On Jul 15, 2013, at 5:08 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The topic here is why require an MVPD subscription for those Internet devices > that access FOTA content. These devices exist today, and they access that > content today. So whatever you assume about saturating ISP nets is > immaterial, in this context. Having an MVPD subscription won't make that > Internet device any less prone to creating congestion. It's not like that > Internet device would be using the MVPD infrastructure, EVEN IF it were being > used at home (as many are!). While I personally agree with your position - that something offered in the free and clear via an antenna, should ALSO be offered in the free and clear via other distribution infrastructures - the content owners think otherwise. They WANT YOU to subscribe to and MVPD so that they can collect a subscriber fee IN ADDITION to the ad revenue. Personally, I object to paying a subscribe fee for ANY ad supported program; I also object to paying many taxes. But we live in a country where special interests are allowed to game the system. >> Nothing changes except the web address Bert. It's not a question >> of whose infrastructure the bits come from; it IS a question of >> verification that you have an MVPD subscription so that they get >> their subscriber fees. > > We've already been over this. For the person who uses only Internet access, > for example to receive ABC FOTA content over IP, an MVPD subscription would > include a load of expenses he doesn't benefit from at all. Not only is the > user paying twice for infrastructure (once to his ISP, another time as part > of the MVPD price), even though he only using one of those infrastructures, > but the user is also not getting any of the basic tier channels in the > process. Nobody said that this is fair Bert. But this IS the current strategy of the media oligopoly, in concert with their partners in the distribution oligopoly. > If ABC wants to get more revenues for this than they get FOTI, then the only > correct way to do it is to charge whatever, $0.50 or whatever it takes per > month, to the Internet user. Hardly anything approaching the price of an MVPD > subscription. That's why this model is not sustainable. ABC sells programming in many ways, although not at the price you are suggesting. The publishing industry is coming to terms with e-books and e-magazines. Many of these sites charge a monthly fee - my local newspaper just started charging $9.95 per month to access their content. The same thing "could" happen with TV content. But at what price? The oligopolies are making the case that the elimination of MVPD bundles would make everything more expensive. Who is making the case that ads should be sufficient to pay for a program? Certainly not the Hollywood and NFL crowd… 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.