Craig Birkmaier wrote: >> Really? You think France 24 can't compete against CNN? > > Are you serious? > > They compete in the international news arena - CNN International has > dedicated operations around the world. France 24 claims to have the > French perspective on international news. There's a huge difference between, say, France 24, Arirang, and Russia Today. France 24 has reporters everywhere, and reports the news with as little bias as you'd expect from the best. They also focus on certain topics for a deeper look, they have interviews with people of all different perspectives, and so on. Arirang is more of a Korean culture outlet. And Russia Today has fun taking jabs at the US, any chance it gets, and importantly, never criticizes Russia's policies. It almost seems tongue in cheek, much of the time. So yeah, I think that France 24 can easily replace CNN, as a 24 hour news outlet for a more or less western audience. > You can't seriously believe that Americans will turn to France 24 for > their news, unless they are looking for their perspective. Easily. And they report quite a bit on US news. Add local news, and it's a perfectly viable option. And there are many other such 24 hour sources available, in English, from other countries' news networks. > The most popular channels in the extended basic tier have original > content that a significant portion of the population want. > Many of the shows that people are watching on Netflix were originals > from cable networks like A&E's Madmen. Fox Znews channel had the > highest ratings on election night. And why was there such a fuss > about the the star of Duck Dynasty? I think you'll find that most cable cutters and shavers are happy to wait some time before they catch some of this "exclusive" stuff, either on Hulu/Hulu Plus, or on Netflix. Fox News is also available online, the only exception being the live stream. But there are plenty of news clips available. Aljazzera/English, wrt to this, went backwards, as far as I'm concerned. They used to be available OTA (here) and online live, and recently they hid behind MVPD walls. No great loss, of course, because there are viable alternatives. As plenty of articles have pointed out, the only "exclusive" content that really holds this "bundle" captive would be the three specific sports I've mentioned. The other "exclusive" content is not "exclusive" enough, is available elsewhere with sometimes a short delay, does not need to be consumed live, and/or is replaceable with very decent alternatives, so this other content is having a hard time justifying the increases in "the bundle" fees. > You can watch this stuff with an antenna. And yet, I think you will find that in FACT, it is the main TV network content that people miss most from their MVPDs, when it gets interrupted. Even if it's also available online and with an antenna. >> Here's the deal, Craig. In a "bundle" that has several channels >> asking for multiple dollars per subscriber per month, a channel >> asking for, say, $0.50 per subscriber might easily find a place. >> And might make way much bigger profits this way, than if that >> same content were being sold on its own merits, unbundled. > > It took months, but maybe he finally gets it. It's odd how Craig loses the thread. Remember when I said that the profits made by HGTV or the Food Network were "fake"? Not supportable in a more open market? Remember when you disagreed? I was explaining why to you, Craig. But also missed by Craig was the main point to all of this. Craig's constant obsession about the conglom "oligopoly" is quite misplaced. The only reason your cable bill keeps rising is NOT caused primarily by the congloms AT ALL. It is caused primarily, and surely I'm not the only one saying this, by the NFL/MLB/NBA. At best, the congloms are exploiting the fact that people like Craig exist. They won't let go of the monopolistic pipe, EVEN WHEN alternatives for TV content exist. Monopolistic pipes can determine the content "bundles" and their prices. Craig fails to list credible, non-sports-related "exclusive" content by the congloms, available only in "the bundle," that people credibly can't do without, because it ain't there. The most in demand conglom product in the basic bundle, sports aside, is, in fact, also available OTA and online. But as long as people demand those three sports, and the leagues keep a tight control of it, and as long as the older generations demand TV network content be made available behind MVPD walls along with those sports, the congloms and the MVPDs can take advantage. And why shouldn't they? It's economics 101. 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.