[opendtv] Re: Internet's Biggest Companies Ask FCC to Please Leave Net Neutrality Alone | Fox News
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:50:23 -0400
On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Shutt wrote:
Bert, ever hear of a franchise agreement?
John:
https://www.thebalance.com/franchise-agreement-1350570
Do you think it might make a huge difference, in what such agreements might
or might not limit, if the business involved is largely made up of local
monopolies, as opposed to not at all? Like I keep telling Craig, these
agreements are signatures on a piece of paper. If technology changes,
allowing different arrangements which are beneficial to the business
owner(s), there's no reason to pretend that these signatures were chiseled in
stone by a divine power, and can never change for the rest of time.
These contract are enforceable under U.S. Law. The use of franchise agreements
is an extension of the concept of Natural Monopolies. More important, these
agreements have enabled regulation of these "monopolies" at the local State and
National level, not to mention accompanying taxes on MVPD and ISP services at
every level.
So for example, just because a legacy MVPD had to carry bundles formatted
just so, it doesn't mean that when technology permitted it, Sling TV was
impossible to set up (by a previous DBS-only franchise).
Sling is an experiment enabled by the existing relationship between the content
oligopoly and the facilities based MVPD oligopoly. This service WOULD NOT be
possible without the same kind of license agreements that are required for
every legacy MVPD system.
The fact that Sling was created by Dish says volumes; for some reason you are
completely tone deaf to this reality.
- Dish already had a national footprint; not a geographically restricted
franchise with accompanying geographically restricted content licensing
agreements.
- Dish already had the head end infrastructure to launch the Sling service; it
took little more than some routers in their Colorado operations center.
- The Sling bundle did not threaten the extended basic bundles offered by the
legacy MVPDs for several reasons;
- the lack of popular networks including local broadcast stations
- the inability to support different programing on multiple screens in a
home
under the original single stream restriction (more expensive multi-user
packages are now available from Sling)
Or HBO Now. Or CBS All Access. Or DirecTV Now.
These are potentially valid new business models enabled by the Internet; i.e.
new stores. Keep in mind that in each case existing MVPDs still sell the same
content. Cox is now including both HBO and Showtime for "free" in new bundles
like the one I just switched to.
In some of these cases, incumbent MVPDs have already created new agreements,
with different content owners, to cover different territory.
Only if they already operate with a national footprint. Please provide even one
example of a geographically restricted MVPD offering TV service outside of
their franchise footprint.
When I watch prime time TV, I witness daily how the TV networks have moved
beyond legacy "franchise agreements," with little trouble. I'm using other
than the previously mandatory OTA affiliate (or the previously mandatory MVPD
bundle). New options exist now.
Unless you have subscribed to a MVPD service, you ARE NOT watching the
broadcast networks, with a few exceptions such as the streaming of the Super
Bowl and Final Four/NCAA Basketball championship.
What you are watching are catch-up services that offer popular network shows
after some delay depending on the service. These catch-up services are
available because the the networks have been losing their audience for several
decades; they are desperate for any audience they can monetize.
Only the guaranteed neutrality of the Internet has made this possible, in
practice.
Bull. Neutrality has NOTHING to do with this. There is NOTHING neutral about
the way the content oligopoly is managing their transition to the Internet. As
you are well aware, you "free" streaming options are dwindling. What will you
do when the content owners pull the plug on the free version of Hulu Bert?
I know that you are coming at this from the point of view that the middleman
is entirely hamstrung. I'm instead looking at it like the old way was
beneficial to the supply side, and that given half a chance, **e.g. by
abolishing net neutrality**, the supply side would be just as happy to retain
the old market constraints. And that "supply side" would incorporate the
content owners and the legacy distribution franchises. The neutral Internet
permits any single content owners to say "forget the past restraints, I'll do
something more competitive," and then others *have* to follow.
Please provide one example of how the content owners have provided anything
that is more competitive than the existing bundles that they are now moving to
the Internet. In the end they will control their content on the Internet by
creating a new price point that will make it difficult, if not impossible for
the legacy MVPD services to compete.
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:
