[opendtv] Re: Local Content Considered Key to Mobile DTV Adoption
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:37:06 -0500
At 5:02 PM -0600 12/21/09, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
You've said exactly the same thing on multiple occasions, but when
it doesn't make sense the first time, it continues not to make sense.
Sorry Bert, but just because something does not make sense to you
DOES NOT mean that it does not make sense. Unfortunately, you seem to
have this incredible ability to read but not comprehend, and reply as
if the poster was saying something completely different.
OTA broadcasters will most liely continue to collect retrans consent
fees, because the MVPDs are not going out of business before
broadcasters do. This is all about small market adjustments, not all
or nothing changes.
Yes Bert, broadcasters will collect retrans fees from cable and DBS
because that's the business model they want to pursue. They CANNOT
collect subscriber fees from the FOTA audience; this is equally true
for the main channel as well as any sub-channels. They NEED the added
revenues from retrans consent, so they have NO REASON to try to
compete with cable and DBS.
Trying to use multicasts to offer a competitive FOTA multichannel
platform makes absolutely no sense unless it can be monetized with
subscribe fees.
You simply choose to ignore the reality that the OTA audience is
quite small. There is only one way that further subdivisions of that
audience with multicasts can produce more ad revenue - the remaining
audience must watch MORE TV. Offering the audience more choices just
dilutes the audience for the main channels - more programs does not
mean more ad revenues, especially when the ad market for local
broadcasters is ALREADY in the tank.
More channels requires more content, which as I previously explained,
costs MORE MONEY. They cannot make more ad revenue unless the
audience grows substantially. but it has been in decline for 30
years. The ONLY way to pay for more programming would be to charge
for it, ala USDTV.
That simply is not going to happen in the U.S.
If broadcasters transmit more than one interesting stream, they will
get a larger share of the FOTA audience, either to watch the main
program, or the multicasts. Wow. Just like MVPDs do, but on a
smaller scale.
This is what drives me crazy with your logic Bert. The FOTA audience
is FINITE and is shrinking. If you take viewers away from existing
programs to watch another the audience declines for the existing
programs. The ONLY way to charge more is:
1. Get more people to watch FOTA
2. Get the existing FOTA audience to watch more hours of TV.
Both are marginal possibilities, but are not big enough game changers
to cover the cost of providing more channels of content people want
to watch. Cable networks will not play because they depend on
subscriber fees to augment ad revenue. So broadcasters would need to
produce their own content to compete, without the benefit of
subscriber fees from the FOTA audience.
I would remind you that TV viewing is at an all time high in the U.S.
The growth in hours has been fueled by the growth of available
content via the MVPDs. At the same time the number of hours that all
viewers spend watching broadcast TV has significantly declined. The
only thing propping the system up is the growth of the U.S.
population, from about 150 million during the Golden Age of Broadcast
TV to more than 300 million today.
To afford the material, they air ads. If the multicasts are the sort
of MUCH cheaper programs you see on cable networks, don't you think
it becomes easier for the ad revenues to cover the costs?
NO. The ad revenues are finite and NOT growing. Adding more programs
increases costs, not the total ad revenue. The cheaper cable programs
are not available to broadcasters, and even if the cable networks
decided to offer them to broadcasters, they would still not be free.
And stop with this greater spectral efficiency for OTA bull.
Well, let's do the numbers, Craig. With NTSC, a local broadcaster
could only transmit the network programming, only have the fraction
of viewership interested in that program, and only get ad revenue
from the ads airing during that program.
With ATSC, the local broadcaster can treansmit at least 4 programs
streams, potentially attracting more viewers than only those
interested in the "main" network channel, and consequently, sell
more ads.
I give up. None of this creates more viewers - it just takes them
from one audience and creates another smaller audience.
So yes, 4 streams, one of which is HDTV, plus the M/H streams, vs 1
stream sounds like a whole lot more spectral efficiency to me. And
the white space argument you try to make is bogus. Withness that
they are trying the same technique in DVB-T land.
What it sounds like to me, in terms of spectral efficiency, is that
broadcasters have moved from the era of the horse and buggy to a
Model T Ford, while competitors are driving hybrids.
Broadcasters have done ALMOST NOTHING to improve spectral efficiency
with ATSC DTV. All that has happened is that they have been able to
compact some of the UHF channels into lower bands so they could
recover the underutilized 700 MHz spectrum. The system is still
highly inefficient, requiring large chunks of spectrum to lie fodder
to protect the portion that is being used.
> USDTV TRIED AND FAILED.
Obviously. People who like paying the monthly fee are a lot better
off with DBS or cable.
DUH.
So the only way to change this would be to get EVERYONE on board with
the idea that we should replace cable and DBS with a Freeview style
OTA system.
Clearly this works in some areas of the world where greed is not the
driving factor. But there is no interest in this approach in the U.S.
among the congloms and the MVPDs, and broadcasters simply do not have
the resources nor the will to develop their own content and compete.
Why do you think Congress and the FCC are pushing this National
Broadband agenda?
C'est la cause du jour, much like limiting your carbon footprint.
They've latched onto needing more spectrum, even though the ones
that know these things have told them it's not needed for quite some
time. I see a parallel here.
Finally something we can agree on Bert. This is all the result of
having the best government that special interest can buy. And now we
have learned that so called scientists are for sale as well.
But I already knew this, having participated in the ATSC standards
process. In that case, it was the engineers who were being paid to
lie, so that the CE industry could get a government mandate to get
rid of the NTSC horses and buggy whips.
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:
