[opendtv] Re: Wha' Happened to the FCC?

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:44:44 -0500

At 5:06 PM -0600 3/5/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:

 Seems that the broadcasters have the advantage in terms of
 must carry/retrans consent.

You have to update your assumptions, Craig. The assumption in what you say that the "local broadcaster" is the sole source of some really high quality content that all local MVPD outlets must have. Instead, with the congloms changing the way they do business, that assumption is becoming wrong. So the local broadcasters have to get more buying power to compete, and that ain't going to be no mom and pop operation.


Uhhhh Bert. These are not assumptions; they are facts. We have a market based system and the Federal regulations require that cable and DBS systems protect local broadcasters; and additional regulations allow these broadcasters to ask for must carry or retransmission consent on cable systems and DBS. NOBODY can own a national footprint for OTA TV.

And there is NOTHING to stop existing broadcasters from doing what Scripps Networks has done. That is, create national networks that can be delivered via infrastructures that DO provide a national footprint (although they must negotiate carriage with every individual system to gain this national footprint).

And the Internet provides an INTERNATIONAL footprint.

You are dreaming about a different world in which broadcasters (and/or station groups) collaborate to create high value content and distribute it via a national TV infrastructure that is not currently possible because the media conglomerates are in bed with the politicians.

As you say, the mom and pop operations are at the mercy of the system. And the station groups have mostly missed the boat with respect to getting into the content business.


 The MVPDs have the advantage in that they have the content that
 most people are watching - I'm not talking about the stuff that
 is available FOTA.

Again, you have to update your assumptions. I'm past the point where OTA stations transmit what you seem to assume they always have and always will transmit. And by the way, OTA stations are also past that point, although not past enough yet. They too can transmit at least SOME of what you claim "most people are watching."

Not bloody likely. We've already been through this. They cannot afford the content. Ads alone cannot support service that are ALSO getting subscriber fees. The only way to compete would be to charge for the signals as USDTV tried... and failed.

Don;t you get it Bert - the media conglomerates have this tuff locked up...

FOR NOW.

OTA broadcasting is not going to change that.

The ability to access (and pay for) only the content you want is going to change this, and that is going to happen via the Internet.



 And they have the ability to collect subscriber fees and
 compete for local ad dollars.

Oh, and you forgot the biggest advantage MVPDs have. The MVPDs also have the advantage of paying for large fleets of trucks, salaries, medical, retirement, vacation time, for substantial workforces in every single market. No, not just news crews and the local talent.

Advantage?  This is overhead that the consumer must also pay for.

It is the direct relationship with the customer that give cable and DBS their advantage.


 Obviously if they chose to create a Freeview like system they
 would not be able to demand carriage and compensation from
 competitors.

Not true. The American consumer is lavish enough that I'm convinced most of them would continue to want MVPD service. It's just that the equilibrium would shift some, as it MIGHT already be doing a little. Depending whether the rules change, the OTA broadcasters may continue to be the sole source for some of that network content, or not. I don't know. With this FCC intent on demolishing FOTA TV, you just can't tell what they'll do next to prop up MVPDs.

You missed it again.

If Broadcasters were to work together to create a Freeview-like system they would be in direct competition with cable and DBS. They WOULD NOT be able to demand carriage or retrans dollars. If they were lucky they might still get the competitors to carry them, if the high quality network content were not available directly from the conglomerates.

In other words, they MIGHT be able to convince the politicians to let them build a Freeview system and be given the same access rights to content as cable and DBS. But it is unlikely that they would continue to have the same affiliate relationship with the networks. Not sure how they would sell enough ads to support it without subscriber fees though.



 Please explain how a national footprint helps ANY local
 broadcaster or station group?

That's obvious, Craig. The same way a supermarket can undercut a mom and pop store. It's called buying power. "Local broadcaster" may be nothing more than a local RF outlet of an OTA network.

So how would you do this? Let the congloms own all of their affiliates and let existing broadcasters create new national networks?

And these new networks would have buying power to compete with 6 companies that own (and produce) 90% of everything we watch?

Why did I not think of this. It's so simple...

:-(

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: