[opendtv] Re: Two articles about sticking it to the TV consumer
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:44:46 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> No it is not because the rules are unfair, unless you
> believe it is unfair for local affiliates to make a profit.
> The reality is that the local broadcasters get a major
> chunk of all broadcast TV revenues - nearly half if you
> include the revenues from local operations of the network
> O&Os. And the local broadcasters get the retransmission
> consent fees from the MVPDs. The congloms could capture
> ALL of this revenue if:
>
> 1, they owned a national footprint of broadcast stations;
>
> 2. They eliminated all broadcast affiliates and go direct
> with the MVPDs as they do with MOST of the content they own.
Add one more:
3. Each conglom were allowed to deal with just one OTA provider with national
footprint, if they don't want to run O&Os.
Craig, if you go back to earlier parts of this thread, you'll see that my
interest is in keeping FOTA TV in the US alive and well. I don't assume that
means retaining the existing broadcaster model. You state here very plainly, it
is "localism," manifested in this retran consent model, that makes the OTA
solution unappealing to the content owners, i.e. congloms. So, abolish that
model.
Exactly how the individual transmitter sites are organized, whether the
congloms themselves own a national footprint, or whether they outsource the OTA
infrastructure to other companies that own a national footprint, should be up
for grabs. A topic of discussion and debate, even within the FCC.
The difference between this scheme and your spectrum utility is that there can
be multiple OTA "utilities" within each market, just as there are now multiple
broadcasters. So, for example, companies like ABC/Disney, which seem not to
want to bother with an OTA infrastructure of their own, can deal with just one
company to provide that service. The FCC *could* retain the local ownership
caps, for OTA nets serving the major congloms.
And yes, there will be some local news crews involved in this scheme, of
course. Everyone wants SOME amount of local news and weather coverage, even
over MVPD nets. But every transmitter in the market does not need to provide
this local programming, just as every channel of an MVPD does not. It's as
counterproductive for the FCC to cram these local requirements on OTA TV. MVPDs
don't have such a burden. "Local content" should be a matter for the bean
counters to decide.
> We are not just talking about the You Tube phenomenon. We
> are talking about professional producers and good quality
> talent going direct to the consumer rather than being forced
> to deal with the gatekeepers.
That's good too. That's why I was so intrigued with that Sony Vaio TV STB a few
months ago. The gatekeeper changes from broadcaster to ISP. This may be where
TV distribtion is headed, depending how the ISPs manage this new trend. I DO
NOT assume, though, that Internet distribution will remain as democratic as it
is now, if TV over Internet becomes mainstream. There can be a lot more control
of viewers exerted over an Internet scheme. I can't tell you how many times I
can't see my foreign news broadcats, for instance, because of some annoying
control blocking the signal for certain time periods. So it's not entirely
obvious to me that other distribution pipes will disappear completely. All
depends on how annoying the Internet option is made.
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:
