On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Craig Birkmaier wrote: > >> Exclusive means the only place you can get it BERT. > > Get "it." What's "it," Craig? Exclusive can mean that this food store also > rents videos, making it better compete against other food stores. Exclusive > can mean that this Internet bookseller includes streaming TV content as part > of its annual one-shot mail delivery payment, unlike all other booksellers. > Exclusive can mean that this insurance company only ensures DoD personnel. > And so on. You don’t HAVE to develop original video content to offer > something competitive or unique, against the other guys. Are you serious? None of this has a thing to do with what we are discussing. Yes a few Amazon Prime members may watch shows from Amazon because they signed up for Prime to save money on shipping. But the topic here is selling TV subscription services, and the role that exclusive content plays in promoting these services. > > Not only were you incorrect, in the sense that HD is discernibly better than > 480p, especially in the much larger TV screens that emerged since those days, > but your hammering was also irrelevant. In a broadcast scheme, one to all, > the only reason to obsess about such matters is if you want to cram more > content in the channel. Nobody is arguing that higher resolution is not "discernibly better," Bert. But the reality is that high quality 480P is better than 1080i that is trashed by excessive compression. You clearly are ignoring what the industry is doing in terms of maintaining quality by balancing the resolution of the source being delivered with the bandwidth available to deliver it. This is a well established practice for OTT services. It is the broadcasters who are trashing their HD product by trying to force higher resolution when they don't have enough bandwidth, and worse, degrading multiple services when they multicast. > >> The MVPD bundling formula evolved from a business imperative - >> charging subscriber fees to help fund new networks that could not >> generate sufficient add revenues to grow. > > No, not just that. > > The important aspect of bundling is that it works on schemes that cannot > easily segregate content for separate authentication. With analog one-way > broadcast distribution, you relied on notch filters or on clumsy scrambling > of the analog signal. The notch filters were a nuisance to install, because > they required a truck roll for every single change. And the scrambling was > even worse, in the sense that each scrambling scheme would require another > STB. > Yes, the limitations of analog cable were a factor. But those limitations do not exist for DBS and IP based telco TV services. Yet these services are ALSO built around the bundle. > Now, obviously the bean counters made the most of it. If I can only "resolve" > these tiers at a low level, that forces the subscribers to pay for a bunch of > stuff they don’t want. It becomes an easy subsidy for channels that otherwise > wouldn't stay afloat, and it also subsidizes more popular channels, by making > people pay for them even if they don’t care. This is a classic case of stumbling on a lucrative business model, using political clout to extend this to the industry that was challenged, and using political lout to prevent it from being dismantled on anti-trust grounds. > > Here's the important part: This bundling model is not technically required > anymore. Programs can now be authenticated individually, if need be. So, new > entrants in the TV distro market can leverage this, to better compete against > the incumbents. Keep dreaming BERT. The bundling model was NEVER required for technical reasons for all digital services like DBS and FIOS. > > John Skipper gets this. Direct to consumer. Not part of a bundle. Content > owners are free to choose among different business models that might appeal > more to certain consumers. > No. John Skipper is worried about this threat to the bundle and doing everything in his power to protect the status quo. 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.