[opendtv] Re: News: Remote-Sensing Devices Fail FCC White Spaces Test
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:06:10 -0400
At 12:08 PM -0700 8/3/07, johnwillkie wrote:
Craig;
Your conclusion is jaded and conclusory in nature, when that is not what the
85% says.
You, like many folk in the U.S. with cable-shaped heads, think there is
competition between cable and terrestrial.
Are you kidding? The only competition that exists is for eyeballs.
That is, who is watching what at any given time. But the reality is
that a small group of companies create almost all of the "ocean" of
content that one gets to choose from when they subscribe to a
multichannel service.
This may shock you John, but it is not productive to argue whether
the broadcast networks, cable networks, or local broadcast
programming is winning, either in terms of ratings or ad revenues.
What IS worth talking about is how this stuff is bundled and
packaged, and why U.S. consumers are paying more than ever for an ad
supported medium, while in other parts of the world these same
companies operate VERY profitably, without the benefit of subscriber
fees.
As much as the various parties protest and bicker, the reality is
that they are operating as an oligopoly, forcing consumers to pay for
content they do not watch, and protecting the non-competitive perks
that they enjoy because of government protection. When DBS came
along, we did not see any downward pressure on prices; the DBS
operators just followed the lead of cable, charging a few dollars
less to appear competitive. The same is happening with IPTV - it is
much easier and more profitable to follow the market leaders than it
is to try to change the underlying basis for how "everyone" must deal
with one another.
You need to consider how many people would subscribe to cable if one of the
conveniences it DID NOT supply was the ease of pickup of local broadcast
signals.
Clearly cable customers get upset when content they desire is pulled
from a system. It is also clear that the initial reason that cable
systems were built was to extend the reach of broadcasters.
Broadcasters could easily decide NOT to be carried by cable; they
could choose to force consumers to put up antennas IF they felt this
would give them a competitive edge. But the reality is that they WANT
to be carried and they WANT to be paid for their content, even though
it is free if you use an antenna.
I can say that for myself, if I had to use an antenna to receive the
broadcast networks that i would still subscribe to cable. I WOULD NOT
choose to ONLY watch the broadcast networks for too many reasons to
list here.
One problem is that cable TV has become a necessity, much like water
and electricity. Most people just assume that they need it and it is
worth paying for.
Yesterday Rush had a caller that was complaining about the cost of
health insurance, suggesting that (the caller) would be happy to have
the government pay for it rather than himself and his employer. The
caller noted that if the employer stopped paying 60% of the cost of
health insurance he might not be able to afford it.Rush then went on
a tirade, telling the caller that he "could" give something up so
that HE could pay for his own insurance. "You could give up cable TV
and use an antenna!"
Such is the state of affairs for broadcasters - they are now viewed
as a legacy service that DOES NOT provide the content that people
want and are willing to pay for. IF you only get broadcast TV you
must either be poor, or out of touch...
Couple that with the near-terminal (until recently) rejection of a/b
switches that would have enabled consumers to dynamically switch to off-air
signals. If cable was so confident about it's value proposition, why not
offer this simple device as required by early 1980's cable rules? I would
have leveled the playing field a bit.
Well for one thing, MANY sets have multiple RF inputs, thus there is
no need for such a switch. For another, ANYTHING that causes Joe
Sixpack to have to get up off the couch to push a button is
completely unacceptable.
Why not force cable to include an off air tuner in every cable box
with complete integration with the remote and a program guide? There
are may ways to force solutions on consumers. But my preference is
ALWAYS for the marketplace to decide.
Also, let me repeat: since 1971 to last year, it was tv broadcasters
complaining about cable issues. Now, it's cable companies complaining to
the FCC about ota issues.
This is a distorted statement. TV broadcasters complained for years
before they finally won retrans consent as part of the 1992 cable
re-regulation act. And the cable companies were right there
complaining about the broadcasters. This is just part of the
landscape - you can call it political theater, with the intent of
influencing the politicians. The reality is that it is really
intended to justify more regulation and higher costs for consumers.
The tide has turned, the wind has shifted, and you're still sailing "bear
away" sets. The folks in cable have, instead, trimmed their sails. (No mixed
metaphors here, at least this time.)
HUH?
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:
