[opendtv] Re: The rationale for retrans consent from local broadcasters

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:48:29 +0000

Craig wrote:

Consequently, in the US, the OTA broadcasters only had a "let's pretend"
option of "competing with the MVPDs," as you claim. So you're saying, in
fact, "I am pretend-imagining that in the US, the local broadcasters
could have competed against the MVPDs." But I don't "pretend-imagine"
things, Craig. I prefer to tell it like it is.

You are pretending that stations in local markets have any real power.

No, that's you, Craig. You pretend that local stations own all of the high
value content they air. I never labored under such illusions.

They make real money by delivering the content from the networks and
syndicator so they are affiliated with.

I've said many, many, many, many times that it is the congloms who have the
power, not the OTA stations. And that it would make more sense if the congloms
paid the broadcasters for their services, rather this pretend game that
reverses the process. The local broadcasters, if anything, are acting as local
representatives (which they could continue doing in the Internet era, by
providing local Internet services too). Local reps should be paid by the parent
company, not vv, IMO.

So sure, **the congloms** could decide to compete against MVPDs. I already said
that. They can begin by subtracting all of their high value content from MVPDs.
Just don't pin this on broadcasters. Broadcasters are the equivalent of Arqiva,
Craig. Without the content, competing becomes pretense.

By limiting station ownership to 40% of U.S. homes no station
group could challenge the networks - they are instead dependent
on those networks.

Craig finally caught on. And what have I said time and again about the 39%
national footprint cap, Craig? It's a silly pretense, and even the logic used
to explain this cap is nonsense.

The cable guys had the balls, and the resources, to challenge the
big three broadcast networks. The broadcasters could have pulled
their content and cut the new cable entrepreneurs balls off.

The congloms could have subtracted their content. The local broadcasters, as a
matter of actual fact, weren't allowed to subtract anything. But for sure, the
congloms could have. I already said that. You'd get this straight if you quit
pretending the OTA broadcasters own the high value content, Craig.

Keep in mind that the 1992 Cable Act was sold to the public as
re-regulation of a monopoly with the goal of stopping or at
least limiting the annual -higher than inflation - price
increases. The unintended consequence was that the rate of rate
increases INCREASED.

Not at all an "unintended consequence." More like, since the actual bundle
rates were not strictly regulated by the FCC or other authority, as is done for
other "natural monopolies" (power, water/sewer), the price hikes were utterly
predictable. Funny thing, Craig, but that's precisely why, back in the early
1980s, I refused to sign up. I saw this behavior very early on.

Content owners are in the business of licensing popular
content. That is how they can afford to spend so much to
produce popular high quality content.

Okay, so how is it that you don't see the connection? The congloms are in
*fact* licensing their local affiliate to carry the conglom's content, just as
they license Freeview to carry their content. The congloms should be directly
licensing the MVPDs to carry their content (or not), likewise.

Cable allows use of adjacent channels, taboo channels, and
frequencies from adjacent markets, which OTA can't do.

A bit of cable industry history from Wiki:

"To expand beyond 12 channels, non-standard channels had to be used, located
between the FM band and Channel 7, or beyond Channel 13 up to about 300 MHz;
these channels initially were only accessible using separate tuner boxes that
sent the chosen channel into the TV set on Channel 2, 3 or 4."

Now do you understand what I had written? Look at my quote. And in addition,
OTA also has to prevent co-channel interference, between adjacent markets or
sub-markets, which cable does not need to worry about. So all else equal, cable
had a significant advantage over OTA, for channels they can offer. With ATSC
1.0, some of the limitations are reduced, e.g. on practical use of adjacent
channels OTA.

It cost the cable industry hundreds of billions to
upgrade their infrastructure

Yup. That's why they charge connection fees, Craig. It's a very labor-intensive
system, unable to offer FOTA service, which the OTA broadcasters CAN DO. I've
said this too, a ton of times. Or did you think you were telling me something I
don't know?

Big difference is Freeview works reliably for more than
97% of U.K homes.

Big difference is that in Europe, professional antenna installations ARE THE
NORM. And transmitter systems are subsidized with public funding, to be much,
much more dense than here in the US. I've said this too, **a ton of times**.
And yet, unless way out in the boonies where no transmitters exist within 60+
miles, ATSC 1.0, on receivers anything like 5th gen or better, is hardly more
difficult to manage than DVB-T, as DVB-T is actually deployed. In fact, even my
3rd gen Accurian and Digital Stream STBs were easy to set up. I covered all of
this **way** too many times already, Craig.

And I have showed you multiple reports that say it is
23% or less.

Prove it, Craig. Go find that quote, because I simply don't believe you. And
then, after you have found it, I'll show you once again why it doesn't say what
you think it says.

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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2015