[opendtv] Re: The Verge: The great unbundling: cable TV as we know it is dying
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:39:01 -0400
On Jun 7, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It is newsworthy. What is old news is the reason the FCC gave for this
decision, Craig. The reason has been around for 20 years. The real difference
today has little to do with the DBS also-walled-in MVPD competition, but
rather a more fundamental change in how TV gets distributed, a change made
possible by the Internet.
Fascinating!
So the FCC tells local franchise authorities that they cannot regulate basic
cable rates, citing competition from DBS, and you think it is because of
competition from the Internet...
I've never heard of a franchise board objecting to LOWER rates for cable/Fios,
etc. This order will allow franchised systems to raise rates...if they dare.
Do you really think a franchise authority is going to object to the franchisee
offering more competitive bundles?
Was no. Correct. Circling back over old ground again, all the supposed
competition came a couple of "me too" identical MVPD style offerings, also
designed to become the sole source of TV content for a household, priced much
the same, and never mind that the DBS option didn't provide broadband or
telephone service, and that the vast majority of the country still has access
to only one cabled MVPD. Yes, Craig, for years, there was no competition,
mainly because the technology wasn't there yet to offer significant
alternatives. That's what has changed.
Nice try.
The technology has been there for 20 years to offer effective competition. The
Internet has not changed that fact. The DBS systems have actually offered
somewhat more affordable options, but they could have done far more, and they
could have resisted the pressure from the content owners to duplicate the
services offered by the cabled MVPDs. But why leave easy money on the table...
The difference is that the power of the duopoly is breaking down in the face of
growing public dissatisfaction with the games the content owners and the MVPDs
have been playing to keep adding more marginal linear channels to justify ever
increasing rate increases.
Yes, there is a technology shift that is contributing to this breakdown, but
the MVPDs are fully capable of taking advantage of it, especially those who can
offer broadband. It is important to note that the shift from appointment TV to
Anywhere, Anytime, On Demand TV is having as much impact on FOTA broadcasters
as it is in MVPDs.
The reality is that these on demand bits are still largely going to travel over
the same old monopolistic wires. What is worse, is that the FCC seeks to
regulate broadband under the inappropriate Title II regime, which will serve to
prop up the existing oligopolies and limit real rate competition for broadband,
much as there has been no real competition for the MVPD bundles.
Craig continues to fall into that trap. TVE might be delivered using IP, but
it continues to be the old school model that the younger generation is
dropping, Craig. There is more to the change than just the delivery protocol.
The article I posted Friday explained this very well.
Sorry Bert, but the younger generation is one of the largest groups using TV
Everywhere. The problem is they are not paying. They are just borrowing the
authentication credentials from their parents or a friend, or worse, pooling
together for one MVPD subscription then sharing the authentication among a
larger group. Again, nothing new here, just a new generation that knows how to
scam the scammers. It was true for
Interesting article - sounds like you could have been a co-author.
Even more important, what is really dying is ad supported
appointment TV,
I think you're quite wrong on the ad-supported point, Craig (although I think
you're right about the "by appointment" part). The change to unwalled OTT
sites is consumer-driven. It is the content owners and distributors noticing
that they simply do not have the leverage they used to have. And as I said
many times already, that's because technology has progressed enough to make a
totally different and unwalled alternative distribution channels possible.
Just like the stagecoach got displaced by the train, and ships and trains by
airplanes. Those invested in the legacy business model may well try to fight
the change, but there's no going back.
On the other hand, the change to presumably ad-free-by-subscription-only
Internet distribution is being forced on the public the old-fashioned way, by
the content owners, in bed with CE vendors. I think you'll find that the
technical feasibility of unwalled distribution is going to make a it a whole
heck of a lot harder for the supply side to retain control now, than it was
in the old days. And the younger generation has figured it out.
Like I already suggested, it seems really ironic that Disney,
who is taking active part in this transition by allowing ESPN
on Sling TV, and supposedly also on some Apple offering coming
soon, would be down on Verizon for doing something similar.
Why? This is very basic stuff. Verizon is violating a contract.
Of course, Verizon says it's not. But since I have to spell it out, Verizon
is doing exactly what Disney is doing, for exactly the same reason. Verizon
sees that the legacy model no longer works, Disney sees that the legacy model
no longer works. Verizon wants to package ESPN in a smaller package aimed at
sports fans, Disney wants to package ESPN in a small package aimed at sports
fans. Do I need to go on with this, Craig? It sounds mighty disingenuous of
Disney to be putting on this act of indignation.
In the end, the author is looking to Apple to be that savior.
(Craig picked up on that? Heh.) Apple is just part of the same problem.
Apple's interest is only to wrench control from one party in the supply side
and take that control onto itself. The shift is way bigger than just Apple,
Craig. We will be seeing connected TVs that offer increasingly unfettered
Internet access, once one CE vendor decides to get out of bed with the
content owners or legacy MVPDs, and others will have to follow. That's when
the transformation will really take off. Listen to this, Craig:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/31/the-connected-tv.aspx
Forget waiting for your one messiah to take action.
This has been true for decades, as you pointed out at the start of
your post. Nothing has changed. To get ESPN you still need to
subscribe to a bundle.
No, Craig, you continue to miss the change. So around and around we go again.
ESPN used to be available only from that local monopoly pipe you subscribed
to. And to prove that point, ESPN used to be available only from bundles that
were pretty much identical, and priced the same, no matter what local
monopoly pipe you got it from. And you continued to insist that this was
never going to change. Remember now?
We've been over this. ESPN is soon to become available from multiple outlets
easily available to everyone, at different prices points than before. Not to
mention that some of their content is already available FOTI, ad-supported.
Nothing like before, Craig, nothing that has been true for decades.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
