[opendtv] Re: Pace 'turns the corner' and returns to profit
- From: "Albert Manfredi" <bert22306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:29:21 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The major difference form the U.S. is that all of these broadcasters
contract with third parties to build and operate the transmission
infrastructure.
Yes, I've been asking myself whether/why this would make a difference. And
also, in reality, this is true even in the US, to a variable and messy
extent. For example, one could think of Sinclair as being the third party
that provides much of the infrastructure for the Fox, CW, and MNT OTA
networks (I believe that list is right).
But still, bottom line, why would the UK, Aussie, Italian, French
broadcasters *not* demand some percentage of the cable subscription revenues
when they deal with cable delivery? As they do here? Why would not a third
party by-subscription infrastructure offer broadcasters more revenues than a
Freeview infrastructure, in Europe and Australia?
The only reason I can think of is that there are laws to forbid such
kickback behavior. It just seems so obvious that cable systems would look to
make their edge more significant over the Freeview alternative, by making
special deals with the broadcasters. "I give you x% of subscription revenues
for Channel n if you promise not to ever make it available over a Freeview
multiplex."
While trying to figure out exactly who owns the UK infrastructure,
I also noticed that the entire infrastructure is being updated
between 2008 and 1010 for high powered DTT transmissions.
See? You can't fool mother nature.
If you want to offer HDTV, without going to untenable infrastructure designs
or massive reduction in program streams, you need to increase spectral
efficiency. If you increase spectral efficiency, you pay a penalty in C/N
margin required. The practical solution that works here is the same
practical solution that works there. (I just couldn't let that one slide by
unnoticed -- sorry.)
We just saw the BSkyB announcement,
I assume you mean the one about introducing a terrestrial pay-TV network. I
saw that but didn't post it, mostly because it sounds too much like deja vu
all over again.
The one and, so far, only demonstrable advantage of OTA TV delivery is that
it can afford to be "free," thanks to the very efficient nature of its
delivery medium (not to mention that govts all over have allocated spectrum
to it). Take away that advantage, and whether your name is Sky, USDTV,
ONdigital, or Quiero, you struggle. (Not saying that it's impossible for
someone to finally come up with some clever scheme, of course. But one would
expect it to be different from what was tried before.)
Bert
_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into
something more.
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
