[opendtv] Re: ScreenPlays Magazine: HBO's OTT Move Sends Wake-Up Call to MVPDs
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:10:57 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Bottom line, coverage and accessibility for the broadcast networks is
> higher than for the non-broadcast linear MVPD networks, and much
> higher than the subscriber rates for OTT services. If it is not 100%,
> it is because of TV Never's.
What does this have to do with the fact that the FCC puts a cap on the national
footprint of OTA station groups, not on DBS, and not on the TV networks either?
You cannot assume a correlation between TV networks and OTA station groups,
Craig. TV networks have huge coverage because they make use of multiple
distribution media, which shows even more why the national coverage cap on
station groups is so silly.
Using the "voices heard" argument: Is it logical to get antsy if a station
group has more than 39 percent theoretical coverage, when opinion pieces aired
from the TV networks can reach 100 percent of the population regardless? More
precisely, does anyone really believe that Sinclair and Gannett generate more
political opinion programs than do Fox, ABC, and the other TV networks, so that
it's most important to rein in the station groups wrt nationwide coverage, but
not the TV networks?
> The broadcast networks have certainly lost a huge percentage of
> market share, but they are still delivering most of the largest
> linear (appointment) TV audiences, and they are more profitable
> than ever.
"Huge percentage market share" not on their OTA signal, and not content
generated by the stations either. These audiences are after **TV network
programming**, Craig, using many distribution media. Just the same as audiences
are after ESPN, HBO, or any other MVPD-only content source. It's silly to keep
rules which pretend the local broadcasters are creating all this content. Their
role is mostly distribution, and also local news/weather for a small percentage
of air time.
> The truth is that OTT services have had a more profound impact on
> the broadcast networks, helping to drive the shift from linear
> appointment TV to anywhere, anytime TV on demand.
Again, broadcast stations are not TV networks. (And OTT or TVE might help with
"anywhere," PERHAPS, but MVPD on demand schemes, i.e. in-network DVR service,
predate the availability of OTT service to the vast majority of households.
Once again.)
> The reality is that the broadcast networks are still the largest
> creators of original high value content like NCIS. The broadcast
> networks use the market based affiliate model, so the first live
> linear broadcast is delivered via market based affiliates.
Again, that's network content, not OTA broadcaster content. The same exact
content whether the viewer gets it from cable, DBS, OTA, or potentially even
online (although as of now, the networks don't stream in "live"). The pretense
that the TV networks content is created by the broadcast stations, and that
coverage limit rules must be applied to broadcast stations, is pure silliness.
> If the networks decide to eliminate affiliates, why would they
> continue operating an expensive broadcast infrastructure that
> only a small percentage of homes use?
First point is, 20 percent isn't such a small number. Second point is, the OTA
model is apparently self-sustaining, with ad revenues, so it's not like it's a
big burden. Third point is, the TV networks are also using FOTI distribution,
which emulates the linear FOTA distribution, but provides VOD. I have to
conclude that these extra options, to maximize household coverage for TV
network programming, in addition to walled garden distribution, is worth its
cost to the networks.
> There is no Comcast TVE Bert.
A bit of a distinction without a difference, though, Craig. These TVE programs
are not always available to all MVPD subscribers, right? The list of optional
MVPD credentials is different, for different shows. So in effect, you are
artificially tied to your particular neighborhood/county/whatever, even though
this makes no sense at all for Internet access of content.
> It is not a legacy impediment,
What do you call it, when access to Internet content is limited by the owner of
the legacy TV coax cable that may or may not exist in your neighborhood?
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:
