[opendtv] Re: Forbes: ESPN Tries To Have It Both Ways
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 07:46:37 -0500
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 5:28 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Only people who are loyal subjects of an MVPD, Craig.
You are correct. Only MVPD subscribers get to watch the walled garden content
via the Internet.
> Once again, the younger demographic is not wedded to their MVPD content
> repository as you are, get it?
Yup. This is the Napster generation. They understand how to steal this stuff
using their parents MVPD username and password. It won't take long for the
MVPDs to come up with a better DRM system to shut off this leakage.
> It is that demographic that ESPN, and of course the others too, are having to
> obsess over. The way you make it sound, these content owners are totally
> clueless and mired in the past. And no, the "second screen" isn't the only
> phenomenon going on here. The change is in the "first screen" as well.
They are not clueless. I'll concede that they are holding onto a business model
that is dying. People have never really liked paying for stuff they don't
watch. But they have tolerated the Increasing cost of the content bundle for
three decades.
The congloms are managing the transition to Internet content silos at a pace
they are comfortable with. They know that they will not be able to make as much
money as they do today if the MVPD bundles are broken up.
> You seem to miss the important points. The limitations of the broadcast
> protocol WAS the issue decades ago, because broadcast protocols necessary
> then *depended* on a walled garden network architecture. Or at least, it
> certainly *promoted* a walled garden model.
Not at all. Broadcasting has always been a market based oligopoly. It has
always been an appointment TV service. And it became a subset of the MVPD
bundles three decades ago.
This was by choice. LOCAL Broadcasters could have used the DTV transition to
compete with the MVPDs. Instead the Broadcast Networks used their political
muscle and money to take control of the MVPD bundles, using their local
affiliates to generate a second revenue stream via retransmission consent.
Local FOTA broadcasting is becoming increasingly irrelevant. People are not
watching serialized dramas, sitcoms and reality TV shows when they ain't on the
local stations. When they watch this stuff via Hulu, Netflix and the network
portals, the local stations are cut out of the equation. Local stations are
very concerned about cord cutting, but not the kind you are so excited about.
They are concerned that the networks they are affiliated with will cut the cord
between the network and them; the networks can pull the plug on FOTA
broadcasting whenever they feel like it; if the lose the Aereo case this could
give them the excuse they have been looking for.
>
> With the advent of two-way IP networks, the congloms that understand
> technology can get beyond this "business model" you seem to be stuck on, and
> see other business models that will potentially give them more revenues. You
> seem to not get that moving to IP and remaining mired in the walled garden
> model won't fly
I am not stuck on the MVPD business model Bert. THEY ARE!
They are an extremely profitable oligopoly, and know that the MVPD bundles are
the key to these monopsonist profits. They are delaying the inevitable as long
as they can.
>
> Why? Simple! Because you can't force the subscriber to put up with that! They
> already aren't!
Let's continue this thread in the future when the MVPD model really falls
apart. When they have less than 50% of U.S. Homes we can talk again.
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:
