[opendtv] Re: Wha' Happened to the FCC?
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:39:00 -0800
Plus, with DTV, "affiliate" only means that one of the sub channels
carries the content of one of the major TV networks. That's all it means.
The other sub channels are at the discretion of the station group. Isn't
this so?
Not always.
As I recall:
The Fox affiliation contract cedes them control of the entire 19 Mb stream.
Perhaps this has changed in the last two years but I doubt it.
CBS, due to their concerns about the poor performance of 1080i, restricted
what affiliates could do in that area.
Given receiver improvements over the years that may no longer be the case,
or at least it shouldn't be.
Perhaps someone still active in broadcasting can provide current status of
network policies.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:57 AM
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Wha' Happened to the FCC?
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
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?
That was one option, but the congloms opted out of that for the most part.
The congloms want to be in the content business and buy room on any
distribution network out there. It seems. So the "affiliates" are for the
most part owned by station groups, are they not? They aren't local yokel
operations.
Plus, with DTV, "affiliate" only means that one of the subchannels carries
the content of one of the major TV networks. That's all it means. The
other subchannels are at the discretion of the station group. Isn't this
so?
And these new networks would have buying power to compete with 6
companies that own (and produce) 90% of everything we watch?
Do you think that's what cable and DBS systems do? Do they compete against
the congloms? Of course not. The congloms use their services. So why
should OTA station groups compete against the congloms? The congloms don't
want to own these OTA networks, so there's nothing to compete about.
The distribution networks pay for the content, and you have said that
these days OTA broadcasters also pay the networks for content. Right? So
why can't these station groups, which could (with a rule change) have the
same national footprint as DBS and cable systems, do exactly what the
MVPDs do? Only on a smaller scale, due to their limited bandwidth?
Presumably, if you're an OTA broadcaster, you want to stay in business.
Presumably, you don't instinctively cave in to some ludicrous "offer" by
the FCC to pick up a lumped sum of money and run. If my presumption that
people want to remain in business for the long haul is correct, then OTA
broadcasters simply reinvent themselves into just another distribution
medium.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
