[opendtv] Re: News: Consumer Groups Oppose Multicast Must-Carry
- From: "John Willkie" <JohnWillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:10:56 -0700
I'll give real answers-- in context
----- Original Message -----
From: <dgrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Consumer Groups Oppose Multicast Must-Carry
>
> Sorry, Craig, your answers didn't really help me understand the underlying
> issues. My questions are flawed and if I may, let me ask some different
> questions:
>
> 1) Do "Consumer Groups" accurately represent consumer's desires?
>
Nope, they largely represent "liberal" (really illiberal, but politically
"liberal") interests, or they represent the last entity to give them a big
check. Consumer's Federation has been anti-choice (they opposed the AT&T
breakup, new FMs, Digital TV, etc) in telecommunications since Sam Simon was
running TRAC in the mid-1980's. (TRAC "Telecommunications Research and
Action Committee" [how irnoic] was merged into Consumer's Federation about
1987. Personal note: I worked in fundraising for TRAC for one day in the
mid-1980's. I thought it would be funny -- seeing how they were trying to
raise money to oppose the AT&T breakup, which had occured years before.)
> 2) If not, whose interests do they represent? I am guessing that
> "Consumer Groups" are trying to limit the percentage of mega-network
> programming in the interest of diversity, whether the cable consumers care
> or not. But there are probably many other issues and perhaps you can
> enlighten me.
>
Agrred; see answer to 1 above.
Effectively, they think consumers should have blank screens -- or pay for
sports programming -- rather than another service offering from their local
broadcasters. This is self-defeating.
They are not interested in keeping down (or lowering down) telecom costs:
they want more programming opportunities at the higher end of the scale.
> 3) Do you think cable consumers, that is the people, want the multi-cast
> programming that broadcasters will be sending over the air, and if so, do
> they want it via the cable connection?
>
If the programming is new and unique and non-duplicated, consumers will be
itnerested in sampling it. This is what cable companies are fighting. If
the programming is well-received, it will succeed, otherwise it will fail.
But, but cable companies will continue to take in their monthly fees.
> 4) If the cable consumers do want it, should they get what they want,
even
> if it means mega-network control?
>
The control is always in the hand of the consumer. It's the gatekeeper
model that keeps cable TV alive (the exact model they deploy on the
internet.) Cable companies got paid $100 per subscriber to carry Fox News
Channel. They want broadcasters to pay them that kind of money to carry
free channels. This is ludicrous. Welcome to cable tv.
> 5) I don't think it is a fair argument to say that a network will have
400
> channels when they would only have 8-10 in a given market. What do you
> think?
>
as a practical matter, there will not be 8-10 channels per market for some
years to come. Alas.
> 6) Is the bigger issue the fact that one owner/corporation can own so
many
> stations and networks, even within one market? If this is the root
> problem, perhaps that should be addressed rather than the multi-cast must
> carry.
>
No, cable IN PRACTICE is all in favor of this. Just look at their current
line ups. They carry outdoor life network (controlled by Comcast) but they
aren't interested in the "rootsy" outdoor channel, because that small
company will not bribe them for carriage.
> As you answer these questions, please keep in mind that I have no stake in
> this at all and come with little foreknowledge. I am not a cable consumer
> and don't dare think I understand the laws and issues surrounding that
> system. But I am interested in trying to understand it.
>
Understanding the laws? You will only get that on this list in the breach.
Just review section 76 of the Commission's rules.
John Willkie
> Dan Grimes
> UNLV-TV
>
>
>
>
> Craig Birkmaier
> <craig@xxxxxxxxx> To:
opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent by: cc:
> opendtv-bounce@fr Subject: [opendtv] Re:
News: Consumer Groups Oppose Multicast
> eelists.org Must-Carry
>
>
> 09/09/2005 06:25
> AM
> Please respond to
> opendtv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 8:53 AM -0700 9/8/05, dgrimes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >I am a little confused with the following arguments against must carry:
> >
> >1) Don't the consumers want the national broadcasts on their digital
> >cable? I've seen cable providers advertise the fact that they carry
local
> >channels for more consistent reception and convenience. If so, wouldn't
> >consumer organizations be for it?
>
> They are. There is no argument about carriage of the primary program
> - this simply replicates what the station had before with analog
> carriage.
>
> >
> >2) How did they come up with broadcasters being able to broadcast 400 or
> >more channels? Are they saying that broadcasters could be programming
400
> >or more channels on the open air (and if so, wouldn't they be, competing
> >with cable and satellite)?
>
> Simple. They could choose to use their 19.3 Mbps to deliver 8 - 10
> SDTV programs in each 6 MHz channel. More to the point, the statement
> in the release did not say 400 channels per market. It said that the
> Network O & O's could offer 400 channels in the markets they serve
> now; just multiply the number of stations they own in these markets
> by 8 or 10.
>
> >
> >I understand the argument that major broadcasters could be taking too
much
> >bandwidth on the cable system, preventing other diverse programming, but
> is
> >that true, even in the largest markets?
>
> It is ALREADY TRUE EVERYWHERE. 90% of viewing via cable is of
> programming owned by the major conglomerates. It's not just broadcast
> stations. They own the vast majority of cable networks too.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> -- Type: image/gif
> -- File: graycol.gif
>
>
> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> -- Type: image/gif
> -- File: ecblank.gif
>
>
> -- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Ecartis --
> -- Type: image/gif
> -- File: pic12455.gif
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
