[opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:24:49 -0700

They're not entitled, or they're not entitled to mandatory must carry
coverage?

Seems to me that they're entitled to work that out with cable companies
pursuant to retrans consent.

The EXTREMELY sad fact is that, if the broadcasters and their suppliers
(networks, syndicators, etc) had focused on this several years ago, the
arguments would be moot: cable companies would be clamoring for the new,
heavily promoted channels/networks of programming offered by the
broadcasters and their partners.

Instead, we have new ways of doing old things slightly better (at lower
cost) like Media Central and Fox's Stream Splicer, and we have the networks
asserting (against all precedent) that they control the entire 19.29 MB/sec
of their affiliate stations, and the broadcasters asserting that "no, you
don't."

ABC, for example, is promoting on it's news broadcasts the ABC News Now
digital service (DTV, broadband, cell phones).  Alas, if you talk to
affiliates, you will be able to discern that ABC started up the service on
the Monday of the Democratic Convention in July, and won't guarantee to
affiliates that the service will be available after the end of September.
Kind of hard to make serious business plans around that.

What a way to run a railroad.  Since dynamic PSIP is a basic requirement to
multicast, this indecision by ABC has actually cost me time and money, as
one of my prospects wavered from "no" to "right now" to "no" all in the
course of a single week as the decision-making went from station to group to
corporate and back down again.

John Willkie



-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:01 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules


At 4:13 PM -0400 9/17/04, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Yes, perhaps multicast must-carry is not a mandate.
>But to say that the broadcatsers are not "entitled" to
>using their 6 MHz channels for multicasts is what I was
>questioning. They are entitled by definition. If the
>FCC doesn't narrow their channel to 2 MHz, it means
>that the broadcasters are entitled to their 6 MHz.

I DID NOT say that broadcasters are not entitled to the 6 MHz, or
that they are in any way prohibited from using their DTV channels for
multicasts. What I DID say is that broadcasters ARE NOT entitled to
cable carriage of their entire DTV multiplex.

>
>Both Linx and LG have demoed good receivers, which
>exceed the performance of any competitors at the 19.39
>Mb/s bit rate and cost no more. LG has written that
>their chipset will be in production by this holiday
>season. I think if you look at Mark's memo that LG
>says now it will have the built-in 5th gen receivers
>before Christmas and STBs with 5th gen right after.
>Linx, before it got sold, had press releases that gave
>a similar schedule.

Where can I buy one?

How much do they cost?

You are speculating about a technology that will be used in products
that do not yet exist.

What is even more important is the reality that virtually NO demand
exists for these boxes, other than that which may be developing for
USDTV. It is difficult to go into a consumer electronics store today
and walk out with an ATSC capable STB. On the other hand, it is
relatively easy to get an HD capable STB for DirecTV, DISH, or from
your local cable company.


>  > Next, explain why the broadcasters proposition is
>>  better than that offered by multichannel competitors.
>
>That's very obvious: it's free. Check out the UK and
>Berlin experience.

Apples and Oranges. There is no organized effort here in the U.S. to
develop a FREE multichannel broadcast service, much less one that
offers the breadth of content and number of channels available in the
U.K and Germany. Yes, there is potential for broadcasters to fill
their multiplexes with advertiser supported (free) networks, but it
is highly unlikely they will bother if they do not get cable carriage
for these multicasts - the potential returns do not justify the
expense and the net result is further fragmentation of the stations
primary network audience.

That being said, I beleive that the UK/Berlin model WOULD be quite
successful in the U.S>.

>  > What is the correlation between the remaining 15% who
>>  do not subscribe to a multichannel service, and AGE.
>
>Again, I already posted the result of the mabb
>experience in Berlin. You're 180 out on this too. The
>age of DTT users went down compared to OTA analog
>users. It trends down, not up, at least as long
>as it's "new."

Again, your missing the point. IF broadcasters were to emulate the
UK/Berlin model, then you would be right. But that is not what I was
talking about. I was asking about the demographics of those who still
rely on the OTA service here in the U.S., and implying that this
audience may simply be "retired," rather than migrating to another
distribution technology.

>  > FINALLY. The broadcast networks DO HAVE the
>>  potential for 100% reach.
>
>Can Sinclair own at *least* one 6 MHz channel in all
>US markets? Can the major networks do that on their
>own? Does DirecTV have to limit its coverage pattern
>to at most 39 percent of the US land area?

You are confusing ownership with REACH.

>
>Okay, so NBC is available in 100 percent of US homes.
>Why can't NBC be available to 100 percent of US homes
>via the *same* OTA provider, e.g. Sinclair or one of
>their own, as it can be when received via DBS?

Because it is prohibited by the current business model, based on
regulation, rather than open competition.

>
>The rules that govern OTA are far more stringent than
>the rules that govern their competition.

True. This is by intent, because the stations do not own spectrum,
but rather, they use it as licensees of the government, and are
subject to FCC regulations. It is also true that government
regulations protect this exclusive franchise, providing tremendous
leverage over competitors.

>
>>  There is an excellent example of this that has been
>>  working for nearly a century...it's called the
>>  telephone.
>
>No, Craig. The telephone was for the longest time a
>local monopoly, comparable only to a utility. Now
>that they are no longer a local monopoly, it makes
>no SENSE to over-regulate them anymore, and those
>rules are changing. They will be more like cable.
>They will offer TV, or whatever else, and no one
>is preventing them from creating video content.

You missed the analogy completely.

Not surprising.

>
>Your idea is just a throw-back to the old local
>utility monopolies. It's obviously possible to go
>that way, but totally unnecessary to retain
>competitionin an OTA infrastructure.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. I am talking about the separation of
content and infrastructure. There may well be advantages to regional
monopolies to provide the infrastructure, but only if a true
marketplace exists for the content that they carry.

Anyone can use the PSTN to move any voice message, or any bits. There
is NO regulation of the content; there IS OPEN access to the network
for anyone willing to pay the carriage fees.

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.

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: