[opendtv] Re: NHK demos UHD TV broadcast
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 09:35:40 -0400
At 11:26 AM -0400 5/31/06, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Irrespective of the must-carry ramifications, of course there's truth in
>that comment. It's obvious that what people want when they go to
>subscription services is not the pleasure of the monthly bill but rather
>the additional choice of programming. I noted with interest that Fox 45
>in Baltimore is taking their multicast capability seriously, starting to
>offer reruns of interesting old shows (e.g. Magnum PI and Heat of the
>Night) even during prime time. This sort of thing is what I thought DTT
>broadcasters should do, in spite of all the nay-saying that such
>practice can only detract from the prime time audience of their main
>channel. The net effect is what counts. The guy with the best multicast
>offerings wins.
Sorry Bert, but this is ENTIRELY dependent on the content that is
available via the multicast channels. offering re-runs of the same
programming that is typically carried by broadcasters is not the
stuff that most homes are looking for. A local 24/7 news channel may
make sense, but the numbers will be difficult to turn into profits;
at least at the level broadcasters are accustomed to. The cable news
channels, that have access to upwards of 70 million homes typically
have an audience share below 1%. If you bring this down to local
market numbers, we are typically talking about 1% of perhaps 200,000
to 500,000 homes, and this assumes that all of those homes can
receive the broadcasts - the reality is that less than 15% of the
homes in a market will be able to receive DTV broadcasts by the end
of this decade, unless the sub channels are carried by cable/DBS.
Consumers subscribe to cable or DBS to gain access to all kinds of
special interest (niche) content that is not offered by broadcasters.
When this kind of content is offered (FOR FREE) by a multichannel DTV
service (like Freeview), the public has show great interest. IF it is
offered as part of a pared down multichannel subscription service
(a.k.a. USDTV and On Digital) there is little interest from the
public because the small incremental cost for a REAL multichannel
service is justified by the greatly expanded programming choice. The
lesson here is that you may get by with a pared down free service,
but it does not work if you try to charge$20/mo.
If broadcasters were to rethink their business model, and focus on
local content generation, multicasting could be a profitable
business. But re-runs of old off-network content is not going to add
much to the bottom line.
>I can also agree with you that broadcasters can likely negotiate
>carriage of these multicasts with the cable companies, if they spend a
>little effort in making good choices. That's a different discussion,
>though. It has zero to do with the atrtractiveness of DTT per se.
Yes, but it has everything to do with the economic viability of DTT.
In order for multicasting to be economically viable for broadcasters
they must reach the potential audience. This means carriage by
competitors, as only a small portion of the audience uses antennas.
Let me personalize this a bit. I am spending about $70/mo for digital
cable today. I would gladly be rid of this monthly expense, IF I
could access about 40-50 channels of the best broadcast and cable
networks for free. This is technically feasible with a properly
designed DTT system, but we don;t have a properly designed system
today, nor do we have the willingness to go back to advertiser
supported TV - EVERYONE is feasting on the subscriber fees that the
cable and DBS systems collect.
>
>> The absurdity of Chairman Martin's comment about
>> multicasting, is that there is NOTHING stopping
>> broadcasters from offering more sub channels.
>
>The "absurdity" is only linking must-carry with offering DTT multicasts.
>Other than that, what Martin said was drop-dead obvious. Multicasts make
>DTT more appealing, and encourage people to buy into DTT.
If there is a business there, there is noting stopping broadcasters
from jumping on the bandwagon now. The reality is that there is only
a business IF these channels are carried and delivered to the 70% of
homes that don't use antennas. The un-talked about reality is that
multicast must carry is a huge land grab by the networks and their
affiliates. If they are given this added perk, you will soon see many
of the top rated cable channels move to the local DTT multiplexes,
where they can control local ad insertions (i.e. grabbing revenue
from the cable companies, even as they demand higher subscriber fees
for these channels. As long as the DTT system does not work any
better than this one, there is little threat that people will drop
cable or DBS and start using an antenna.
>
>> Somehow the chairman seems to think that multicasts
>> make the FTA product more attractive,
>
>Duh!
Huh? Adding more re-runs is going to overcome the difficulty with
establishing DTT service, and give people like me a reason to drop
cable or DBS?
No Bert. The only way this can work is to make the (non-broadcast)
content that is watched by more than 50% of the TV audience available
for free via DTT. Unfortunately there is no chance that this will
happen in the U.S.
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:
