[opendtv] Re: Ideal A La Carte Package: 17 Channels | Multichannel

  • From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:36:16 -0400

Craig wrote:

But it is obvious you have no clue what a MVPD is, even when a real
definition
is given to you

By who? I'll buy the FCC's redefinition, I'll even buy the cable industry's
definition. But not a definition that changes according to what argument Craig
is trying to put forth this minute, no.

When you subscribe to a MVPD service you get bundles of linear networks that
are assigned to specific channels. When a journalist speaks of ala carte
channel selection they are referring to the ability for the subscriber to
select the networks/channels they wish to pay for.

Like I already said, if you think that "channel" applies only to linear
streams, it would be trivially easy for CBS All Access to comply with "multiple
channels." All it has to do is allow the local affiliate, or the local O&O, to
transmit their linear multicasts on this online subscription service. As long
as these multiple linear streams are being made available by subscription, that
fulfills the FCC's proposed redefinition. I already explained this, Craig. Why
did I need to repeat this?

Now, do you call CBS All Access a virtual MVPD? If yes, then the definition is
watered down to the point that no one cares.

And cord shavers are still subscribers to a MVPD service, just dropping add
on
bundles.

Cord shaving encourages competition almost as much as cord cutting does, and
the phenomenon exists almost exclusively because of the new OTT sites. No
matter how you try to weasel out of this, Craig, the really simple fact is that
the unwalled TV sources, which can compete everywhere with the walled-in,
formerly exclusive TV sources, are the cause for the changes to the old
traditional MVPD modus operandi.

The old linear model of TV and bundles of live linear TV channels is NOT
going
away Bert.

Another inflexible proclamation, begging to be disproved? Most (most by FAR) of
what broadcasters transmit in live streams is better consumed on demand. As
broadcasters and congloms, over time, exploit the Internet more, which is
something easy enough to predict will happen, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if
their reliance on linear broadcasting is reduced, eventually to only those
programs which benefit from live broadcast.

Just how much content, per day, per market, HAS to be linear, Craig? A few
minutes of news? The occasional game? Even weather, aside from a live radar
feed, is usually consumed on demand. Your inflexible predictions are notorious
by now, Craig. Why add more?

Obviously the Internet can deliver live linear streams. I watch them
frequently. What's more, it can deliver these streams to new mobile screens,
anywhere Internet access is available. As I keep pointing out, it is no
longer
necessary to have a TV connected to a cable or Dish.

Craig continues to not get it. Once again, Craig, the main thing the Internet
brings is NOT the on demand or linear options. Those are entirely obvious, and
everyone by now has long known. The main thing, which everyone has also figured
out for years, and legions have written the FCC to preserve, is neutrality:
**the lack of a monopolistic gatekeeper**. Why is this so hard to get that
across?

Far more than 1/3 Bert, but why quibble. Just as someone who does not watch
ESPN is subsidizing a channel I watch, I am subsidizing channels that they
watch.

Nope, it's right there in the 30 percent bracket. And surely, Craig, you CANNOT
be trying to argue that 66 percent subsidizing the 33 percent who give a hoot
about THE MOST EXPENSIVE content, by far, does not distort the marketplace?
What you are subsidizing is peanuts, by comparison. I sent that link. Read it.

I agree that the extra revenue from subscriber fees is causing rights fees to
escalate to absurd levels. But I see little that is going to change,

That's only because you not yet understood the unwalled, no monopolistic
gatekeeper, nature of the Internet. Things have already changed. ESPN going to
SlingTV is a huge change, not to mention the sports leagues and their
stand-alone offerings, not to mention HBO Now. This shows how things will
evolve. What is the common denominator? The new medium, now capable of carrying
TV programs, with NO monopolistic gatekeeper is the only reason these changes
are possible. The supply side has to compete in more market-driven ways, AND
THEY ARE DOING SO.

The term "cord shaving" specifically refers to people bailing out of
bundles,
Craig.
Wrong. That is called cord cutting.

Nonsense. Cord cutting is bailing out of the entire MVPD service. Cord shaving
is bailing out of any add-on bundles, including premium bundles, and including
your much-loved "the bundle." I though you knew this. We even have to argue
about such basic things?

Only if the content owners go along.

And this too is circular. Of course "only if the owners go along." I have
stipulated many times, Craig, that what the owners are saying and doing is the
only thing that matters. That's why, even before things like Sling TV and HBO
Now had happened, I knew this sort of thing was right around the corner.
Because the OWNERS SAID SO. How come you weren't listening? The only surprise
was that, in spite of your incessant disagreeing, some of these things happened
only days or weeks after we had debated them.

Getting back to the survey/article that started this thread, it stated that
the
average viewer would buy 17 ala carte channels. Must be something more than
just cooking and home improvement shows...

Like I already said, the article says next to nothing. And worse, I'll bet the
survey did NOT ask whether people wanted 17 **linear streams**, or whether what
they really wanted was the programs offered by 17 different program SOURCES.
Since you, Craig, are so wedded to legacy distribution models, you no doubt
like to pretend that people really do want the 17 linear streams. My bet is,
that's simply false. My bet is that most people, most of the time, would prefer
watching the programs from whatever "17" content owners, on demand. My bet is
that most people responding to the survey would call Netflix "a channel," as
much as they call HBO "a channel," even if they never watch HBO in a live steam.

Bert

Other related posts: