Dish Network Loses Record-Setting 281,000 Subscribers
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dish-satellite-TV-cord-cutting/2016/07/22/id/739997/
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Birkmaier
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:41 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting
On Jul 23, 2016, at 7:45 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
It is no longer a local monopoly Bert, unless you are
referring to the technology that is making your vision
a reality...
Broadband.
Of course, Craig. And again. You're still dancing around the issue.
No Bert, The delivery of TV content IS the issue.
Today there are many alternatives, even for the extended basic bundle. Cable,
DBS, FIOS, Google Fiber, and now slim bundles via broadband. What started as
competition for FOTA broadcasters has become a content oligopoly controlled by
five big companies. The legacy MVPDs and new VMVPDs are just conduits, albeit
some are very profitable conduits. Without video wired services are now just
regulated wires that barely justify the investment in infrastructure.
MVPDs used to be a local monopoly, BUT, a monopoly for a fairly frivolous
and unessential service. As such, the FCC wisely stayed away from
over-regulation, and so we have this collusion between them and content owners,
that you pretend to dislike. I mean, we still had and have FOTA TV, to cover
all bases, so MVPD subscription is hardly essential for anyone.
This was true back in the early '80s, but things changed dramatically when
the cable systems started developing and programming their own content. When
they started raising rates to cover the cost of these new services the
broadcasters cried foul - they wanted a piece of the action...
A second revenue stream.
The 1992 Cable Act gave broadcasters - actually the content owners who
licensed their content to the broadcasters - the tools they needed to take
control of the content delivered over the cable systems, and then the DBS
systems. By the end of the '90s five companies owned nearly everything we could
watch (90%). Worse yet, because of a loophole in the Cable Act, rates for MVPD
service continued to rise at 2-3 times the rate of inflation.
Truth is FOTA TV no longer covers all the bases. In fact it is a bigger
wasteland than at any time in history. Just look at the nominations for Emmy
Awards. Quality content has moved behind the pay walls This is especially true
for sports, which "was" the lifeblood of live linear TV; now it is the
lifeblood of the extended basic bundle.
And your incredible Internet is now home to a new kind of pay bundle - the
SVOD services from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, Showtime and Starz; and these
are just the biggest players.
Clearly a minority of consumers do not find MVPD service necessary. But the
vast majority do, as this is the only way to access the most popular content.
Now, these same local monopoly cable companies have taken on a far more
critical role, a broadband telecom role, so the FCC wisely slapped Title II on
them.
That is your opinion. IMHO, this is going to slow the deployment of
competitive broadband options, cause rates to rise, and lead to regulation of
Internet content. Time will tell.
So, instead of being relieved that broadband won't become the same
"oligopoly" colluding with content owners that it was in MVPD days, that you
sometimes pretend to dislike, now you're complaining about Title II.
Too late. The same oligopoly that "colludes" with the MVPDs is now firmly in
control of the streaming of high quality entertainment content via the
Internet. They are MORE PROFITABLE than ever.
Two things have changed:
1. Vast libraries of TV content are now available on demand - some new
players are licensing this content and developing new content of their own. And
the majority of U.S. homes now pay for one of these services as well as a MVPD
bundle.
2. TV content has been freed from umbilicals and DTV antennas - it is now
accessible anywhere, anytime, on a new generation of mobile screens.
One need look no further that the politicians and regulators to understand
that they will keep the media under their thumb, now that they have taken the
first step to regulate the Internet.
That's crap, Craig. The retrans consent rule only gave a subset of content
owners, on these local "info service" monopolies, the same benefits and
privileges that all the other content owners, on these local info service
monopolies, already had.
Speaking of crap!
The cable industry was not getting rich off of the new channels they
developed. Most were losing money - the subscriber fees are what made these new
networks possible. Most fees were just nickels and dimes. The subset of content
owners - which the cable systems were REQUIRED to carry - just happened to be
the broadcast networks, which were losing their audience to these new networks.
So retrans consent led to two major changes/problems.
1. The only way to increase monthly subscriber rates under the 1992 Cable Act
was to add new channels each year. In 1992 most systems had 30 channels. By
2000 they offered several hundred channels.
2. The requirement to negotiate retrans consent agreements was used by most
of the broadcast congloms to develop new networks which they REQUIRED the MVPDs
to carry if they wanted the broadcast network. This tactic is still the glue
that holds the extended basic bundle together today, even as subscriber fees
have grown to dollars instead of nickels and dimes.
And to seal the deal, the big content congloms bought up most of the new
cable networks. In the end this led to the creation of one new content conglom,
Time Warner, while Comcast has gobbled up NBC Universal.
This little blurb from the ACA says it all:
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/aca-fcc-blame-large-media-congloms-lack-program-diversity-not-smaller-cable/2016-03-31
ACA to FCC: Blame the large media congloms for lack of program diversity, not
smaller cable operators
Responding to an FCC inquiry to address a perceived lack of ethnic and racial
diversity in pay-TV programming, the American Cable Network has urged the
agency to examine the "forced bundling" practices of the large programming
conglomerates.
"Large programmers require SmallTown Cable to take all of their programming
as a package, rather than allowing SmallTown Cable to choose the programming
its subscribers will want," the ACA said in its response to the FCC Notice of
Inquiry.
"If SmallTown Cable wants to carry the Awesome Channel because its
subscribers want to see The Awesome Monster Show, for example, it must also
take the Slightly Less Awesome Channel, the Not Really Awesome Channel, and the
Downright Unpopular Channel," ACA added. "No questions, no exceptions. When
SmallTown Cable (or its buying group) tells AwesomeCorp. that its subscribers
only really care about The Awesome Monster Show, AwesomeCorp. says, in effect,
'too bad.'"
GUESS WHAT BERT. They are doing it again with the new VMVPDs...
It was nothing more than the FCC saying, yes, we agree with the OTA
stations. If the suckers subscribed to your local monopolies insist that they
want the OTA stations on your for-pay-only cable, then the OTA stations have a
perfect right to demand their pound of flesh.
The FCC said nothing of the sort. Congress passed the 1992 Cable Act, and the
FCC gained some additional regulatory authority, which they have, as usual,
done nothing with. Cable rates kept rising, there was massive industry
consolidation, and we have two thriving oligopolies propped up by the political
class that they keep in power.
That's all the retrans consent regulation did. They could have mandated
complete neutrality, but technologically speaking, that would have been
unnatural, what with this natural head-end one-way broadcast gatekeeper in the
cable or DBS broadcast medium. That, and the fact that this was still a fairly
frivolous entertainment service only, meant that the FCC still regarded cable
as a Title I service. Take-it-or-leave-it "info service."
Fairly frivolous?
It's a $500 billion + industry and a significant factor in U.S. exports.
Sorry Bert, but retrans consent fundamentally changed the industry,
eliminating the competitive threat while strengthening the media monopoly.
As a result, the content owners are allowed to force the MVPDs
to buy their bundles
Oh really, Craig? Funny, but I recall distinctly that even in 1978, bundles
existed, and that subscribers were forced to buy only a limited number of
bundles. I also recall that between 1978 and 1985 or so, the prices for these
bundles soared. That is, after all, what convinced me to say "never."
Completely wrong. Prior to 1980 there was almost no original cable
programming, except perhaps for a camera pointed at weather gauges. HBO did not
reach all 50 states until 1980. The big break thru that helped cable systems
offer competitive content was satellite delivery of TV content to head ends.
There were a few super stations prior to 1980, but I am not aware of any cable
bundles, although HBO was sold as a premium channel.
The prices for cable bundles did not soar until the late '80s and many new
networks began to operate. But this was sufficient to start the long decline in
network TV ratings, which was the real stimulus behind Cable re-regulation.
And yet you fall into the same trap every single time I set it for you,
Craig. Convince me you aren't panicking. "Gloom and doom" and "concern," trying
to prop up the steeply declining statistic, not to mention continuing to reduce
your criterion for worrying (remember it used to be 80%, until we fell under
that in no time at all?). Sounds like panic to me. You simply can't have it
both ways. Your model promotes collusion, and you panic when it goes into steep
decline. Own it, Craig.
My only criteria is fir you to tell us when the number of MVPD subscribers
falls under 50% Bert.
Until then, I'd suggest you just chill.
Local monopolies can collude because that local monopoly service is a
pretty unregulated, "who-cares" Title I service. But over broadband, which
continues to be a local monopoly, they cannot collude, only thanks to Title II,
and now you oppose that too.
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
Regards
Craig
