[opendtv] Re: Product Half life
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:01:52 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> It's up to the congloms and the local broadcasters to decide how much
>> of their stuff to distribute over the Internet. That doesn't change
>> the nature of the content at all. So I don't understand why anyone
>> would think that broadcasters or congloms are on the way out.
>
> You don't need an FCC license for valuable spectrum to distribute
> content over the Internet.
The fundamental disagreement I have with you, on this matter, is this: you
assume that because people want to view their TV content on different platforms
than just stationary TVs, they are no longer interested in today's TV content.
So congloms and local affiliates will go belly up. But that doesn't follow.
Congloms now distribute their content via affiliates too, not to mention MVPDs,
so "FCC license for valuable spectrum" may just be irrelevant. You are
confusing the conglom with the local broadcaster. The content is what matters
most to the conglom. There is no reason to believe that just because
distribution might go from an affiliated RF transmitting station to the
Internet, that no one will be interested in the content.
In fact, when you see the hype about AppleTV or GoogleTV, don't they often use
the offering of popular shows, like House, as part of the hype? They aren't
selling their software with obscure productions from starving artists, Craig.
The way they get people hooked is by showing shows they like on this new
distribution pipe, or on these new viewing appliances.
If any MVPDs survive, retrans consent will continue to exist. Or it will morph
into fees charged to the ISPs who carry this conglom content. I doubt the
congloms would come out hurting at all.
>> The local broadcaster would not be required to distribute an
>> affiliated conglom's content any longer, probably, but the local
>> broadcaster could continue to provide whatever "local content" he
>> was creating previously.
> Well for one thing, they would have no economic basis to exist,
> And wen CBS decides it does not need channel 9 to distribute its content,
> WUSA must either create (or buy) programming to fill in the gaps.
I'm saying, WUSA can also sell their spectrum back to the FCC auction and
continue to operate as a local content source, with none of the OTA transmitter
expenses. Like any other content owner. That's assuming their local content
really is in high demand. WUSA would keep its reporters, writers, and studio,
but no transmitter facilities.
The difference between this and newspapers is that people still look for this
TV content, be it network or local. It's what they want on their iPads,
iPhones, and on their Internet-connected TVs.
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.
Other related posts:
