[opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:04:32 -0400
On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:00 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First, grocery stores are not regulated under Title II.
Irrelevant to this discussion, but MVPD bundles are not regulated under Title
II either.
But more to the point, adding the TV channels, for a total which is less than
broadband alone, is not a simple matter of "discount." So, these practices
will come under scrutiny now, where they would not have in the legacy MVPD
regime.
The total IS not less than broadband alone Bert. as I pointed out, a double
play of broadband and VOIP costs less than $50/mo here in Gainesville. Look at
the Verizon broadband pricing in your area before making a fool of yourself
again...
Yes, that's also what I expect. And that's why this arrangement can't last.
Or let me put it this way. Such arrangements could last, long term, only if
some of the broadband revenues from long term broadband subscribers were
diverted to paying overpriced pro athletes and TV actors.
Yes Bert, promotional pricing deals like the one we are discussing are not
designed to last. They are designed to get you hooked on the service so that
you will continue to subscribe after the price ratchets up at the end of the
promotional period.
In this case each part of the triple play is profitable. To the best of my
knowledge there is nothing illegal about cross subsidies, unless they are used
to disadvantage a competitor. But all of the competitors are offering similar
promotional deals, so it's a moot point.
But such arrangements will be much more closely scrutinized now, where
before, they had no reason to be. In fact, that's pretty much how bundling
works. You pay for something, whether you use it or not, just for the
privilege of being connected. Plenty of money flowing into MVPDs that is for
services not used. In this instance, I could understand paying more for the
TV channels, even if not full price, but not less than for broadband alone.
Possibly, it's just eating into profits, creating short term losses. The FCC
will no doubt figure it out, in due course.
The FCC has no authority to "figure it out" Bert.
Sling is a VMVPD service.
Nope. It does not carry the linear streams of the TV networks.
Give it up. That is not the definition of a MVPD. You can get DBS service
WITHOUT subscribing to the local station mini bundle. Only cable ( and perhaps
the FTTH services) are required to include local stations.
Anyway, that's totally immaterial. Sling is not an essential service. There
are online or OTA alternatives for any household you care to name.
The only online alternative that is in any way comparable to Sling is Sony Play
Station Vue, which is the other VMVPD service.
*No one* is only connected to Sling. If you expect Sling TV to be your only
source of all TV content, that's your problem. Much like the guy in NYC, who
couldn't find a way to get CBS and CW networks, from his Sony service. His
problem, not a problem.
Hardly anyone is "only connected" to one MVPD service Bert. The majority of
U.S. Homes ALSO subscribe to a SVOD service. The guy in NY found The Sony
service insufficient relative to legacy MVPD services...
That was the whole point of the article. He did not want to subscribe to
multiple services to get what he can get from one MVPD service.
The initial problem was spectrum. With only 12 VHF channels, any one market
can hardly get room for more than three channels, in congested areas.
Eventually, with UHF, all of that changed drastically. These channels always
competed against one another. There was no single monopoly gatekeeper.
Sorry, but UHF only allowed two things:
1. Access to the big three in smaller markets where there was no VHF channel
available because of white space considerations.
2. After the cost to build a station came down in the '80s, the major growth of
independent stations. This led to the formation of several new networks (owned
by the big three) and a bunch of independent rerun channels. This had no
significant impact on the ratings of the big 3 then 4. It was new content from
cable that caused the decline in network ratings.
That's not true, Craig. In the late 1960s and 1970s, there were already
several UHF stations competing against the main thee networks. In fact, the
TV networks almost always were assigned to VHF, and all the rest, the
competition, were UHF. And with the improved receivers, that didn't need to
introduce 6 vacant channels between TV stations, more could have been done.
So, unless UHF was unknown to you until the 1980s, which is hard to believe,
your statement cannot be correct.
How absurd. These independents were broadcast channels Bert. For the most part
they were only in major markets until the huge growth of independent stations
in the '80s. And they had very little impact on the ratings of the big three.
The main problem was spectrum. Cable could sidestep that spectrum shortage,
and that was its main attraction initially. Original programming, produced by
the MVPDs, had nothing to do with the original popularity of cable. That's
decades later, and a completely different discussion.
It is the discussion we are having Bert? CATV was a major benefit for
broadcasters as it extended their reach and audience. When cable started to
compete in the '80s everything changed.
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:
- » [opendtv] Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- John Shutt
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Downside of cord cutting- Craig Birkmaier