[opendtv] Re: U.S. NEEDS A CLEAR PICTURE OF WIRELESS
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:46:36 -0500
At 6:29 PM -0500 1/16/10, Albert Manfredi wrote:
It's amazing how we can't seem to communicate. Let me be more blunt,
then. Cable companies incorporate much overhead costs, and much of
it avoidable, that they (obviously, duh, Craig) pass on to the
subscribers. Yes, at a profit, even. Broadcasters DO NOT have all
this extra baggage, so they can "make do" with ad revenues alone.
Bert
Stop and think about what you are saying. Nearly 90% of U.S. homes
are willing to pay for an MVPD service including all of that
overhead. Broadcasters do not have any advantage:
1. They cannot offer the variety of programming offered by an MVPD
due to capacity constraints and the reality that they cannot generate
enough ad revenues to pay for this content. If you doubt this, please
read the NYTimes article for which I just posted the link.And don;t
even try to tell us how many channels could be delivered by
broadcasters in the market(S) where you live.
2. Broadcasters do not have a business relationship with their
viewers - they deal only with advertisers and content providers, and
have no way to deal with viewers other than by demographic group.
MVPDs know every viewer and are developing the infrastructure to
deliver content and advertising to individuals; targeted advertising
is replacing shot gun advertising, which is a major reason that NBC
and many stations are beginning to lose money in an industry where
they used to operate a cash printing press.
3. Broadcasters cannot make do with ad revenues alone. They are
desparate for the second revenue stream of retransmssion consent,
which they "hope" will level the playing field with the non-broadcast
networks.
4. The source of all of the high quality content that you put so much
value on is drying up. The conglomerates no longer need broadcasters
to thrive, and will gladly suck up any remaining revenues that
broadcasters collect today.
This is a good thing for consumers, Craig, not a bad thing. MVPD
subscribers are evidently far too *witless* to figure this out, and
they let the MVPDs have their way. At best, bleating out impotent
complaints as they fork out the cash. They willingly allow
themselves to become infinite revenue streams by renting hardware
they should be able to buy outright, and by forking out subscription
fees for programs that could survive on their ad revenues alone. How
dumb can these people be, anyway?
Not dumb Bert. Are you dumb because you pay for utilities operated by
monopolies and oligopolies? The problem is that consumers are willing
to pay for more choice and less commercials. Are they getting a good
deal today?
Hell No!
Do they have any viable alternatives?
As you say. the Internet is not ready ...yet.
But the handwriting is on the wall. It will only be a matter of a few
years before the MVPD model will be challenged in much the same way
that broadcasting is being challenged today.
Think about it Bert. A republican "might" take Ted Kennedy's Senate
seat and the best that the progressives can come up with is that all
this record cold weather is yet another indication of Global
Warming....errrrr, make that climate change.
You need to start thinking like a teenager.
Huh? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You just
finished telling me how the costs of all that unnecessary overhead
is passed on to the timid MVPD subscribers, as if that makes it all
okay. Well, why suddenly this new-found populism? Rest assured,
Craig, that the cost of the retrans consent fee is also passed on to
the subscribers. At a tidy little profit, no doubt. Does that make
it okay now?
Bert, I said retrans consent is MORE EVIL than subscriber fees.
It's NOT O.K. - but it is the reality of government regulated oligopolies.
I find nothing wrong with retrans consent fees, *IF* you look at
this from the supply side of the equation. Which you ALWAYS do --
until it comes to broadcasters, that is.
Huh. you just stated in the previous message: "Broadcasters DO NOT
have all this extra baggage, so they can 'make do' with ad revenues
alone."
You can't have it both ways Bert. Either advertiser supported FOTA
broadcasting is viable or it is not. Obvilusly in some parts of the
world this model still works. But in other parts of the world, where
consumers are paying "twice" the ad supported model is NOT sufficient
to compete with services that have two revenue streams.
From the supply side, the argument is trivially simple. In spite of
your claims to the contrary, if MVPDs did NOT carry this retrans
consent content, they would lose subscribers in droves.
Perhaps. But there are typically at least two MVPD services in every
market and in many markets there are three with Fios. The MVPDs
cannot risk dropping local broadcasters because the most likely
outcome would be that their subscribers would use a different MVPD,
rather than errecting an antenna.
And then there is the other reality; it is far more likely that the
congloms will kill broadcasting, suck up those revenues and use the
MVPDs until the Internet kills them too.
Subscribers would go to the MVPD that does carry the content. It's
simple business, Craig. I have something you need, so I'll charge
you for it whatever I can get from you. MVPDs do this when it comes
to double incomes from subscription fees and ads for cable-only
programs, when it comes to STBs, to PVRs. Why suddenly this issue
with broadcasters behaving the same way? Hey, at least broadcasters
give the consumer a way to get their programming without all that
added overhead cost. And this is bad? You are not very consistent.
The broadcasters do not offer what the viewing public wants most of
the time. Once again, please read the NYTimes article about NBC.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
