[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, 6 Oct 2015 01:52:04 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Yes it made economic sense to take over a superior medium

No, Craig. It made economic sense to get broadcaster content on all the TV
distribution media that people were using. "Superior" has nothing to do with
it. In some unarguable ways, the OTA medium continues to be "superior" to the
others. For instance, it is the most survivable. People bought cable because it
has access to way more frequency channels than OTA could offer, so broadcasters
wanted to get on that bandwagon too. It's simple.

All of these new options are filled with the same library
content from the oligopoly,

Even if that were true, the mere fact that you have numerous competing sources
are now available to everyone is a huge plus. (Remember? One supermarket in
town can set whatever huge markup they please. Multiple competing supermarkets
cannot. Around and around we go.) And in fact, some of these sources are now
also creating original content, and they ARE NOT members of the congloms.

But we still need reasons to pay for this access other than
convenience. Audiences are built with new original content,
not reruns.

Really? So, movie "channels" like HBO, Netflix, and Amazon are pointless, were
it not for their original content? They wouldn't build any audience?

Ironically, the new players like Netflix and Amazon are
driving up the cost of high quality content, because the
pool of talent and services that the congloms have used to
create content is not growing.

Says who, Craig? The way the marketplace works, more people get into the
business, although more than likely, they will have to tighten their belts.
Substantiate your idea that this can't happen or isn't happening. It happens
all the time.

This has nothing to do with any perceived neutrality mandate.
That already existed in practice,

Bullsh*t. It "existed in practice," until the Internet began to carry competing
content. We've been around this circle a ton of times, and Craig insists on
going back to square 1.

There is no reason to recreate the existing MVPD model via
the Internet, as this model is being replaced thanks to
technical evolution.

Halleluja. Progress.

Sorry, the article noted that capital dollars have gone
down for potential competitors, not the cable monopoly.

Craig makes things up again, to fit his narrative. This is the quote, Craig,
exactly as I wrote:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-17/it-s-still-pretty-great-to-be-a-cable-company

"But cable operators' biggest capital expenditures are on the set-top TV boxes
that they lease to customers. It makes sense that they would be buying fewer of
those in light of both the changed regulatory situation and the rise in
cord-cutting, but that isn't exactly the same as signaling a big decline in
investment in broadband infrastructure. In any case, it seems unlikely that
cable companies would be making big merger bets just because they're hoping for
a favorable court decision down the road."

Show me any text from the article that says what you just claimed.

Why not. They were not making enough money with TV to justify
the effort and decided to focus on the future of the wired
infrastructure - broadband.

So, go ahead and retract your previous comment that "the cabled MVPDs do have
franchise agreements, contracts with content owners, and local, State and FCC
regulations they must obey." MVPDs can, in fact, drastically change their
business model, Craig, and some already have.

They have a great future, since the FCC just entrenched their
monopoly with Title II.

Sorry, Craig, but nothing in Title II says your service must be a local
monopoly. It's just that if your service is NOT a local monopoly, then Title II
might not be as absolutely essential.

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