[opendtv] Re: TV Programmers Put Subscriber Caps on Skinny Bundles | Media - Advertising Age

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:32:47 -0400

On Apr 15, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



I am torn between saying "false," and saying "everyone already knows that
nothing needs to be seen 'live.'" That's why it's irrelevant. This is another
one of those points to continue to gravitate back to, again and again. This
TV network material is available on demand, either from the MVPD VOD, from an
in-home or in-system DVR, or over the Internet. Same material. Watching it
"live" is not necessary, Craig.

No disagreement here. Clearly you do not watch many hours of the 50+ channels
you can receive. It is equally clear that only a small portion of this content
is of high value; prime time is only 3 out of 24 hours, but these channels must
fill up the rest of the time.

You rightly claim that to view much of the most valuable content you don't even
need an antenna - Hulu and the network sites are focused on the live plus seven
day ratings for prime time content. Or you can use your DVR to record programs
off air. So how many of the 50+ channels have programs that you have time
shifted?

In essence you are agreeing that the broadcast multiplexes are growing
increasingly irrelevant. They only serve a tiny fraction of TV viewers, and
they are filled with programs that nobody is watching. If the programs are
worth watching you can access them on demand within a few days of when they are
broadcast.

When I watch prime time TV, I always watch on demand (for years and years),
and the ads come right along with it. If I use the PVR, which I rarely do
now, I get to see the ads even if in FF. You can still see what they are, and
you can still slow down if it's something new or interesting. Online, the ads
are embedded, and thankfully the breaks are shorter than OTA.

So it sounds like you don't use that antenna much anymore, despite the fact
that you have more than 50 channels to watch. Thanks for confirming what I have
been saying.

But it's still the same TV network material, Craig. The fact that people
might not be watching it "live" changes nothing.

It's the same network material on Netflix Bert, just delayed a few years...

Again, you are helping me make my point. Except for live events and the first
run of a handful of shows, appointment TV is dying.

Of course you are, Craig.

No. I REALLY don't watch this stuff.

That's why you keep complaining about "oligopoly."

I'm not complaining. I am stating a fact.

You feel powerless at the rates your walled-in TV addiction forces you to
pay, you feel the need to blame some fictitious "oligopoly."

Because Both the content and distribution oligopolies are responsible for this
mess. They are driving up what we pay, for stuff we don't watch, at rates that
are higher than inflation. This is classic monopoly behavior, endorsed by the
politicians and regulators.

You can hold your head high and take the high ground! "I don't pay."

But you are paying in a far more insidious way - you only get to watch the crap
that I stopped watching years ago. You claim you can watch everything you want,
but have't a clue because you cannot watch what more than half the country is
watching.

And, to add insult to injury, you don't even understand the options available
to you. For the longest time, you insisted "will never happen." Amazing.

I know all the options Bert, and use those that are of interest to me. And yes,
I am willing to pay for the stuff I want to see. I am hopeful that I may be
able to pay less someday, but I fully understand that the content oligopoly is
not going to walk away from a business model that is working to support their
interests.

The options are increasing, but the ones worth watching all have price tags, so
I choose those that meet our needs.

It is when there are only five major content companies that
control more than 90% of what we watch.

"Only" five? Compared with the ONE company you are totally beholden to, Craig?

And what company am I totally beholden to Bert?

If you mean Cox Cable, I can add that I am also totally beholden to Gainesville
Regional Utilities and AT&T. The wonderful world of Internet content still
requires a broadband subscription - Cox is currently my only viable option. As
I have stated, if somebody like Apple offers a more attractive TV bundle I will
drop the Cox MVPD service in a heartbeat; but I will still be beholden to them
for my ISP service.

Because YOU put up with it, Craig. Options are available to YOU, but you
prefer to remain the loyal subject, obediently behind garden walls, where
competition from the content sources is understandably limited, and collusion
therefore encouraged. If you complain that your head hurts, why not stop
banging it against the wall?

Because the options you claim are available to me do not interest me. The stuff
I want is not available to you because you won't pay for it.

I have NO PROBLEM with that. As long as you remove the single gatekeeper,
which distorts the market, these incumbents can and do compete head to head.
As it should be. You seem to not understand that successful incumbents may
very well remain successful, even if they can now compete better than they
used to.

There is no single gatekeeper anymore Bert. I have multiple options for MVPD
service, and two options for ISP service, although one is mostly useless for TV
streaming.

What you keep missing is that the content oligopoly is adding MORE middlemen,
MORE options. The content oligopoly and the bundles will still exist when the
last TV transmitter, cable system, and DBS system are turned off.

Huh? Do you think there's something religiously improper about using
satellite to distribute TV content to ISPs nationwide?

No surprise, you totally missed it again.

The comment was about the options available to content owners to get their
content to the public. Broadcasting, cable, DBS, or Internet. None are free,
all have gatekeepers at some level. Using satellites to distribute content to
ISPs may make sense in certain business models. The DBS systems already offer
most TV stations in the U.S. via their satellites. So if Sling can cut the
deals required to offer the broadcast networks, they already have the signals
ready to distribute to the ISPs.

But your still missing the point. Setting up a viable TV streaming portal on
the Internet is not free, or easy. There is a good reason that so many of these
services pay CDNs to deliver their bits. Big server farms and edge caches cost
billions - just ask Apple, Google, Amazon et al.


Among OTT sites, Sling happens to be quite expensive. Why? ESPN, of course.
Cord cutters who don't want ESPN may well want to look elsewhere.

No Bert. The ESPN portion of that bill is only $5-6/mo. It cost that much
because you get 20 channels, each of which is being paid for those live streams
and access to their content libraries.

The cord cutters can look to Sony - no ESPN or Disney content. But it's still
$49.99 to $69.99 a month.

Uhhhh Bert. All of those services are behind pay walls.

Uuuh, Craig. You really need to take an economics course at your community
college.

You need to take English.

None of these services are free. They are behind pay walls.

Their relative value and level of interest depends on the viewer. As you do not
pay for them you are clueless as to their value propositions. Here's a clue.

They are operating and being sold as special interest add ons for people who
want MORE than what they can get from ESPN, TBS the regional sports networks,
and the broadcast networks. This is no different than the sports mini bundle
offered by Sling. It is a way to get more money from OTT sports enthusiasts.
None of these services replace ESPN et al.

All those direct to viewer sports channels represent many competing "walls,"
not a single monopoly. They all have to compete. The guy who likes only
football is not forced to also pay for basketball, hockey, baseball, or the
weekly PTA meetings. What about this do you still not get, Craig? Competing
sites still have to compete, even if they are by subscription.

You can call it competition if you like. But in reality is is just cream
skimming.

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: