[opendtv] Re: Facts vs fiction
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:56:46 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> It is equally obvious that the reason that Netflix has grown rapidly in
> popularity is based on two things:
>
> 1. Access to more than 50,000 programs on demand
> 2. No commercials
> HBO Go offers access to thousands of programs.
Okay, so far, no difference. HBO Go has ad-free movies, on demand, thousands of
titles, and so does Netflix. On the two points you have mentioned
(unconvincingly) many times before, and again above, the two appear much the
same.
> But this is irrelevant for cord cutters and shavers that DO NOT
> subscribe to the MVPD HBO tier.
But that's circular reasoning nonsense, Craig. If HBO offers what Netflix
offers, you would see people subscribing to the HBO tier, and/or NOT cutting
the cord. Right? Tired of watching HBO by appointment? No problem! Get HBO VOD.
The only difference between HBO and Netflix, aside from their respective
original content, is that one scheme is walled-in and more expensive, the other
is unwalled and cheaper. For movie lovers who don't much care about sports or
other expensive cable must-pay-fors, Netflix is an unwalled option they all
have. HBO is not. EVEN WITH the brand-new slimmed down packages the MVPDs have
made available, someone who wants movies and the basic OTA channels will come
out ahead with Netflix rather than HBO.
> Can [the congloms] make as much, or more more money going direct to
> consumer if the eliminate all the middlemen?
>
> If they go direct, the benefits of the oligopoly are gone - they will
> compete with each other and will risk losing guaranteed access to the
> vast majority of homes in the U.S.
Let me first say that as an OTA and now also Internet TV user, to me the
congloms have ALWAYS competed against one another. Your strange perspective is
only caused by the fact that you've been shackled for decades by a monopolistic
and proprietary (i.e. non-neutral) delivery pipe. You attribute the
non-competitiveness to the congloms, instead of the true reason.
To the main issue here. When the options are either to let the other guys drag
you down in flames along with them, or choose another distribution model, the
other distribution model (be it direct to consumer or with other middlemen)
wins out.
> This is circular nonsense. If you drop the extended basic bundle
> every channel in the bundle loses a subscriber - it is not possible for
> ESPN and TNT to lose more than the others.
Come now, Craig. Think this one through. The answer is that these "the bundle"
that you keep agonizing over ARE NOT identical among all MVPDs. It's that
simple.
>> Now tell me how many households in 2014 would have access to ESPN.
> .90 x .95 = 85.5
Arithmetic not your strong suit, eh?
If, in 2010, 90 percent of households had cable, and if, in 2010, "only" 95
percent of cable subscribers had that "the bundle" with ESPN, then that would
mean that in 2010, only 85.5 percent of households got ESPN.
If, from 2010 to 2014, 4.6 percent of ESPN subscribers got fed up and bailed
out, that would mean that today, only 80.9 percent of households got ESPN.
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:
