[opendtv] Re: McAdams On: TV Everywhere, Why Aereo Wins the PR War...

  • From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 11:35:02 -0400

The new Apple is Nokia with the introduction of the Lumia 1020 all a
reporter needs is a 1020 to take, crop, edit and send images that rival the
best cameras. And soon they will have a tablet, laptop and phablet to do
the same with the same 41 MP capacity.


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for posting this Bert. For once we seem to agree on many points…
>
> On Jul 12, 2013, at 7:16 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <
> albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "My query then to Aereo is based on their premise that they should be
> able to retransmit broadcast signals for free: So why isn't their service
> free? Aereo would be much better off cutting deals with broadcasters to
> provide free, universally authenticated service versus milking end-users
> for a few bucks apiece."
> >
> > Interesting question Ms. McAdams asks. My answer to it would be, it's
> because Aereo is not being compensated by the ads as the broadcasters are.
> Which is also the answer to making schemes such as Aereo legit.
>
> Certainly this is part of the explanation.
>
> But there is no way broadcasters are going to compensate Aereo - they are
> the ones looking for compensation. The whole point raised in Deborah's
> analysis is that the networks and broadcasters want verification that the
> person seeking to access an OTT version of their content is an MVPD
> subscriber. Aereo is not sharing the revenue they receive for their service
> with the broadcasters, and the viewer may be using Aerreo to bypass the
> need for an MVPD subscription, which is likely to net a broadcaster a buck
> per subscriber in the next few years.
>
> > Nielsen is talking about including online viewing their ratings (or has
> started doing so). The ISPs themselves could track online TV viewing. So
> FOTI TV should conceivably be as viable as FOTA is, for any and all
> content, live and otherwise.
>
> In theory it should be MORE viable. Knowing who is watching is much more
> valuables than knowing how many unidentified people are watching, which is
> what the Nielsen service provides. Targeted ads are generally perceived to
> be more valuable than shotgun mass audience ads. The issue is how to
> monetize the targeted ads.
>
> From here it seems this problem has been solved by Google and others, who
> routinely target us with ads based on the Internet trail we leave for the
> trackers and the NSA.
>
> At least the potential exists in this space to generate additional ad
> revenue that "could" be shared, much as Pandora is paying for music to sell
> its targeted ads.
>
> > For instance, the TV networks and affiliated broadcasters could treat
> Aereo as they would a translator station. The broadcasters wouldn't be
> paying for that transmitter site, instead they pay Aereo. Then Aereo
> wouldn't have to ask for subscription fees. If the additional eyeballs
> attracted by Aereo can be quantified, and that part should be well within
> the state of the art, all of this should be simple enough.
>
> Quantification is next to worthless. It may have a tiny impact on the cost
> per thousand viewers that broadcasters use to set ad rates, but is lost in
> the noise level when compared to the "buck a month" a broadcaster can
> collect from an MVPD service.
>
> In short, there is no way that broadcasters are going to pay a third party
> to deliver their content - but I can see a "compromise" where a third party
> pays a broadcasters a fee for the right to deliver a targeted ad to a
> viewer.
>
> > Another quote:
> >
> > "Rather than a single, simple, universal interface that provides TV
> Everywhere access to all network content, each network and provider has to
> have its own."
> >
> > I continue to wonder about this conceptual disconnect, on the part of
> trade scribes and probably consumers too. Would anyone expect all
> restaurants to share the same site? Banks? Flower shops? Even before TV was
> on the Internet, there were all manner of different aggregation media from
> which TV could be viewed (OTA, different cable companies, different DBS
> companies). With Internet TV, you instead have different OTT sites or
> portals. I don't see anything surprising or fundamentally different, EXCEPT
> that over the Internet, all of these different portals are accessible to
> all (save for artificially-induced geo-location limitations).
>
> I think Bert has the conceptual disconnect here. ALL of the businesses
> Bert mentions DO SHARE several common verification/payment systems - Visa,
> Mastercard, AMEX etc.
>
> Deborah was describing the problems associated with the MVPD verification
> systems used by every content owner that is requiring MVPD verification in
> order to enable OTT streaming. Bert is wishing for a world where he could
> access all of this content without an MVPD subscription…
>
> A very large disconnect.
>
> I expect that someone is going to step in and develop a highly secure
> verification system that operates as a third party, issuing a secure
> passcode to viewers; the MVPDs would provide subscriber data to this
> service, and the content owners would use the common passcode authorization
> system. I suspect the main reason this has not happened yet, is that the
> middleman will want to run this business profitably, and the potential
> customers - content owners and MVPDs - would like this service to be free.
> In the meantime, we have the chaos that Deborah describes.
>
> >
> > I really like the part where Deborah talks about "cloud-based broadcast
> facilities." Why not? I would be surprised if TV stations weren't already
> started down this path, even if "the cloud" resides mostly inside their own
> facilities still.
>
> In reality, all OTT services are already "cloud based." The content
> resides on a remote server. Web stores like iTunes or Amazon Prime may
> download files to you rather than streaming them, IF you pay for their
> service.
>
> Most of the OTT sites use third party CDNs to stream this content today.
>
> But the notion that you can run an App called "Broadcasting" on remote
> servers is completely logical. We are already seeing this happen with cloud
> based Apps like Google Docs, Microsoft Office 365, and soon  Apple's iWork
> in the cloud. The iWork in the cloud demo a few weeks ago illustrated just
> how sophisticated a cloud based app can be using the full HTML5 toolbox.
> Deborah tied this together with her comments about the Cisco HTML5 program
> guide.
>
> A reporter for a broadcaster would need nothing more than a smartphone or
> tablet to produce a story and make it available through the cloud.
>
> Perhaps the future of "broadcasting" will involve little more than a
> office with a small studio and a few computers.
>
> Who needs spectrum?
>
> Who needs transmitters?
>
> The problem is that most local broadcasters need content, but most content
> producers don't need broadcasters.
>
> 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.
>
>


-- 

Bob Miller
954-551-1217
3111 N. Ocean Dr. Apt 1607
Hollywood Beach Florida 33019

Other related posts: