[opendtv] Re: ESPN Scores Top Audiences in Cable History with Semis | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:19:30 -0500
On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> It is cool to be unwalled. But the problem is, reading your post, I'm
> convinced you still don't understand what it means. And no, you don't
> necessarily need to subscribe to a bunch of different sites, Craig. Being
> unwalled simply allows you to choose whatever site *or* sites suit your needs
> best, without having to swear your allegiance to the one wire you connect to,
> and loyally proclaim that it gives you the best solution (as you insist on
> doing).
Sorry Bert, but "one subscription to control them all" is fiction, as was
Tolkien's masterpiece.
Moving to virtual MVPDs and direct-to-consumer sales/subscriptions by the
content oligopoly is simply evolutionary, no different than the many other
evolutionary steps we have seen in content distribution in our lifetimes.
Yes, the dependence on monopoly controlled pipes may be easing, but the reality
is that we are now becoming dependent on monopoly controlled ISP services. The
limited number of channels available from the broadcast oligopoly gave way to
facilities based MVPD, which are now evolving into Virtual MVPDs.
We may well see more competition between virtual MVPDs, including new bundles
that better match the "tastes" of the subscriber. But we are NOT likely to see
any overall reduction in the cost of TV entertainment; at best we may see the
rate of price increases moderate.
> There is **no reason** why one OTT site cannot emerge that will have the
> channels on it you want, without you having to subsidize channels that you
> don't like.
Unlikely. To do that you would need to allow ala carte channel selection. This
could happen, but there would be a requisite price increase per channel to make
up for the lost subsidies. Even you acknowledge that ala carte pricing will
cost more.
That being the case, it is far more likely that most consumers will stick with
bundles, perhaps with less of the unwanted stuff that the content congloms keep
forcing on us. In fact much of the unwanted stuff may simply go away. Why does
a content conglom need to run a large number of linear streaming channels
filled with library content, when they can provide VOD access to their
libraries?
In the end, there will be live content and VOD content, and the live content
will form the basis for bundles.
What is encouraging, but also problematic for your vision of the future, is the
fact that we now have new VMVPDs like Netflix and Amazon competing with the
traditional content congloms for the resources to create new, EXCLUSIVE,
original programming.
I found it interesting this week that Amazon is offering a large number of
"pilots" to their subscribers, who will then have the opportunity to tell
Amazon which ones they like. There is nothing new about pilots, but
historically they were shown to the execs at the content congloms, who then
decided which ones to bet on.
While it is encouraging that there are now players with deep pockets willing to
finance new content, this also creates more competition for the limited
resources that can produce it. This is likely to cause further increases in the
cost to produce high quality content rather than bringing the price back down
to Earthly reality.
And it is likely to cause viewers to need multiple subscriptions to gain access
to the exclusive shows behind competing pay walls.
> You seem unable to grasp, later on in your post, that just because now one
> might need multiple subscriptions today, this is not chiseled on a tablet, to
> be true for all time.
Dream on. You dream of real competition, but what the Internet is really doing
is lowering the barriers to entry for new content creators who will need deep
pockets to fund the exclusive content that drives subscribers to their service.
Ultimately, these new content owners will license these shows, as has been the
case for the current content oligopoly; thus there will be more inclusive
services for those willing to wait a year or two to see popular shows.
Bottom line - evolutionary change, but consumes will pay as much or more than
they do today for their TV fix.
> That's a load of you know what. You subscribe, Craig, because it was your
> only choice, aside from the few OTA channels (which barely even exist in
> Florida). If there is only one store around that sells your favorite Zest
> soap, that probably means you're paying a lot more for that soap than it is
> worth. You are trying really hard to claim that it's perfectly okay to have
> just one store that sells your favorite Zest soap. That's ridiculous, Craig.
No, BERT your response is ridiculous. Clearly I pay more than it is worth; such
is the nature of commodities sold by oligopolies. I have three choices for MVPD
service, and the new Internet services that can supplement the extended basic
bundle that I choose to pay for. I have access to all of the FOTA networks, but
rarely watch any of their programs except sports. And the stuff you have access
to via FOTA Multicasts is mostly the same stuff offered via the second tier
networks in the extended basic bundle.
> Aaargh. Yes, Craig, CATV provided small towns with TV signals from the
> closest transmitters. That made logical sense, right? It made far less sense
> to force this solution, after satellite to MVPD head ends came on the scene.
> However the FCC essentially made a rule of the old CATV solution, for the
> local OTA stations, when MVPDs emerged on the scene. *Instead*, as of now,
> over the Internet, no one has yet written such a rule.
It made no sense to you BERT. You have ALWAYS championed the idea of a
nationalized broadcast TV service, similar to those that dominate broadcasting
in Europe. But we had a market based system and the FCC protected it, much as
the politicians have protected it to keep getting re-elected.
And the FCC is already writing the rules for the Internet. First via the ruling
giving VMVPDs access to the same content as the facilities based MVPDs; next
with rules for the carriage of broadcast networks. The second part will be
interesting to watch play out.
The FCC could do exactly what it did with the DBS systems ; force VMVPDs to
offer the local affiliates. OR, the broadcast networks could decide to abandon
the affiliate model, allowing VMVPDs to license national feeds as FOTA
broadcasts ride into the sunset.
The fact that Dish has not been able to license the broadcast networks for the
new Sling service is highly informative. It appears that Disney is willing to
license ABC, but the other networks are holding out for...something. Moonves
now says he does not care how you watch CBS. So now we must see what NBC
(Comcast) and fox decide.
My educated guess is that they will all elect to bypass the affiliate model,
and this will happen before the broadcast spectrum auction next year. This in
turn will accelerate the demise of FOTA broadcasting in the U.S.
> Technically, those same rules *can* be applied to Internet TV. But they have
> not been. If CBS allows me to watch content direct from them, bypassing
> WUSA-DT, no one tells them they cannot do so.
For now there is still a delay. If you want to watch the live broadcast you
still have only one choice - WUSA-DT. It is also informative that CBS has not
signed up affiliates to CBS All Access, which does offer the live streams via
the Internet (except for the NFL and some other sports).
> Why do such obvious points have to be restated a dozen times, Craig? >> The
> time MUST come when I can shame you into quitting this "not gonna happen" >>
> stuff, Craig. Every single time you've said it so far, you have been wrong. >
> > Really. Can you watch ESPN? Without MVPD subscription and without
> subscribing to your "the bundle" that you have been insisting would always be
> necessary? **YES** Craig. So spare yourself the egg on face, already. Bert
It's just a different bundle Bert.and it does not contain other channels I
want.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
