[opendtv] Re: HDTV DVB-T receiver for the UK
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OpenDTV (E-mail)" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:25:00 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> There are three big pots of money out there
> is TV land. The total revenues in these pots
> is in excess of $40 billion annually.
>
> 1. Network revenues - about $15 billion
> 2. Broadcast station revenues - about $15 billion
> 3. Cable subscriber fees and local ad insertion
> revenues
>
> The conglomerates control all of #1, and about 40%
> of #2.
Question: how much do the conglomerates make for
shows that are cable/DBS exclusive, compared with:
1. Shows that that transmitted via O&Os, in addition
to cable and DBS, and
2. Shows that are transmitted via affiliates, and
cable and DBS.
You said in the past that if a show is not available
OTA, the cable/DBS companies get most of the ad
revenue, right? The conglomerates get some amount
of monthly revenue per subscriber.
What is the tradeoff? Does NYPD Blue make more or
less money than Monk?
> Giving the same content to cable and OTA
> broadcasters would undermine the current leverage
> that the conglomerates have. That is, it would not
> be possible to hold popular content hostage in
> order to push up the price of other channels.
But this is demonstrably false. When cable
companies stopped carrying the OTA content from ABC
some time ago and CBS more recently, they got
inundated with irate subscribers. Clearly,
umbillical services depend on broadcaster content
*even* when that content is transmitted OTA. The
conglomerates can hold any distribution medium
hostage, simply because they create the content
people WANT TO SEE.
(1) National caps, (2) OTA spectrum availability,
and (3) less than perfect OTA coverage, IMO, are the
only mechanisms that keep affiliates and umbillical
distribution services in the TV business.
It seems to me from your posts that you think it
is, or should be, otherwise?
> If Must Carry and re-transmission consent were to
> disappear, then what you are suggesting would most
> likely happen. But the balance of power would
> shift in favor of the distribution channels - i.e.
> the Networks might need to pay for carriage on
> each platform - cable, DBS, broadcast. Of course,
> this IS the way that it SHOULD work in a real
> marketplace.
Not true. If these must carry and retransmission
consent agreements went away, people would STILL
want to see the content from the conglomerates.
What would happen in a *true* open market is that
the conglomerates would very simply build up
their own distribution infrastructures. They would
hold even more sway, in your open market scenario.
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:
