[opendtv] Re: MVPD Definition

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 01:21:51 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Actually, Chairman Wheeler is pushing for this,

So? He too is a lawyer, after all. If he thinks that "channel" implies
"linear/live," especially when cable systems use these same channels to provide
their proprietary VOD service, only shows that Tom Wheeler is not being coached
strenuously enough. Check it out:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OSEC/library/legislative_histories/1439.pdf

The Program Access Rules did not exist when the local cable monopolies
had no competition.

Perhaps so. You have a complete monopoly for distribution pipe, so the ultimate
in collusion is guaranteed. But even there, the program access rule of 1992
include the "must carry" rules, which are a pretty clear indication that the
FCC knew just how inadequate the carriage competition was. The rules also
include a stipulation that the MVPD cannot force consumers into buying
expensive tiers - only the basic tier. Another indication that he FCC was fully
aware that this supposed competition Craig talks about was not adequate. If
people had choice, as they are now starting to, all this govt micro-management
would be superfluous.

In a sense this is evidence that the marketplace can work, except that
it does not work in an even and non-discriminatory way. For example,
Sony has not been able to negotiate a deal for ESPN.

Yes, but who cares? "Non-discriminatory" **only** matters for local monopolies,
so **people** can have equal access at fair prices. Now instead, you let ESPN
figure it out, without any govt coercion. It's simply not necessary or
desirable to have ESPN on all OTT sites. As of today, you feel a need for that
ESPN fix? It's easily available, to everyone, for $20. Reinventing the
anti-competitive MVPD formula, over the Internet, is not necessary or desirable.

You can rest assured, Craig, that with ESPN subscriptions continuing to
decline, new options will become available. Not because of artificial rules,
but because ESPN will see the need. And if the decline ends, then ESPN can play
hardball once again. So what? This is called the open market.

Not sure what is patently obvious here.

It is patently obvious that fussing about trying to put the same regs on
Internet TV distribution, as were applied to walled garden, proprietary,
locally monopolistic services, is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. Once
again, Sling TV managed to get the rights to ESPN, *because* John Skipper saw
that this was to his advantage. Not for any other reason. The FCC was not
involved.

Dish Sling was easy to create as all of the content was already
being received at the Dish operations center in Colorado;

I'm pretty sure that's not the explanation. Dish had to convince ESPN to be
distributed online, to anyone, without the benefit of that fat welfare check.
Hardly "easy." But it was possible because ESPN was losing customers - some of
those customers who were paying it welfare, and got fed up. If there was
anything "easy" about Sling TV, it was that ESPN had seen the light. The Dish
traditional MVPD service, I'm pretty sure, had very little to do with this new
service (well okay, Dish understands the territory).

But Apple will have a tougher time providing local broadcast
signals

But once again, WHO CARES? And when I ask WHO CARES, I mean among "us, the
people." Not among the special interests. The FCC is OUR agency. They are
supposed to work for OUR benefit. We the people couldn't care less if Apple's
negotiators are not up to the skill of Dish's negotiators. We the people know
full well that Apple can consult with Dish, and if ESPN sees an advantage,
Apple may even carry ESPN. But we the people have absolutely no interest in
furthering Apple's own best self-interests, only to lead to higher prices and a
distorted marketplace again.

Reality is that the one or two supposedly competing MVPDs do
not compete.

Tell this to those local cable monopolies that have lost almost
half of their subscribers.

For a service people cherish (broadband)? They gained subscribers. For a
service that no longer needs to be a monopoly, and support outrageously high
salaries for certain entertainers? Loss in subscriptions was to be expected. We
the people don't need to prop up such market distortions, with our tax dollars.
The lawyers should spend their time doing something else.

So Netflix and Amazon are writing billion dollar welfare checks?

If they do, and their prices get too high as a result, then people can
trivially drop those services. No truck rolls, no appointments, no unnecessary
delays. Netflix and Amazon are HARDLY your only choices for TV material.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2015