[opendtv] Re: News: Apple, Google Asked to Pay Up as Operators Face Data

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:30:33 -0600
Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> OK Bert. Explain me this...
>
> Here in the U.S a very large percentage of the most desired content
> is only available via an MVPD, which is franchised and regulated by
> some level of government. Although there is "perceived competition,"
> i.e. cable, DBS, and in some cases a telco video service, ALL of
> these services are priced at comparable levels.

That's not the government's fault.

The fact that the few umbillical services are priced at similar levels is 
explained simply. It is due to their quasi-monopolistic nature. It is due to 
the fact that both intentionally and unintentionally on the MVPDs' part, 
switching from one umbillical service to another is difficult or impossible. 
Even if an alternative exists where you live, switching is time consuming. It 
requires people to stay at home at the pleasure of the service provider. It may 
involve annoying work on your house too. So people are reluctant to switch at 
the drop of a hat, and that creates an anti-competitive environment. And by the 
way, even non-MVPD ISPs (the few there are) are heading or will be heading down 
the same path.

As I said before, it is the umbillical nature that creates these problems. 
Wireless broadband may be a better option in the future, perhaps. At least, 
switching services should be very easy to do.

If "the most desired content" is only available this way, Craig, it is the 
lemming nature of consumers that makes it so. The government is not responsible 
for spineless consumers. The government is not responsible for consumers 
thinking they are doing something fashionable when they become dependent on the 
umbillical. The government did not mandate that CNN and ESPN only be available 
on umbillical pipes. That's all on the consumers, Craig.

> All of these services force you to buy a bundle of stuff that
> includes channels you want and channel you don't watch.

Does the government decide the fees you pay? No. Does the government mandate 
the bundling of channels? No. Does the government tell you to use an MVPD for 
your TV distribution? No. So it's your fault, Craig, not the government's. You 
caved in.

(Parenthetically, *this* FCC actually is trying to force people to become 
dependent on MVPDs, e.g. when *this* FCC allowed apartment complexes to hide 
cable fees in their rent fees, and when they yank another 120 MHz of spectrum 
away from broadcasters. These are anomalies of this FCC. Hopefully they will be 
corrected after the Genachowski regime.)

> In the U.S. the same content oligopoly that owns 90% of what we watch
> on the MVPDs is now trying to control access to, and is demanding
> payment for content that they give away via their own web sites. In
> short they are using their monopoly powers to limit competition via 
> the new medium of Internet distribution.

Again, the government plays no part in this. These congloms are providing at 
least some their stuff FOTA and FOTI, so if you feel the need to pay some 
unnecessary middleman, please feel free to do so. Don't blame the government 
for your decisions, though.

> In the U.K a very large percentage of the most desired content is
> available via a FREE over the air DTV service and now via satellite
> as well (dittos for New Zealand).

Well, I must be living in the UK, then, because that's how I get my TV content 
too.

> Demand is high to get content onto these services and the content owner
> PAY for the privilege.

Same would happen here if consumers got some spine. As to the way the money 
flows, as we already discussed many times, different models can be used. If in 
the UK the content owners pay the FOTA network, then I'll bet you a whole lot 
of money that the FOTA network doesn't get any of the ad revenues.

> Just to make sure you don't try to smoke us with the U.K. TV tax
> argument,

I never, ever used that argument. I don't think the tax argument is valid. My 
only point has always been, don't accuse the government for the overly 
self-indulgent behavior of the consumers here in the US. Instead, show some 
restraint, and the congloms will be sure to respond accordingly.

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.
[opendtv] Re: News: Apple, Google Asked to Pay Up as Operators Face Data

Other related posts:
