viacom - were created around the cable
> networks they created.
And you don't think that being able to get previously "exclusive" "the bundle"
programming over sites such as Hulu makes any difference? Remember how "the
bundle" was used to have non-sports-fans subsidize the outrageous salaries of
pro athletes? How is it not significant that making this "exclusive" content
also available over Hulu, not to mention Amazon and others, changes that
landscape? If you can get this content outside MVPD walls, without waiting,
that's a huge difference.
>> Now take the example where there is no single gatekeeper of
>> content sources. In that situation, the various content troves
>> will go out of their way to offer something more attractive that
>> the other guy.
> So you say. Let me know when any of this happens.
IT ALREADY HAS! See above. You just posted a story about how a current FX
program is not exclusively in that MVPD pipe anymore.
> The fact that you choose to ignore is that the content conglomerates
> operate in lock step, demanding essentially the same licensing terms
> from all of the MVPDs that offer the extended basic bundle
You're not listening, Craig, because you're stuck on this "the bundle." The
content owners have no trouble changing the way they allow their stuff to be
delivered. Somehow, Hulu and Amazon have gotten the rights to do things
differently, even for brand new first run material. Like I said, TVE is the
anachronism.
> So are you suggesting that the primary provider of high speed
> broadband in the U.S. should be forced to divest this asset,
> or spin broadband out into a separate company that cannot bundle
> TV services?
Yes, the latter, most likely. Otherwise, you have a conflict of interest. You
might be interested in reading up on the history of telephone networks, which
went through a similar problem.
> If the FCC decides to regulate broadband as a Title II service, it
> is highly unlikely that new competitors will enter the market. Even
> if they do, the content owners will still control most of what we
> watch,
There are more congloms and other TV content owners than there are MVPDs
available to almost any given household, and by far. So this perpetual mantra
of yours is simply not convincing, Craig. The monopolistic "long pole" is not
where you think it is.
> Sorry Bert, but current ISP networks are not up to the task.
> According to Bell Labs there will be an 250% increase in bandwidth
> requirements by the end of this decade.
http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/DocumentStreamerServlet?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=White_Papers/Video_Shakes_Up_IP_Edge_EN_Whitepaper.pdf
The report explains how these ISP nets have to (and are) evolving, and I've
already explained that to you. Do you listen? Here's the quote, toward the end:
"The distributed caches are co-located or are integrated in the BNG, and are
cost-optimized for delivery of popular content. Caches deeper in the network
are cost-optimized to support a broader content library of less frequently
watched content for a large audience.
"The result is a significant bandwidth reduction between centralized video
storage and distributed caches during peak times where concurrency is highest.
And because the content travels a shorter distance to the subscriber, the QoE
is far higher than anything an OTT provider can provide through their
Internet-based streaming servers."
That's how it's done, Craig. People aren't going to switch over all at once,
but the report is extremely clear that this is what consumers want. And Netflix
already claimed there were prepared to install these edge servers, for their
stuff. So that's how it's done, combined with scheme like DOCSIS 3.1 for the
last mile links.
> You seem to believe that this is an either/or decision point for
> the content owners;
I repeated this a zillion times. The content owners will certainly exploit
luddites such as Craig, as long as these luddites can't see outside the garden
walls. But it is these content owners themselves who have noticed how their
customers are changing their viewing habits. So we have seen FX, AMC, HBO, CBS,
etc. investigating and implementing new options. And yet Craig continues to
insist:
> This is not going to happen Bert.
Right, Craig. And HDTV is only a "niche" market, HDTV sets will remain way too
expensive to become mainstream, and ATSC receivers are going to add $200 to
every TV set. Do you not sense somewhere that we have been around this circle
many times?
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
