[opendtv] Re: Local TV stations face uncertain future
- From: Mark Aitken <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:00:04 -0500 (EST)
....(sigh)...Not yet...
Mark
waiting for the good ol' days yet to come ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 8:26:49 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Local TV stations face uncertain future
Mark -
I'm still reserving judgment on broadcast mobile. I don't yet have any
idea of the resolutions and bit rates that will commonly be used in
practice in order to get decent mobile reception with 8vsb. If the
final numbers with good reception are not attractive enough (only 1/4
FEC+overhead?) then it may have trouble competing with cell phone
Internet video like I now already use with Sprint PCS, bundled with my
$15/mo Internet data plan.
Content may be king but a half dozen companies mostly now have a
monopoly on content and they have to negotiate for delivery. This
delivery is getting cheaper and more efficient each year and is measured
in bits.
The broadcasters make local content and sell local advertising but that
mostly depends upon their ability to deliver bits. If they can
deliver bits for the most widely desired content competitively then they
are in a good bargaining position. If they can't then as contracts get
renegotiated they will be disappointed.
Note CBS can negotiate with Sprint and the like also if there is a move
to less exclusive contracts. CNN and Disney already do.
But, yes, mobile is still certainly a value added by OTA broadcasters.
I just don't yet know how much.
Do you have any actual numbers and in use results yet?
- Tom
Mark Aitken wrote:
> Don't forget that local mobile is (almost completely) built out!
>
> Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:33:19 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: Local TV stations face uncertain future
>
> I'm probably the one that has talked most on this list of networks
> possibly going direct to premium providers over the last couple years.
> And I do believe that they could legally do that as affiliate contracts
> expire. This possibility can be used each time those affiliate
> contracts are renegotiated.
>
> But there is still another side to this coin, in favor of the
> broadcasters. And that is the broadcasters still do add some value.
>
> A network without broadcasters is just another national content
> provider/broker competing with USA channel or other cable channels,
> albeit with slightly more current viewers and name recognition. And
> most of these other cable channels are owned by the same few parent
> companies anyway.
>
> So I don't think the networks WANT to kill OTA. They just want that
> eventuality covered and also used as a bargaining ploy. They want to be
> protected in the event OTA gradually fails but still have a lot (but
> maybe declining) of money invested in it.
>
> I don't think any of them or us really can predict what's going to
> happen except some experimental distribution contracts will probably
> occur. And maybe in future affiliate negotiations the nets will insist
> on keeping a few more distribution options open.
>
> - Tom
>
>
> Albert Manfredi wrote:
>> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that one "unINTENDED consequence"
>>> of the DTV transition was to slowly kill the
>>> local OTA distribution platform, so that the
>>> networks could have total control over their
>>> content and the resulting ad revenues.
>> I'm not sure I understand how the networks can have "total control" of
>> anything, if they have to rely 100 percent on the transmission networks of a
>> handful of large MVPDs.
>>
>>> IMHO, the "shot heard around the world" was
>>> the 1992 Cable Act, which gave the networks
>>> the retransmission consent leverage they
>>> needed to rebuild their empires. They knew
>>> that they could take over most of the prime
>>> cable real estate, and then off-load affiliate
>>> compensation onto the cable systems.
>> The networks do have the right to benefit when their content is transmitted
>> over MVPD nets. Seems to me that one possible fair way of compensating the
>> networks is to give ther networks 100 percent of the ad revenues for content
>> transmitted over MVPDs, and let the MVPD retain 100 percent of the
>> subscription fee revenues. That would fairly compensate the networks for the
>> increased viewership, and at the same time, the MVPDs are compensated for
>> installing and maintaining their labor-intensive infrastructures.
>>
>> And Internet transmission would work in a similar way, where Internet
>> viewership would also get factored into the number of eyeballs figure that
>> advertizers need to pay the networks.
>>
>> For a scheme like this to work, the networks would have to be allowed to own
>> their own entire nationwide OTA network, and operate it much like a
>> nationwide mini-MVPD, and/or they could outsource the OTA medium to an OTA
>> net provider, who is similarly free to operate as efficiently as possible.
>> Isn't this very similar to how Euro Freeview works?
>>
>> Seems to me, a lot can be blamed on the overly restrictive effect of the 39
>> percent national cap.
>>
>>> The networks would love to have the same
>>> freedom as HBO, Showtime, et al to include
>>> nudity, sex, and language that cannot be
>>> presented via FTA broadcasts.
>> I don't understand the connection. You are listing premium channels,
>> available only with extra monthly fees. If you compare FOTA with cable
>> channels, you have to compare it with the basic package. Are cable systems
>> free to transmit sex, nudity, etc., on their basic tier?
>>
>> Bert
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Windows Liveâ„¢ Contacts: Organize your contact list.
>> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
