[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 23:28:34 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

I have consistently said they do not own the content. The power
they have comes from one simple fact: they are the owners of
the distribution pipe

The distribution pipe that the MVPDs do not need. So, as you see, you are still
pretending that the broadcasters own the content. The FCC is talking about
dropping the exclusivity rule? So, evidently, Tom Wheeler also understands the
true state of affairs. Besides which, aside from sports, anyone with a
broadband connection can get the TV network content direct from the conglom
site, even now. So this "power" you talk about applies only for artificial
reasons, and applies only to the linear streams in MVPD nets.

Today, the content congloms "could" use the Internet to bypass
the MVPDs. They "could" create Virtual MVPDs, although they
would need help with customer service, and the hardware needed
to support the service.

Where have you been, Craig? The congloms have been doing this for many years.
Maybe more than a decade. They don't need any "virtual MVPD" at all. They also
don't need any special hardware (unless you're talking about CDN services). And
what's more, all they have to do is say so, and they can provide the live
streams too, for free or for pay. All of these options already exist.

Stop the bull about who owns the content - you are up to your
old flip-flop tricks again.

Give me a single example of a flip flop, and I'll show you something ELSE that
I wrote that you haven't understood.

The bill was sold as regulation of cable rates, and
government was given the authority to regulate those rates.
Unfortunately, the bill also said that the cable systems could
increase rates when they added more channels.

So as I said, the price hikes, from the local monopoly, were a given. The bill
could have been far more stringent about how it regulated the rates. For
example, the bill could have prevented a given bundle from becoming bloated,
without the subscribers agreeing to pay for more content. One wonders how you
didn't see this, way back at the beginning. It was obvious.

What you claim is that the 1992 bill was to regulate the MVPDs, because they
had become local monopolies. And what I respond is that regulation was
required, since they had become a local monopoly, but it didn't go nearly far
enough. So I have no idea what you're complaining about. If that bill had not
been written, your rates would have gone even higher. That's what happens with
monopolies, Craig.

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