Craig Birkmaier wrote: > Thanks Bert! > > You finally understand why the media congloms operate their business > the way they do. You have argued time and again that the congloms > can get rid of the middlemen and go direct to the viewer. This > article rather convincingly argues that the congloms will benefit > from MORE middlemen. Wow, how do you keep getting this backwards? The article simply confirms what I've been saying forever. Which is, the congloms are NOT held to the MVPD model as you think they are, and will use Internet distribution in whatever way that will ultimately benefit THEM. And why on earth would they want more middlemen? That only takes money away from the conglom. This is obvious, Craig. The only middlemen they will use are those that add value to their cause. > Truth is, the viewers have never been "the customers" of the > congloms; they are customers of middlemen who all offer essentially > the same content. Walled garden subscribers are far more valuable > to the congloms than services that only have one revenue stream > from ads. You're re-writing the article to fit your own storyline, Craig. As I've said countless times, Internet TV can be ad-supported or subscription-supported. It already is, in fact, and it needs no old-time MVPD for any of this. Once again, I watch pay-Internet TV from Amazon, not an MVPD. I watch FOTI TV from the congloms' own portals, or from third part portals like wwitv.com, not MVPDs, not even local broadcasters. (And I watch live TV from local broadcasters, not MVPDs.) None of these are walled gardens, contrary to what you claim. Why? Because my ISP gives me access to any number of TV portals, free or for pay. This is nothing like the old model, where the TV distribution network hardware tied one to a specific choice of content and specific fee structure. > All that matters is that the viewer must subscribe to a walled garden > service in order to access the most valuable content, Okay, let me repeat this: This is nothing like the old model, where the TV distribution network hardware tied one to a specific choice of content and specific fee structure. The content owners aren't so stupid that they don't get this, Craig. > The Net Neutrality story is still playing out. Nobody really knows > what will happen. But the article you posted provides many > significant clues. The obvious take away is that the content and > MVPD/ISP oligopolies are not going to allow some upstart competitor > to tear down the garden walls. I agree only with the first sentence. We don't know yet where "net neutrality" is heading. However I know for a fact that my ISP is not preventing me from finding any upstart TV portal, or other content source on the Internet, as quickly as these upstarts show up. HBO needs to compete against Netflix, Craig. They would be stubbornly-stupid if they attempted to do so by adding more middlemen than they needed. So, they had better break away from archaic distribution models, and compete with new technology. Yes, as you say, like Amazon has done wrt other retail models. 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.