[opendtv] Re: FCC Eliminates Simulcast Rules
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:20:33 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> These stations currently enjoy pretax profit margins
> in the 25-50% range. It would be fair to say that
> these owners do not want to do anything that would
> kill this cash cow, nor do they want OTA viewers to
> have access to 20-30 additional channels that could
> eat into their share of the OTA audience.
I don't see this. If each major network transmits 3
program streams instead of one, even if each
individual stream gets smaller viewership, overall
the network might easily get a larger OTA audience.
Some folk would much rather watch a rerun of an old
Outer Limits show than any Monday Night Football,
hands down. Why should a network, or a local
broadcaster, prefer to disenfranchise these people?
Do they really think these Outer Limits folk will
tune into a football game they don't care about? Of
course not. They'll instead switch to a different
broadcaster.
It doesn't make sense to me that the major networks
would be happier to compete head to head over cable
and DBS media, with possibly hundreds of other
channels, as opposed to competing over an OTA system,
up against only dozens of other programs.
> It would be more accurate to say that the audience has
> been fragmented for many years in these countries, and
> that the OTA broadcasters do not enjoy the economic or
> political power to block a system that is clearly
> beneficial to consumers.
The way I see it, Germany had a mix of commercial and
public stations OTA as well as on cable before, and
in the Berlin case, the vast majority of viewers were
subscribed to cable. I think OTA viewership there was
about half what it is here, percentage-wise (9 percent
compared to 18.9 percent). There, just like here, the
govt is interested in retaining an FTA system.
So, as you would predict, there should be no demand for
the extra expense of OTA STBs. But the end result, in
Berlin and in the UK, is a renewed interest by the
viewing public in OTA TV. Go figure. And, to add
insult to injury, from a younger demographic than
those who used OTA previously. Darn.
> What is different about a company contracting with
> an ISP to host a web site, versus contracting with
> a Digital TV infrastructure company to deliver their
> bits to local caches at the edges of the network?
No problem. OTA broadcasters with business sense will
host whatever programs or services that will get them
higher revenues. Your "audience fragmentation" obstacle
is what I don't buy. You don't fragment an audience
if you choose your multicasts carefully, as my football
example above.
> 3. Perhaps the telcos are just waiting for the
> current entertainment distribution system to
> collapse under its own weight. Why get into the
> multichannel TV business at all, if it is likely to
> be disintermediated by pervasive broadband
> connections?
I think the telcos were just slow-moving companies
unable to react outside their bog-slow, pre-established
upgrade schedules. But now that they want to deploy
these new services, I sure wouldn't say they must not.
If they want to develop their own content, more power
to them. That has worked very well for cable. Should
work for them too.
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.
Other related posts:
