[opendtv] Re: News: Fox Playing Hardball With Balky Affils
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:07:10 -0400
At 3:42 PM -0500 5/16/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Question: do people use their cell phones indoors, if they have
decent coverage? Answer: of course they do, and many drop their land
line service altogether. Why can't that apply to TV? Who's to say
that indoor TVs must be cabled in order to be cool?
It COULD apply to TV IF broadcasters delivered a service like Freeview.
But that's not going to happen in the U.S. because of the cozy
relationship between the congloms and the politicians. Now that
people are paying (twice) for their entertainment fixes, why would
the congloms let broadcasters provide a compelling alternative for
FREE?
Consumers did not move to cable and DBS because it was cool. They pay
because that's were most of the good content is, and these services
are reliable and easy to use once installed. They moved to cable
because the quality of the content on broadcast TV has been declining
for decades. And this was largely by design.
The congloms did not drive consumers to cable. That DID happen
because of competition, thanks to Ted Turner and junk bonds. But once
the congloms understood that people would pay for TV, they quickly
moved to control the content on cable and DBS, and broadcast became a
second class service for the laggards, and those who can't afford a
subscription.
The only way broadcasters could create a service like Freeview in
this country would be to create all of the content and compete with
only one revenue stream. That would take a huge amount of capital to
fund a new content creation industry. It's not impossible, but there
are far more appealing alternatives.
To create a Freeview like service you would need tons of content - at
least 30 channels with multiple hours of fresh content each day.
Why would ANYONE invest in this, when the perfect bypass technology
is now starting to gain traction? The congloms will do everything in
their power to control "their" content on the Internet, but they will
have a very difficult time forcing independent producers to use their
portals. It is simply too easy, and affordable, to build your own
portal or to work with companies like Apple and Google, who will cut
them better deals than the congloms.
Just look at what is happening with "apps." Apple has paid out more
than $2 billion to small developers who no longer need to concern
themselves with the cost of distribution, or hope that they will get
acquired by one of the few software foundries like Adobe.
The key is finding the content.
The congloms control access to the market for TV content. You can
watch this playing out right now as the networks announce who made
"the cut" during the up fronts. And they provide the promotion and
the (crude) program guides that lead people to the content.
To compete you need good search tools and promotion. That's why the
congloms are so afraid of Google TV. If TV search engines become
popular they lose at least a significant part of their advantage as
gatekeepers.
> There is no competition Bert. Broadcasting is a highly play toy for the
politicians, fed by an oligopoly that relies on the politicians to
PROTECT them from competition.
..
Because the congloms and the politicians are not interested in a real
competitive marketplace.
See what I mean? You NEVER get competition, if you restrict your
arguments to the incumbents in the supply side. It should not matter
WHAT the incumbents in the supply side want, Craig. Duh, incumbents
in the supply side always want the status quo.
More efficient use of spectrum means more content creators can get
their stuff on the medium. And if consumers insist on it, rather
than instinctively caving in to the special interests and their
fast-talker agents at stores like Best Buy, then all consumers would
benefit, as even MVPD fees would stabilize.
You are of course correct Bert. If it is easier to get access to
viewers, independent producers have a decent chance of changing the
competitive landscape.
And this is the main reason that so many people want to reduce the
spectrum allocated to broadcasting and increase the spectrum
available for broadband.
Broadcast spectrum is used by an entrenched, and politically
connected bunch of gatekeepers.
The telcos are becoming common carriers. With wireless broadband the
consumer decides which bits they want, not the gatekeeper. The telcos
are struggling to control their networks and the content they
deliver. As everything becomes anonymous bits, they will have little
choice but to compete as a carrier, rather than a gatekeeper.
If you doubt this, go to any TV station in your market and ask what
it would cost to buy the air time to deliver "your" content.
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:
