[opendtv] Re: Variety.com: Comcast Offers HBO Without Other Cable Channels in Bundle Aimed at Cord-Cutters and Cord-Nevers
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:37:08 -0400
On Mar 19, 2014, at 6:06 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's your narrative. Your decades-long narrative has been that the
> entertainment media are an oligopoly propped up by the government. So any
> evidence that this just may not be so, that there just may be some
> competition going on, would disprove this narrative you've been wedded to.
> The facts are becoming clear. The different owners of content are each
> evaluating their alternatives constantly, even the likes of HBO and ESPN. And
> ditto the walled gardens themselves. But as always, you'll deny this even as
> it happens.
Yes Bert, there is "competition" between the MVPDs, just as there is
"competition" between local broadcast stations. But this competition is mostly
to disguise the fact that they are operating as oligopolies and use their power
to maintain monopolistic pricing.
What you perceive as "competition,"
> The different owners of content are each evaluating their alternatives
> constantly,
Is simply the reaction of these oligopolies to the never ending march of
technology, and their efforts to harness new technologies to maintain their
market power.
>
> I don't need to "concede" what I've been repeating at you countless times.
> Content owners can AND DO make their content available now, EITHER free
> ad-supported, OR by authentication and a fee, over the *unwalled Internet*.
> This is in addition to the old MVPD model, which soldiers on.
No argument here..
All you need is a subscription to "the cord"service. That is what
authentication is all about.
Pay for the cord service, and you also get the Internet service. Clearly at
some point you will just be able to pay for the equivalent "walled garden
content" via a service that is delivered via the Internet ONLY. But you
(actually not you Bert), will still be paying a MVPD for the same content and
the ISP service - only some of the technology layers of the IP stack will have
changed; you will not be able to buy the bundle from another MVPD in another
market.
> The premium prime time content is available both FOTI or at sites like Hulu
> Plus (for a fee), including *some* programming that was previously available
> only to MVPD subscribers. The MVPDs, even while trying desperately to keep
> their walled garden walled up, e.g. by offering IP versions of their content
> to their subscribers, even THEY are re-evaluating their options. With schemes
> like Internet Plus.
This is a legacy service with bundled ISP service; and you still must subscribe
to a "cord" service. Nothing new to see here.
>
> There's a whole lot new here, Craig. Think back just 10-12 years. And yet
> here you are, sounding like we're still in 1985. The boldest will win out at
> this game. That Bewkes statement was so direct, I can't even begin to
> understand how you keep missing its meaning.
Yes Bert, monopolists can be bold. They have the power to be bold.
Sure things have changed in the decades since this list began talking about the
future of DTV. Sophisticated mobile platforms like smartphones and tablets have
only existed for about five years. They are now considered to be "TVs" by the
MVPDs, and they are aggressively moving to serve them as part of the MVPD
experience.
>
>> You represent a small percentage of the potential audience, just as
>> the market segment that JUST SAYS NO TO ANY KIND OF TV, is a small
>> segment.
>
> Not so, Craig. I represent only a growing tide who are not being ignored by
> the congloms or the MVPD nets. You make it sound like this category is a tiny
> and static number of consumers, but the congloms and the MVPDs know better.
> You wouldn't be seeing all these articles about what ESPN and HBO are toying
> with, if this weren't true.
Yes, they are trying to stem the tide of cord cutters. But they ARE NOT doing
this by making exclusive content available to all for free. A decade ago your
preferred way to access content was an antenna and one of a handful of DVRs
that could record these FOTA programs. Now you prefer to wait a few days and
access the same FOTA content via an Internet VOD portal.
>
>> How much do you pay per month?
>>
>> What is your peak download speed?
>
> I pay $30 per month, or it may have gone up a little. But still in the $30s
> (my wife keeps track of these numbers better than I). The speed has been
> reliably 1.83 Mb/s down, 490 Kb/s up. If you reboot the modem, there have
> been times when I get a faster connection, as high as 2.17 Mb/s down, 490
> Kb/s up.
Yes, my DSL service offered similar performance at a similar price point. I was
paying the telco about $80/mo for a landline and DSL, and The MVPD about
$100/mo for TV. I now pay about $40/mo for the landline and $120/mo for TV and
broadband. I'm saving a few bucks, but I now get 18-22 Mbps down and 1-8 Mbps
up. It is near the low end of there ranges in the evening, high end early in
the morning like now.
>
> ADSL runs over ATM. So when you reboot the modem, you get a new ATM virtual
> circuit set up between your in-home modem and the central office. The modem
> shows the actual ATM VC parameters. The ATM VC shows 2.112 Mb/s for a
> measured 1.83 Mb/s IP link (difference due to ATM cell overhead), and it has
> gone up as high as 2.57 Mb/s, for a measured 2.17 Mb/s IP link. Lately, it
> looks like a VC of 2.112 Mb/s is what I'm getting consistently.
>
> I use this site to measure the net IP speed:
>
> http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/default.asp
FOTFL
Why does it not surprise me that Bert refers me to a speed test site that is
built upon Flash...
>
> These speeds aren't too bad for now. We've been able to support two
> simultaneous streams. With my current ADSL2+ modem, *in principle* Verizon
> could increase that downstream speed to 24 Mb/s, without changing *anything*
> indoors.
Yes, I get a letter from AT&T every week asking me to come back to their new
UVerse DSL service. In theory it can deliver up to 24 Mbps. In practice this is
distance dependent from the CO or remote risers used to extend the range via
fiber to the riser. In practice a telco field service rep, while replacing the
twisted pair from the pole to my house, said I might get 8 Mbps, and I am less
than 5,000 feet from the CO.
>
> Or, if Verizon would go to VDSL, that could support 52 Mb/s downstream, but
> with a range limit of 300 meters. With FiOS, which is a FTTH scheme, that
> would work out perfectly. I would need a new modem, perhaps new filters for
> the wired telephones, and that's it. I'd buy that, rather than having to
> string
> coax or cat-5e around. But Verizon hasn't offered that yet.
I had CAT 5 and cable to almost every room in my house. When I upgraded to
cable broadband I brought one new cable from their box on the side of the house
to the cable modem, and hooked the old cable network to it via a splitter. The
cable modem sits next to an Airport Time Capsule (WiFi router with hard disk
for backup). I kept one CAT 5 link to the older WiFi router which I put in the
garage. All of our computers, the printer, the Apple TV, and mobile devices now
use WiFi.
Not sure why we continue to pay for the telco landline; it is hooked to an
answering machine to fend off solicitations. We rarely answer it.
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:
