[opendtv] Re: =?windows-1252?Q?NCTA:_“Netflix_is_beating_cable”?Message-Id: <4BCFB0CA-F390-4144-A4C1-F50BF3F230AC@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 15:34:00 -0400
On May 18, 2013, at 6:00 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Such legacy thinking! Netflix can go to India and make arrangements for
> Bollywood content, if they so please. And once again, I am not limited to
> Netflix, if I use the Internet. Check out all the oddball movies Hulu has,
> for example. So it hardly resembles a walled garden, if you use the Internet
> as it was intended.
This is not an answer to the question I posed Bert.
1. Is Netflix a walled garden if it only offers content it buys from the
conglomerates?
2. If Netflix starets to produce its own exclusive content does this make THEM
a walled garden?
And who wrote the rules for the Internet, and for what it was/is intended?
> I WILL conceded only that the deliberately-crippled sorry excuses for
> "connected TV" products mostly out there DO attempt to make a walled garden
> out of a handful of OTT sites. They do so by severely limiting what Internet
> is available to the device. Perhaps you are letting poor designs cloud your
> judgment, instead of having these poor designs piss you off.
And they do this because many of the OTT sites that you use with a PC cannot be
accessed by smart TVs and other streaming platforms.
Can you explain why the networks block smart TVs and other devices from
streaming their content, but allow PCs to access this content?
> There are perfectly valid reasons why these utilities are heavily regulated,
> Craig.
Actually this is mostly untrue, but there is no need to go back through the
history again. There are two components of a utility:
1. Infrastructure - wires, pipes, etc. (and more important access to right of
way)
2. The commodity being transported/delivered.
The electric grid already handles the resale of electricity between utilities,
and in some areas customers can actually choose the supplier of the
electricity. Many utilities serve additional markets - Gainesville Regional
Utilities sells electricity and water to the City of Alachua, at rates cheaper
than it can be produced. If you are interested, GRU is about to have several
billion dollars in biomass generated electricity they are obligated to sell
over the next 30 years - unfortunately it costs 3X to 4X as much as electricity
generated with coal and natural gas, so GRU customers are looking at a huge
rate hike starting this summer.
And dare I remind you that the Internet is constructed from multiple
infrastructures, owned by multiple companies, all working together in a mostly
seamless fashion.
The common thread in utilities is that they are all government regulated
utilities, INCLUDING cable and DBS. Every hear of the FCC? I'll bet they the
community that you live in has a local board overseeing the cable company, and
that the local government gets a nice cut (tax) every month.
> If the MVPDs were equally heavily regulated, I might object less.
And what would you have these regulators do Bert?
> However, the Internet, as long as it remains "neutral," is taking care of the
> MVPD market distortion. Government regulations are essential when open
> competition is not practical. (Or would you prefer to have multiple water
> companies come in and install their proprietary water and sewage pipes in
> your neighborhood, year in and year out?)
I fail to see how the Internet is taking care of MVPD market distortion. From
here it looks like the politicians, regulators, media conglomerators, and MVPD
conglomerates are adding new layers of marketplace distortion. Can you provide
other examples of how an oligopoly is allowed to require a subscription to one
service, to use another service via another infrastructure?
There are MANY examples of utility overbuilds, especially in the battle between
cable MSOs and telcos. In the DC area you have multiple cable companies, DBS
and Verizon FIOS.
What is more important to consider is that these "utilities" operate as an
oligopoly, with little if any price competition.
> As to telephone service, the Internet is in fact creating a lot of
> competition there. In case you missed that trend.
See above. By the way, dedicated wireline telephone service is dying in the
U.S. for good reason. The technology is outdated, but the oligopolies are going
to suck out every dime they can until they shut it down. I have a great example
in my front yard. We have had AT&T fiber in the ground for 6-7 years; it's
still dark, but being paid for from wireline tariffs.
> How, Craig? What distribution infrastructure did they have access to, other
> than bandwidth-limited OTA? The congloms benefitted from these walled-in MVPD
> distribution nets, because they were the only game in town. No longer the
> case, though.
I thought you were the champion of OTA? What changed.
We know from real world examples (UK and Germany) that it is quite easy to
deliver 30-40 programs in every market using a properly designed digital
broadcast infrastructure. With today's codecs and improved transmission
standards that number could be in the 100's.
The congloms benefit from the MVPDs because they control more than 90% of the
content on these systems, and they use the customer service and billing
infrastructure to collect subscriber fees from EVERY customer. With an OTA
infrastructure they do not even know who is watching, other than through the
use of crude sampling techniques. The 1992 Cable Act gave the media
conglomerates the ability to control a distribution infrastructure that is far
more capable than the OTA infrastructure without having to invest a dime.
>
>> Would you pay CBS several dollars a month to access the
>> service you are proposing?
>
> Aren't following the thread here? Like I repeated a ton of times, the TV
> networks, as well as any number of OTHER TV content owners, can decide what
> to distribute ad-supported and what to charge extra fees for. Internet
> distribution does not restrict the business model. Since the Internet has
> been that way forever, I'm baffled why you continue to ask that same
> question. You ought to disabuse yourself of the notion that TV content is so
> fundamentally different, Craig.
Answer the question Bert!
I do not care what they (or you ) are doing today. If they moved exclusively to
OTT Internet distribution, would you pay a monthly subscriber fee to watch
their programming?
TV content is no different that a can of coke, except that it can be
distributed across various electronic infrastructures. It is a product that
costs money to make, money to distribute, and money to view. Somebody is paying.
If advertising had the power to create more profits than it costs, companies
would start printing money.
And ads are not the central focus here. We get them even WHEN we pay not to see
them, e.g. at movie theaters. We get ads via the MVPDs, lot's of them. THe real
question is WHAT the congloms will let you and the rest of the "nevers" see.
> Anything's possible, Craig, but since you've been repeating this prediction
> ever since the 1990s, and it hasn't happened yet, forgive me if I won't hold
> my breath. And if it does happen, who cares?
Really. Can you show me such a prediction earlier than say 2010?
I would think that YOU CARE, since you place so much value in OTA and ad
supported OTT services.
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:
