[opendtv] Re: FW: Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 03:32:11 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> Wrong, Craig. People who subscribed to cable wanted to get the
>> broadcast channel on that same cable, so they could remove their
>> antenna.
>
> Of course they did Bert. That was the feature that got the CATV
> industry started, AND a requirement imposed by the FCC. But it
> is a stretch to say that this is why most homes subscribed to
> cable,
There you go, changing the subject. I said that consumers were insisting that
those TV network channels be on the cable pipe, and that's what the FCC was
responding to. I never suggested that all they got cable for was those OTA
channels. So, this gives the TV networks, through their affiliated
broadcasters, lots of leverage. And deservedly so, I should add.
> No question about leverage, although supply and demand have
> little to do with it. They had political leverage to force
> cable systems to pay for their signals,
Poppycock. Once again, when the TV networks drop out, during any of those
spats, consumers complain very loudly. You cannot pretend this isn't so, and
you cannot pretend that the only reason the TV networks are on MVPDs is
"politicians." I'm surprised you've been able to repeat that for so many years,
without insistent pushback.
> Nope. The MVPDs refused to pay until the 1992 Cable Act gave
> broadcasters retrans consent.
Fairly early days for cable, still. That's about when TVs started being sold
with their tuners set to cable frequencies by default. So it's understandable
that right about then, the broadcasters would wonder how niche channels like
Scripps were getting subscription fees, and
> Congress gave broadcasters retrans consent, and the option to ask for must
> carry or retrans consent payments.
> A decade later, with control of 90% of the content on the MVPD systems,
> they started asking for monetary compensation.
Okay, noted, it was Congress and not the FCC. And this all makes sense. Once
again, the price is set according to what the consumer is willing to pay. When
perhaps 90 percent of TV households was safely walled up behind MVPD walls, the
congloms/broadcasters would be expected to ask for more. That 90 percent shows
a certain inelasticity in demand, wouldn't you say?
> The people? They have opinions, but little clout. The money
> comes from the lobbyists for the regulated industries.
If that were true, you wouldn't be seeing Tom Wheeler having to consider Title
II, Craig.
> There is no reason for the broadcast networks to keep broadcasting,
> except to serve the small market that does not subscribe to a MVPD
> service AND the political clout
Explain, then, why they also have their content FOTI? The politicians don't get
air time on this VOD content.
> How do you make a system with finite capacity content neutral Bert?
Check out the Internet, Craig. Nothing is "infinite capacity," but the number
of content sources available to any Internet user is gymongous. Because it's
not all transmitted all the time. This makes any need for monopolistic "the
bundles" vanish. And it doesn't take an FCC to order this. It just happens.
When technology permits something, people will demand it. Yet, you go on
insisting that we should all obediently be doing what the MVPD model tells us
to do.
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:
