[opendtv] Re: FW: Re: Distribution outside the bundle
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:24:31 -0500
On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> How would you even know, Craig, since you are the faithful, loyal, long-time
> user of cable STBs?
Because I never used a STB until HD DVRs became available in the early '2000s.
Prior to that I only subscribed to analog cable and used the built in tuners in
my TV. I believe this goes back to 1986 when we bought our current home in
Gainesville.
>
> I'll repeat what I said. The tuner in TV sets now, my first encounter being
> ca. 1992, is set by default to the cable frequencies. If you use an antenna,
> you won't be able to get most of the UHF channels, unless you go into the
> menu and set it to "antenna" (at first, it was a switch behind the set, by
> default in the "cable" position). This is simple fact. I've had to do this
> first step, every time, since the early 1990s. Whereas in 1985, I did not
> have to. You cannot disagree with the most obvious facts.
Your mileage may vary. The simple fact is that all sets can tune go both, and
this fature has been standard since some time in the '80s.
>
>> Why does it make sense to demand payment for something you give
>> away to a significant portion of your viewers;
>
> Read my lips, Craig. In the US economy, the seller charges whatever price the
> customer will bear.
Not for FOTA TV. If the station charge for anything they broadcast they must
pay the government 5%' as established after the 1995 Telcom Act updates. The
deal with the government for the TV spectrum was that they could not charge for
the service.
> Your socialist-sounding agenda, in response to this, is not convincing. The
> problem here is not the broadcasters or the congloms. The problem is the
> monopolistic pipe folk like you are wedded to, and the insistent demand that
> TV network channels be on that monopoly pipe.
Not my agenda. I would never have given broadcasters the spectrum for free, nor
would I have allowed them to sell their licenses. As a result we have billions
of dollars of "goodwill" on the books for TV stations, and we are now going to
BUY THE SPECTRUM BACK that they were given for free.
The deal was thought to be in the public interest, with news, weather and other
emergency alerts, and public affairs programming to balance the ad supported
entertainment. Many stations had to agree to a minimum number of hours of
public affairs programming - that requirement was dropped many years later,
along with the equal time provisions.
The "unintended" consequence was the creation of huge media conglomerates that
now create a very large percentage of our GDP. We are now investigating the
Sony hack to determine if our government should retaliate! And Sony is not a
U.S. Company...
>
> Doesn't matter what people might prefer.
Thanks at least for this important acknowledgement.
You could call this the manta of every monopolist.
> Do you pay for your "the bundle," Craig? Yes? Then that proves you're willing
> to pay that subscription fee. Until you cut the cord, you are simply proving
> to the congloms and broadcasters, and all the niche channels, and the
> overpaid athletes, that you are willing to pay more.
Yes I am willing to pay the subscription fee because I value some of what I am
paying for. Will this continue to be the case? That depends on how much they
raise the price and if better alternatives become available.
>
>
> **All that matters** is what people will agree to shell out. When a service
> provider creates the infinite revenue stream for itself, as MVPDs do, or as
> Aereo tried to do, by using someone ELSE'S content as bait, that content
> owner will demand a piece of that action.
As they should, as a major portion of the subscriber fee is for the content
that is exclusive to the service. Broadcast content is not exclusive to the
service and is available to me for free with an antenna. The FCC REQUIRES that
I get the broadcast channels as part of the service, and Congress gave the
content owners the option to charge me for the content the FCC says I must
receive.
>
>> The Internet is not infinite.
>
> Please inform us what is the maximum number of content troves available on
> the Internet. Just for grins, use IPv6 to make that computation. Then tell me
> why anyone would need a monopolistic "bundling" model, to reach each user,
> when using such a medium.
Irrelevant.
There could be an infinite number of grocery stores within driving distance of
your home. Markets determine the number of stores Bert, just as markets will
determine the number of entertainment oriented services delivered via the
Internet.
And for now, limitations in broadband deployments limit the number of homes
that can simultaneously watch content from the Internet.
>
>> Sorry Bert, but early cable technology did not require a monopoly
>> on the intent it carried.
>
> Sorry, Craig. Early cable technology was one-way broadcast, single source to
> multiple destinations, purely frequency-divided, analog tuners in the STBs,
> and only one infrastructure in any given neighborhood.
And what has this got to do with requiring a monopoly on content? Any station
available to a CATV system was carried voluntarily because it was in the
interest of the system owner. The cable industry had to invest billions to
build out infrastructure and help create new channels to compete with the local
broadcast TV oligopoly.
>
> This is the perfect recipe for a single content gatekeeper, for that
> gatekeeper to necessarily have to create a limited set of optional bundles,
> and for the content owners to make demands of that one gatekeeper middleman.
> There is simply no valid argument you can make against these facts, Craig.
> The Internet, instead, invalidates that model.
I will jot disagree that regulating cable systems was the perfect prescription
for the creation of gatekeepers. The regulators were gatekeepers, creating
franchises and charging the operators for pole attachments and rights of way.
What else would you expect with a government regulated monopoly?
The Internet does not invalidate the gatekeeper model. It is FULL of them. And
soon we will have Virtual MVPDs operating over the Internet.
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:
