Craig Birkmaier wrote:
It may be standard business practice Bert, but it can only
happen because Congress gave the broadcasters the legal
ability to demand these extortion payments.
I don't think so. Broadcasters and the umbillical distribution media
behave like any business partners would. For example, like well-known,
famous authors and their publishers. The publisher has a lot of leverage
until the author becomes famous, then the author has all the leverage.
There's nothing the FCC should do to change these business basics.
Ask yourself this Bert. Why is it that this is the only
country in the world that I am aware of, where a
broadcaster can demand compensation for something that has
already been paid for?
We have been over this. I don't know the details of how much ad revenue
goes directly to the content creators/broadcasters in Euro TV systems,
vs. ad revenue to the distribution medium and from there to the content
creators, but that's where the differences lie. For example, if Freeview
gets none of the ad revenue directly, then it makes sense that their
revenues have to come from the content creators/broadcasters. If
Freeview got all the ad revenue, then it would make sense that they
would pay the broadcasters for the content. If you fall somewhere
inbetween, then you can expect a more complicated formula. And if
subscription fees are involved, then obviously the content
creators/broadcasters are going to want a piece of that also.
The other difference is that in the US there are many different
"freeview" systems, owned by the content creators in part and owned by
other companies. I don't see why you ignore the differences created by
the different business structure. There is no perfect system. They are
just slightly different ways of achieving the same goals.
Maybe he would get more excited about the prospect of having
this mess extended to the Internet. At least for now, with
the Internet there is a clear distinction between carriage
and content. You pay a fee for net access, and you have the
ability to access content from anyone who wants to offer it
in the free and clear - and you ALSO have the right to pay
extra for content if you want to.
Exactly the same as cable. You can pay for the cost of being hooked up,
since both cable and Internet access require labor-intensive
infrastrutcures, and then you may need to pay extra for the content. You
*can* subscribe to cable only for the Internet access, no TV, of course,
and that's just like any other ISP.
And from your ISP, when content is high valued content, such as TV
shows, movies, or music, you will see plenty of restrictions on
accessing it through the Internet. I can watch the news from RAI or TF1
by paying only my broadband connection fee, but I cannot watch other RAI
or TF1 shows this way. And during the World Cup, even that news access
was limited.
Were all TV content to be made available on the Internet, you can bet
that content creators would want a piece of that broadband subscription
fee from the ISPs. They have a right to more revenues if they get more
viewership, every bit as much as a book author does when his book sells
in other countries.
Why is there not a breakdown on our monthly cable/DBS bills
that informs us what we are paying for.
Good point. There should be. Not that this would necessarily change
anything.
Why is the industry so opposed to ala carte selection of
channels?
Because it costs more to them. Why do manufacturers of silicon always
seem to quote prices for quantities of 10,000 or more?
I fully understand your position. I even respect the fact
that you refuse to cave in. What i DO NOT respect is your
complacency in all of this. IF you lived in the U.K. you
would now have access to more than 30 channels of unique
content, and it would not cost you any more than you are
now paying.
In the UK, or in Italy, I would have to pay taxes for the national
broadcast net.
But I turn that comment of yours around. If you and 85 percent of other
households were less willing (complacent) about caving in to the
umbillical services, we WOULD HAVE a much better OTA network. As you
yourself have said many times, broadcasters are happy to depend on cable
and DBS distribution, so they don't take their OTA network as seriously
as they might. And this is YOUR FAULT. Content creators would make sure
their OTA network was good, if consumers demanded it. It is ludicrous
that people in Gainesville don't even have access to the 7 basic OTA
networks. Whose fault is it that you don't? Consumer complacency. The
same reason US automakers concentrate so much effort on building obscene
behemoths instead of interesting cars. Consumers are the problem.
By the way, I'm happy to report that our independent MHz Networks
station, on 30-3, now transmits the "France 24" all-news network, FOTA.
As far as I'm concerned, a perfect substitute for cable-only CNN. You
say your can't get that in Gainesville? Tsk tsk. Don't blame France 24.
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.
