Craig Birkmaier wrote: > The article does not show the way ahead. It simply shows that small > MVPD players will either get out of the business or they will be > acquired. The article does show the way ahead, Craig. The solution is for the distribution media to stop carrying the MVPD broadcast bundles. After that is done, by an increasing number of ISPs, and/or by the subscribers themselves who are fed up with the ever rising rates, the rest falls in place automatically. One thing you can be certain of is that the congloms will not go out of business over any of this. They will make sure that their stuff is made available to all potential customers, using whatever means those customers will accept. > It is worth noting that it is entirely feasible that facilities based > MVPDs could all go away, with Internet MVPDs taking over the TV customers. Craig, you keep missing it, as an MVPD marketer would do. Why did this one MVPD/ISP drop out of the MVPD model to begin with? Was it something to do with their physical infrastructure? No. Was it the transmission protocol? No again. With TVE already in place, the physical infrastructure and technical details of transmission are demonstrably not the issue. So what you're suggesting makes no sense. Attempting to duplicate the MVPD model as is, over the Internet, will only guarantee that the stubborn hopeless who try this will fail. Think about it, Craig. You don't fix the problem by recreating the same problem. Instead, new formats of Internet-distributed TV portals will emerge, as some already have. Including "direct to consumer." Let's not forget how unwalled TV content distribution models work. The market distortions were created in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when in search for a greater capacity medium than what OTA could offer at the time, walled garden local monopoly pipes were built. With the neutral Internet, those distortions disappear. Now it's back to the unwalled distribution model, only with way more choice available than even the MVPD net broadcast streams could hope to provide. The bundling was only enforceable **by the necessity of this walled garden distribution pipe**. Bundling will become entirely optional. If consumers want it, they can find a portal that does this. If consumers don't like it, they will find other portals that don't do this. Viacom will certainly not insist that their stuff must be bundled with Disney content, Craig. Not over the Internet. And if a TV portal insists it must be, that portal will have to compete against other portals that aren't so self-destructive. And content creators themselves can choose to do business with the congloms, or not. With the neutral Internet pipe, there is no gatekeeper to allow only certain content owners over the pipe, as there was with the walled garden model. There's more opportunity for small operations to get their stuff out too, e.g. over YouTube. >> Amazing how anyone can pretend that so-called "TV Everywhere" is >> an interesting model, for the consumer. What this article describes >> is infinitely more interesting, especially because it has started >> happening. > > It IS an interesting model for consumers that pay for the bundle > Bert. Yes, Craig. You are premising everything on the perpetuation of the status quo. Which is why it's NOT INTERESTING. This article, and a ton of others, are describing how the status quo DOESN'T WORK anymore. Which should be obvious. When a past technical constraint no longer applies, business models move on. That's always been the case. 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.