[opendtv] Re: Twitter Teams Up With Bloomberg for Streaming News
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 10:09:15 -0400
On May 4, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can't always second-guess what you're trying to say.
There was no need to second guess. All you had to do was read the story I
linked to and the paragraph I highlighted.
The story was about a new live streaming news service, and the fact that many
Twitter users are tweeting while they watch live TV. Apparently this is true
for our President too...
;-)
It was not clear whether you were referring this to your previous statements
about retrans consent, which this example disproves convincingly, or what. I
certainly was not expecting Craig to question why news would be live, though.
This explains a lot...
Apparently you have some issues in connecting the dots. Not sure how one makes
a connection between YOUR argument that "live TV is dying and will disappear
thanks to the Internet," and an Internet streaming service that has NOTHING to
do with broadcasters or retrans consent.
About as close as I can get is that the content congloms will continue to
program live broadcast TV networks in order to require retransmission consent
payments by the (V)MVPD services used by about 81% of U.S. homes.
Speaking of which, here is an interesting chart on MVPD and VMVPD subscribers.
This is the first study I have seen that quantifies homes subscribing the VMVPD
Bundles.
If, as you say, LIVE linearTV is dying, WHY would Twitter and Bloomberg
create a Live linear news network?
Get it?
Craig, we have long known that one of the few examples of "live" that remains
in demand is ... news. Furthermore, in a previous post refuting your ideas on
retrans consent, I pointed out that CBSN (CBS News online) has been
available, live and FOTI, for a good long time already. *And* also without
any retrans consent to local broadcasters involved.
Belaboring your obstinance.
You claim that we don't need live TV; with the Internet, everything can be
delivered on demand. So I reasonably asked you why two companies, one that only
operate via the Internet, and another that uses the Internet, cable and sells
syndicated news products, would want to create a new live news service?
You punted, and then doubled down in this most recent response, continuing top
refuse to answer the question.
CBSN is a website filled with content from CBS news. It is a demand based
service like FoxNews.com. It DOES NOT stream live CBS news broadcasts, or local
station broadcasts; that would be an oxymoron, as neither CBS or its O&O
stations operate a 24/7 live news service.
Now do you get it? Live online content is available, with no retrans consent
to local broadcasters. Just because live news is still in demand, this does
not diminish the fact that well over half of TV content is consumed on
demand. The very vast majority of what broadcasters (or other sources)
transmit, over a 24 hour period, is better viewed on demand, in other words.
And live online content is available with no retrans consent to local
broadcasters in the equation, which should tell us that this is not model for
the future to rely on.
So what you are saying is that Twitter and Bloomberg are out of touch with
reality...
aAnd that you cannot connect the dots to answer a simple question.
FINIS
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: