[opendtv] Re: What the AT&T/Time-Warner deal means for you
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 08:59:54 -0500
On Nov 11, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The key idea:
"This deal would give a combined AT&T-Time Warner both the incentive and the
ability to favor its own content over that of rivals and restrict access to
its content for competing distributors, ..."
The first part of the above quote, "incentive and the ability to favor its
own content over that of rivals," is exactly why we need a net neutrality
guarantee for telecoms. Nothing much can be done about that in legacy MVPDs,
so it would only serve to make people cut the cord that much more quickly.
This is what would happen to Internet access without such a guarantee.
The sentence above is the typical kind of crap that we see all the time from
progressive politicians and their liberal media enablers. It is EXACTLY the
kind of FAKE NEWS that Bert loves to grasp onto, in his desperate attempts to
convince us that companies that provide broadband are just itching to start
blocking competitors.
But the reality is far different. While it is true that AT&T “could” behave
badly, once they have both content and carriage, it would be suicide to do so.
Even after we return to light handed FTC enforcement of Net Neutrality, there
would be instant lawsuits if any broadband service started to block
competitors. And the FTC would be the first to act.
This merger is no different than Comcast acquiring NBC/Universal. Worst case,
the DOJ could impose similar restrictions on AT&T to those it imposed on the
Comcast NBC deal.
The real value in owning both content and carriage is bargaining leverage. This
include leverage with the other content owners when negotiating MVPD carriage
deals, and and leverage with other distributors when negotiating carriage on
their systems.
It helps level the playing field a bit, as compared to the not so distant past,
when the content owners had massive leverage over the distributors. Bert might
want to re-read the article Monty posted yesterday about the leverage Disney
has over theater owners with the Star Wars franchise...
That being said, if a company owns a popular content brand, like HBO, they may
use it to help attract subscribers, as AT&T is already doing by offering free
HBO to cellular subscribers on unlimited data plans. But that is just business,
not a violation of ANY of the bright line Net Neutrality rules.
The second part, "restrict access to its content for competing distributors,"
is something that net neutrality wouldn't address.
And it is something that rarely if ever happens. As I said, it is suicide to
limit access to your content, AND popular content from other providers.
The main areas we have seen such restrictions is in the evolution of VMVPD
bundles. Here, Disney and others have been slow to make some popular franchises
like ESPN available. But that is now history too, as every major MVPD service
has virtually all of the most popular networks.
Content owners can certainly choose who they do business with. Only the
middlemen are targeted by a net neutrality mandate. On the other hand, it
seems unlikely that content owners would want to restrict their audience to
just those locations where their distribution infrastructure exists. So this
should be less of a concern.
Thank you for confirming what I said above.
And in fact,
But you'd have to be very gullible to believe this one:
"At the same time, as a distributor of video services, AT&T must offer the
programming its customers want, regardless of whether or not AT&T owns that
programming."
Yeah right.
YES BERT. The sentence above is correct.i ts the suicide thing...
MVPD culture has always been to control whether and what their customers get
to see, how it's priced, how it's bundled. Not saying that the content owners
aren't often complicit, exploiting the side benefits of having local
monopolies distribute their content. Just saying, this is the sort of
nonsense that must not be allowed to pollute Internet broadband access.
The content owners have been driving this for two decades Bert - they have
operated as an oligopoly, driving up prices by creating ever more bloated
bundles.
Just look at Hulu. It is owned by Comcast, Disney, Fox, and Time Warner. Only
CBS is not an owner, but. They have an agreement with Hulu for carriage.
The DOJ made Comcast a “silent partner” (no seat on the board) as part of the
NBC/Universal deal, and is making sure that Hulu is “neutral.” It is likely
that they will do the same for Time Warner if the AT&T merger is approved.
But this is a bit like letting the foxes watch the hen house. It allow the
companies that dominate the MVPD services to create their own VMVPD service.
How convenient!
The FCC needs to WAKE UP. Let the legacy MVPDs retain that culture if they
like, as they fade away into the sunset.
The FCC needs to fade away into the sunset...
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:
