[opendtv] Re: Local TV poses hurdle to streaming services - MarketWatch
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:12:34 -0400
Craig wrote:
The networks still value the role that local broadcasters play - it's called
retransmission consent and reverse compensation. Retrans consent is bringing
in
$6.2 billion this year and is projected to grow to $20 billion by the end of
the decade.
You miss the point. When Fox claimed that they deserved most of this reverse
compensation, they are correct. The problem is that retrans consent is set up
as if the high value content transmitted by local TV affiliates were the
property of that affiliate. But it's not. During the legacy MVPD era, this
artificiality was capable of being perpetuated, thanks to the walled garden
monopoly structure we have talked about incessantly. During the Internet era,
it's time for broadcasters to find a truly essential and valuable role again,
and I believe they can.
As for an essential role for local broadcasters, the Internet is not a
significant factor. As long as a broadcaster can offer high quality content -
mostly from the network they are affiliated with and syndicated programming -
they will survive.
I disagree. It becomes much more difficult to keep this phony-baloney pretend
game going, during the Internet era. You are trying to make us believe that the
much more open and competitive Internet environment can continue to perpetuate
the old retrans consent pretend game. Obvious counter-example: virtually all of
my prime time program viewing is done online, most of it directly from the TV
network sites. Clearly, the TV networks/congloms have been able to bypass any
retrans consent obstacles, because they simply do not apply. They are
artificial. However, as I indicated, some of this Internet streaming, almost
always the ads, could use some serious help. There is a meaningful Internet
role for local broadcasters. The broadcasters need to make this paradigm shift.
And it's high time, too.
If the FCC decides to mandate that Internet MVPDs must carry local stations,
as
they do for cable and DBS, there will be little reason for local stations to
re-invent themselves.
The FCC has not minded the fact that the congloms have put their high value
content on the web, for at least 10 years, bypassing any local broadcaster or
any retrans consent artificiality. I suggest that whatever the FCC might
mandate, for VMVPDs, is bound to fail anyway. That model is bound to fail. The
business owners need to do what's best for the longevity of their business.
Local CDNs already exist.
True enough. But there are two factors to consider.
1. Whatever exists today, especially for nbc.com and fox.com in the DC area
Verizon network, is amazingly bad. Always for ads. The shows stream just fine
now. For those nets, I've given up using their own web sites. I always use Hulu
instead. So my bet is that other market ISPs have the same problems. Oh yeah, I
know they do! I've heard plenty of complaints, including from my own widely
distributed family members.
2. As more viewers com online, and as the networks make more use of their
Internet-delivered content, the problem we have now can only get worse. Some of
these TV networks need all the help they can get, online. Btw, this is all
rehash. If you have new objections, please voice those.
It is the local cable companies that have the best opportunity to become CDNs
They can't talk out of both sides of their mouths. The local cable companies
have certainly played the major role as Internet broadband pipes. Verizon is
even playing a role as one of the main US interexchange carriers. So their role
is secure.
But when you get these companies complaining about costs incurred for all this
Internet streaming (even though Internet streaming is why their customers are
buying the expensive higher speed service), then the owners of content can
understandably step in and remove these complaints. As for example Netflix
offered to do. That's where the local broadcasters can play a meaningful new
role, on behalf of the congloms, instead of attempting to perpetuate the
retrans consent artificiality.
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:
