On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:18 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The price I was suggesting, $0.50 per month, was based on roughly what ABC is > getting now from MVPD subscribers. I don't know the exact amount, but > certainly we have seen a lot of articles recently about how Fox, or CBS, or > any number of the others, are NOT making as much as cable channels get. And > most recently that CBS was NOT getting close to $1.00 per month per > subscriber. > > So, $0.50 per month is a guesstimate, and ought to be in the right ballpark. > I'm saying, at most they would have to ask for that much over and above the > ads, for *live* online viewing, from *non-MVPD subscribers*. I very much > doubt that the congloms are thinking only along the lines that you posit in > this interchange: On the surface, your logic seems impeccable. But you are ignoring one significant point. Every channel germs the specified subscriber fee for EVERY MVPD subscriber that pays for the bundle, which is the vast majority. You may not watch sports but you still pay for ESPN. You may not watch HGTV but you still pay for it. I would love to reduce my cable bill by NOT PAYING for all the channels that I do not watch. Sorry, I'm SOL. If everyone pays a little, the price tends to be lower. IF you can choose NOT to pay, then the content owner either gets less money, or needs to raise the price to compensate. This is the classic argument used by the content owners and the MVPDs to justify the bundles - if you get to pick and choose, the prices will go up for the channels you want. I may be one of those suckers who pay for an MVPD service, but my position is still the same as I stated yesterday. IF the program is full of ads, I should NOT need to pay a subscriber fee at all. Logic suggests that if a network allows FOTA access to their content - then they should allow FOTI access as well. To a limited extent they do this today on a delayed VOD basis via their websites. But logic is not a word that is often used to describe the actions of monopolists. > I don't buy it, because it makes absolutely no sense FOR THE CONGLOMS. They > stand to lose revenues with such a silly strategy. My guess is that this is > just a quick and dirty mechanism they're toying with initially. On the > surface, it looks like a desperate attempt at keeping that stagecoach route > operating, after the railroad is built. Plus, as everyone knows by now, the > networks are offering their FOTA content FOTI, on demand, next day. So this > MVPD subscription requirement for online viewing does not seem like any long > term strategy to me. Keep hoping Bert... >> Who is making the case that ads should be sufficient to pay for a >> program? > > "Should be"? Nothing "should" about it, Craig. Ads *are* sufficient, or FOTA > would have died long ago. They still are in Great Britain and many countries around the world. This is a classic case of special interests gaming the system to their advantage. It is what happens when industries and politicians work together to game the system. 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.