[opendtv] Re: NBC Launching Live Stream | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:31:17 -0500
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's funny. I saw the same story about NBC, but I didn't post it. Why not?
> Because it's basically no news. It's just more of the same-o same-o TVE
> concept, therefore of limited interest. Whereas the CBS and HBO stories are
> more forward-looking.
Limited interest?
Hmmmmmm...
So, in Bert's world, CBS creates an OTT service designed to attract cord
cutters who may represent about 1% of U.S homes. Let's be generous and say it
was designed to appeal to everyone who does not subscribe to a MVPD service,
which according to Bert's calculations is about 15% of U.S. homes. And let's
assume that there may be some MVPD subscribers who will subscribe to access the
CBS content library.
So Bert, what percentage of U.S. homes would you expect to pay $5.99/mo to
subscribe to CBS All Access?
Now let's look at the NBC announcement. If Bert is correct, about 80% of U.S.
homes subscribe to the extended basic bundle, which enables access to TV
Everywhere OTT services. These homes will have access to:
E! Now; USA Now; NBC Entertainment; NBC News, Bravo Now; CNBC; Esquire Now;
Golf Live Extra; MSNBC; NBC Sports Live Extra; Oxygen Now; Sprout Now; Syfy
Now, and Telemundo Now, and live streams from NBC owned stations. There is no
additional charge to use these services.
So Bert, do you expect more people to use the NBC authenticated TVE services,
or to pay CBS $5.99/mo for All Access?
>> Only "more proof" that Craig believes Internet access should not be neutral.
It has nothing to do with neutrality Bert. It is about the licensing of content
by the congloms. Even you acknowledge that the content owners have the power,
and the right, to decide how they license their content.
> Once again, Craig, the congloms already make their content available using
> well known and long established IP standards. If device makers prefer to
> develop ecosystems that balkanize the Internet, then forcing themselves to
> have to make special deals with these content owners, and if further the
> pundits prefer to obfuscate the readership, by implying that such balkanized
> ecosystems are the only way to move forward, I wouldn't call that progress.
> It would be better to hear more voices such as that one WSJ article, to
> educate, rather than dumb down, the readership.
And these same congloms program their servers to block access to many devices -
it is NOT the device manufacturers blocking these sites.
The content owners make special deals with EVERYONE Bert.
Netflix licenses their content; Amazon licenses their content. Google licenses
their content.. Apple licenses their content. Roku licenses their content. And
broadcasters and cable networks around the world license their content.
As much as you would like every device to be able to access every OTT Internet
site, the reality is that the congloms decide who gets what, and for how much.
Your position is almost analogous to saying that everyone should have access to
Boeing's intranet servers, because they are connected to the Internet.
You can't have it both ways Bert.
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:
