[opendtv] Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:54:06 -0500
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 9:25 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, okay, but those are two different jobs. I just see the main problem
> with all of this being with the monopolistic distribution pipe, not with the
> congloms.
How can you separate one from the other. Without retrans consent the broadcast
networks had no leverage. All they could do was demand must carry. With retrans
consent they gained substantial leverage, which was used in different ways by
each network.
Clearly "the pipe" was a big issue for both oligopolies. The number of channels
was limited on early analog cable systems, as was the number of networks
available for carriage. The cable companies made huge investments in the pipe,
upgrading it multiple times to increase capacity, go digital, add broadband,
and telephony. They ALSO made investments in new networks to fill those
channels.
One can make the case that the cable oligopoly used the popular broadcast
channels to attract subscribers - the broadcasters certainly made that case.
But one can also make the case that it took huge financial resources to create
new networks to compete with the broadcast channels. It's one thing if the
cable oligopoly willingly allowed the broadcasters to create new networks to
compete with the fledgling cable networks; it's quite another if the
broadcasters used the leverage of retrans consent to demand carriage (and
compensation) for new non-broadcast networks.
The current blackout of Fox News on Dish is related to the same old tactics.
Fox is trying to force Dish to carry two additional networks including a new
regional sports network.
Bottom line, does it really matter when two monopolies wrestle with one another
and the consumer ALWAYS loses?
> Which is FAR, FAR less competition than there is among congloms. Most
> households, I repeat, only have one choice of cabled MVPD, which they also
> use as ISP. Some also have Verizon FiOS, but Verizon called it quits with
> FiOS after covering no more than 20 percent of potential households (IIRC).
> And DBS may or may not be an option, depending on your circumstances. Plus,
> the fact that you also have to subscribe to an ISP makes DBS unattractive for
> many.
Competition among which congloms? If you are talking about the content owners,
they only compete for program ratings. They work in lockstep when it comes to
the demands they place on your "non-competitive" distribution oligopoly.
The fact remains that most consumers have multiple choices for video service,
and most have options for broadband, although the telco options are generally
inferior unless they have fiber in your neighborhood.
> For TV content the old fashioned way, perhaps. The reason I mentioned it's a
> hassle is to demonstrate how monopolistic the MVPDs expect themselves to be,
> and effectively are. Compare this with how easy it is to use different OTT
> sites. No comparison at all.
Really? You cannot access many OTT sites because they require authentication.
Some sites only work with Flash (not many anymore). Some sites block specific
devices. It's nice for you that there is improved choice with OTT sites. But it
is meaningless if you cannot access the content you want, and just "shopping"
if the choice is between various paid options.
> Yes, but so what? There are no technical problems carrying live streams, and
> ISP networks can use IP multicasting in such cases. As long as there are no
> TECHNICAL problems, it's only a matter of time before the congloms do this
> more regularly. CBS All Access, for example, already does carry live streams.
> So you can't use live streams as an argument against Internet delivery of TV.
> That site www.wwitv.com, which I mentioned many times, is crammed full of
> live streams.
It is not an argument against Internet delivery Bert. TV Everywhere is Internet
delivery - of both live and Unicast VOD streams.
The so what is that huge numbers of viewers place significant value on viewing
live streams for sports and news, and the live premiered of pre-produced
programs. If these streams are behind pay walls, they provide leverage to get
people to subscribe. It DOES NOT MATTER how the bits are delivered - we agree
that everything will shift to Internet delivery eventually. We disagree that
the Internet will fundamentally change the way the content congloms sell their
programs. MVPDs will survive the shift to Internet delivery Bert.
This is not a prediction. It is happening.
>
>> The only "new models" of interest to you seem to be those
>> that give you access to content you previously did not have
>> access to.
>
> And they SHOULD be of interest to you too, for that same reason. I can't
> fathom why you are so happily stuck in the mud, Craig. The Internet permits
> new models to be created, at along last I might add, breaking apart that
> local monopoly distribution concept, and you prefer to dwell on maintaining
> an anachronism on the Internet. Seems downright twisted.
The local monopoly distribution pipe is not the problem Bert. And it is not
going away, as everyone will still need high speed broadband to access OTT
sites.
The Internet ALSO permits the legacy business models coveted by the content
owners to be re-created, while enhancing the capabilities enjoyed by the
subscribers. I am no longer tied to my cable pipe - I can watch much of the
content I am paying for anywhere on any device. And increasingly I can access
many of the programs I am paying for on demand.
Clearly the same services can be sold ala carte via sites like CBS All Access.
The real issue is the relative cost of the MVPD bundles versus buying what you
want ala carte, and the other reality - some stuff is now, and will continue to
be sold exclusively via the MVPD bundles. So you can either subscribe or do
without.
>
>> Did Amazon force fit the legacy brick & mortar shopping
>> experience to the Internet? Obviously not; they developed a
>> far superior "mail order catalog."
>
> EXACTLY! Whereas any online MVPD look-alike would be more like Amazon forcing
> its customers to drive to a few locations in town, to place their Internet
> orders. Maintaining the old store model, when it was no longer necessary. I
> wonder how Craig still fails to grasp this, in his new-found role as MVPD
> mouthpiece.
No Bert, a virtual MVPD will look just like a physical MVPD that offers TV
Everywhere.
You have it exactly backwards. Your OTT world requires you to go to multiple
locations to obtain your content. IF, and this is a BIG hypothetical IF, you
decided to buy your content, you would need to set up subscriptions with Amazon
Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access and any other paid service you desire.
At best, you can say that the new virtual MVPDs will compete with the physical
MVPDs and all of the "independent" OTT services. Perhaps we will see new
bundles that are better tailored to viewer tastes. I remain skeptical that this
will happen anytime soon.
> You're being disingenuous, Craig! You talk about syndicated shows, and DVD
> sets of shows, as if they fit the same model as initial offering of periodic
> episodes online.
I do this because they are exactly the same thing. The only thing that has
changed is CONVENIENCE.
> Take the role of your "the bundle," Craig. Start with that idea in your mind.
> Do you really not see that Internet distribution simultaneous with "the
> bundle" distribution, or INSTEAD OF "the bundle" distribution, is brand new?
I do not see any difference except for the following:
1. I no longer need to drive somewhere to rent or buy the content - btw,
Netflix solved this problem a long, long time ago with their DVD mail service.
2. I can now buy individual episodes rather than full seasons, although the
price is higher.
3. The delay in release windows has been shrinking for all services.
What is brand new for me is the ability to watch live events when I am not
connected to the wire I am paying for, and the ability to access much of the
content I am paying for on demand.
> Perhaps I should use that same disingenuous argument to explain that "the
> bundle" distribution is hardly different from DVD or VHS sets.
>
>> The report covered more than edge servers. Yes some of this
>> has been going on for years; that does not mean it is ready
>> to scale for the masses. It will take years.
>
> It will easily scale as fast as consumers make the switch, Craig. It's not
> "years" for individual consumers. If you switched **RIGHT NOW**, you could
> make it work as well as I have been, for the past 4-5 years. If anything, I
> have been experiencing better and better service, even as more and more
> people have begun using Internet streaming. These changes to ISP networks
> have been ongoing steadily, for as long as ISPs have existed.
>
> 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.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
