[opendtv] Re: Retransmission Reform Reply Comments Due Today
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400
I'm back.
Yes even Macs can die. My 5 year old Macbook Pro bit the dust July
29th - logic board failure - and I am just now getting things back to
normal while I figure out what to replace it with.
In the meantime I am learning that what is truly important is THE
DATA, something that is becoming increasingly evident as we shift to
cloud based computing. My "computer" is now the hard drive recovered
from my Macbook - it boots up on my wife's Macbook at home and an old
iMac at work.
I also learned just how useful a smartphone/tablet can be when your
main computer goes down. I had just purchased the Pages app for my
iPhone before the crash. Pages is part of Apple's iWork Office suite,
and I had just copied several of the daily brewers logs that I keep
for each batch to my iPhone. I had no problem creating new docs and
updating them...
I can now say that I am really looking forward to iCloud, as it will
allow me to easily work on these logs on any device I have and
whatever I buy to replace my laptop.
Enough about my problems...
At 4:53 PM -0500 6/29/11, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
First, the only "national" MVPDs are the DBS companies - there are NO
national cable MVPDs - but even the DBS systems must cut deals for local
stations on a market by market basis.
Are there any legal limits placed on how many markets can be served
by any of these MVPD companies?
If you are talking about the DBS systems, the answer is no. If they
had the capacity, they could carry every local station in the
country. What has happened is that DISH and DirecTV together cover
virtually all U.S. markets, and both systems cover the major markets.
It is anticipated that as satellite transponder capacity increases
both systems will serve all markets. The capacity needed to deliver
ALL local markets is often cited as justification for the merger of
both systems.
The limitations for DBS systems are related to the availability of
local broadcast signals via antenna. If you live in an area that does
not have adequate off-air reception, you can purchase a package of
network feeds from New York and LA.
If you can receive off air broadcasts you can only buy a package of
station in your market, if they are available; if the DBS system does
not offer your local stations you cannot buy the national feeds; but
you may be able to buy a package of stations from the market that is
closest to your location.
I do not believe that there is a cap on the number of market that the
Cable MSOs can serve, although the Comcast/AT&T deal certainly pushed
the limits. I doubt the feds would allow Comcast to buy one of the
remaining MSOs.
But allowing the networks to own all of their affiliates renders the
entire notion of localism meaningless.
Why would you say this? Our NBC O&O is owned by NBC, provides some
of the same multicast programming as every other NBC O&O, and yet
they can also (and do) introduce market-unique programming like news
and weather, and even "the DC scene" channel. Because they see a
demand for this, or not. It should be up to them. Just as it is left
up to MVPDs to decide.
This is an assumption on my part.
Since the Network O&O's are competing in local markets they currently
serve those markets like any other station owner. If, however they
were allowed to own all of their affiliates, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that
they would move to a handful of regional operation centers and many
stations would be little more than a transmitter, automation system
and local sales staff.
It is important to keep in mind that the most important aspect of
localism is local news casts. But the audience for local news
continues to decline, and it is unlikely that we will continue to see
3-4 local news operations in the future - the economics - outside of
the top 25 markets - simply cannot support this. So I would expect to
see the top 25 markets become regional operations centers - with
different network choosing different markets.
Using sub channels for local programming is certainly possible. The
question is whether this would be profitable?
> Why should we provide ANY spectrum for TV broadcasting if the networks
become just another "MVPD network?" Or to put his another way, why
should only a handful of companies have the right to broadcast their
content, while others must rely on other distribution methods, or sell
their content to the congloms to reach the broadcast audience?
There's no comparison. Just in the DC market, we now have 11 OTA TV
"service providers," using 12 6 MHz channels, offering an admittedly
paltry 33 program streams today. They could easily offer many, many
more, with no more spectrum than they use now. More importantly,
every OTA user has 24/7 access to all of these. Not only that, but
the medium is efficient enough that this service can be provided
FOTA. Can you say the same for any of the MVPDs? No. Households are
typically connected to only one MVPD, and at best they have a
possible choice of two cabled and two DBS. Huge difference there.
The paltry 33 program streams is a DIRECT REFLECTION of the economics
of local broadcasting. The majority of consumers in virtually EVERY
market care nothing about these sub-channels. They probably are not
even watching the primary channels much. Why?
Because they subscribe to an MVPD that provides content they cannot get FOTA.
Why should ANY spectrum be taken away from this model, to force
everyone to the anti-competitive, umbilical MVPD/ISP model, even for
one-way TV content distribution? That would be the better question
to ask.
Alternative distribution, especially via the Internet, would likely
flourish if there was REAL MARKETPLACE, where you could access ANY
content. It is the anti-competitive restrictions on access to content
that allow broadcasting and the MVPDs to survive.
But I do not expect this situation to persist much longer. I don't
think the big oligopolies can resist the opportunity to sell directly
to consumers, cutting out the middlemen.
Time will tell, but ala carte may finally become a reality via the Internet.
This is absurd Bert. The power of retrans consent is the ability to
withhold the signal from a single distributor. There is no reason for
them to withhold signals from the entire country to force a deal in
one city.
Bottom one is, the excuse the FCC has for retaining national caps is
to have "multiple points of view" available to viewers. If the FCC
allows importation of content from distant markets, that excuse goes
out the window. Simple. Plus, allowing nationwide O&Os would put OTA
and cable channels on a equal footing, when it comes to retrans
consent disputes.
Your reaching for straws here. The idea that a cable system could
import a station during a retrans dispute is not the same thing as
allowing an MVPD to deal with any station, anywhere, any time. After
the dispute is resolved the MVPD would ONLY be allowed to carry the
local station - the existing signal importation rules would still
apply.
Scripps owns Food Network and HGTV nationwide, and blocked its
streams from an MVPD in NYC. That NYC MVPD had no "importation"
options available to them. So why should there be importation
options for NBC or ABC programming?
I suspect that NBC and ABC will object to the notion of importing an
out of market signal during a retrans dispute. I would also note that
Scripps Networks only blocked the Food Network in one market. It
remains to be seen if the FCC can create new retrans rules that allow
importation from other markets during a retrans dispute; and even if
they do, whether a network affiliate in another market would have the
guts to cut a deal with an MVPD, thus undermining the most powerful
tactic in retrans disputes.
It's a simple matter of making things right. If the FCC allows
importation of programs from another affiliate, then that FCC must
invent a new rationale for national caps.
Sorry, but this is apples and oranges. It ain't gonna happen.
Craig, I already read those paragraphs. Nowhere in there was it said
that these retrans consent channels must be made available to every
subscriber, on a "lifeline tier," and must not be offered a la
carte. This "lifeline tier" concept may be some sort of historical
artifact that no longer matters. In my book, if a station elects
retrans consent, they simply lose the guarantee of remaining
"lifeline tier," as you put it. That's how those paragraphs read,
between the lines. I see no reason to believe that the FCC or the
courts would raise a stink about this.
There are ALSO local franchise agreements that may require this.
Whatever the facts, the reality is that all local stations, whether
using must carry or retrans consent are in the lifeline tiers.
It is a negotiation, resulting in a contract, and ANY broadcasters
would be just plain STUPID, if they did not negotiate an agreement
that delivered their signal to EVERY subscriber on the cable system.
Come now. It's called "leverage." The MVPD threatens broadcasters
with putting their stuff a la carte. The broadcaster and conglom,
not being STUPID, will think twice before jacking up their rates by
200 percent or more. That's how negotiations work.
The MVPD CANNOT make a broadcast station ala carte because of the
Communications Act.
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:
