[opendtv] Re: Ideal A La Carte Package: 17 Channels | Multichannel
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 01:30:54 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Uuuh, and where do you see the term "MVPD"? Shows up nowhere.
Give it up Bert. The article describes the ideal multichannel
package - 17 channels.
Where do you see the term "MVPD" in the article, Craig? It's just you,
stubbornly throwing it in. I have way more than "17 channels" available on Hulu
or Amazon, Craig (hardly MVPDs). And all the FCC requires for "virtual MVPD" is
some live streams. Yet in spite of this, the article only talks about OTT
sites, never using the term MVPD, virtual or otherwise.
The article says very little, but what it does say is that
a huge percentage wants out of bundles, and it mentions
specifically non-MVPD OTT sites. Plus, the channels you
listed are exactly what makes bundles expensive and
unappealing, with the Internet now providing so many options.
As for bundles being unappealing, please add the following
qualifier:
TO YOU.
To me, sure, and also to the steady stream of cord cutters and cord shavers,
Craig. What you continue to miss, the reason people are bailing out is that
they are sick and tired of subsidizing channels they don't want. Repeating the
obvious: once upon a time, the technology was such that this arrangement was
the only game in town. As of a few years ago, with Internet broadband having
covered the vast majority of US households, technology has made such
subsidizing no longer an **easy supply-side mandate**. The Internet allows for
competition from TV sources unaffiliated with the broadband delivery medium,
making other options available (in spite of the old model soldiering on for
indeterminate amount of time).
Craig only understands the VOD feature offered by IP, even though this VOD
feature, proprietary to MVPDs, predated ubiquitous broadband by years and
years, and is doable without IP. The Internet brings a whole heck of a lot more
than JUST that VOD.
Back to subsidizing channels. You, Craig, are among the minority (maybe 1/3),
who benefit from these handouts, to support your addiction to live sports TV.
So these handouts make your sports more affordable TO YOU, while they raise
other subscribers' rates to a level NOT SUPPORTED by actual market demand. As a
result, this subsidized model also overcompensates the pro athletes, to an
absurd level. People who only want to see some interior design videos or
cooking shows, and couldn't care less about sports, are forced to subsidize
multi-million dollar salaries of those who throw small spheres around a field.
These are the to-be-expected market distortions caused by enforced subsidies.
You can easily find, on the Internet, what the MVPDs charge for the different
"the bundle" channels. Sports, in particular ESPN, are way, way more than any
other. This article (Craig won't read it but maybe others will), from just 2
years ago, is already $1 lower than the current cost, for ESPN.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/mad-about-the-cost-of-tv-blame-sports/274575/
Which is no doubt why sports addicts feel obliged to push bundles which include
live sports (that, and/or they are PR mouthpieces for the legacy model). Easy
subsidy, and the other channels in the bundle cost a negligible amount, by
comparison. What a deal.
So, Craig once again calls for a new bundle to "protect the huge second revenue
streams" created when people are forced to subscribe to live sports. As if this
is in the consumers' best interests. As if such is even necessary, with the
Internet.
The term "cord shaving" specifically refers to people bailing out of bundles,
Craig. You have demonstrated (again) that you seem unable to perceive trends,
until they are way old old news. But the facts show that when people are aware
of the subsidy effects, and they are given a chance to opt out, they are taking
that option. Cord shaving being a bigger phenomenon than cord cutting.
Re-creating that same old subsidy formula, for a new bundle for the Internet,
with vastly unbalanced subscriber fees once again, is sort of like hiding your
head in the sand. The Internet gives the demand side much more leverage, by
enabling competition. It restores balance to the supply-demand model. People
take notice, even if they aren't accomplished economists. Those who don't want
to subsidize sports don't have to anymore. They can get their interior
remodeling and cooking shows for much less.
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:
