[opendtv] Re: 20050926 Mark's Monday Memo
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:03:58 -0400
At 12:47 PM -0400 10/3/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> Two problems here. A sizable and growing percentage
>> of this 15% do not watch TV on a regular basis. And
>> a sizable percentage will move to cable or DBS when
>> NTSC goes off the air.
>
>Craig, prove it. I'm saying it is very illogical to
>make these claims without proof, and the best you can
>do is repeat the unsupported claims. I don't buy it.
>
>> The logic is simple and clear. As I mentioned above,
>> a portion of this group is out-of-play because they
>> are simply saying NO to TV, or severely restricting
>> the amount of TV that they allow family members to
>> watch.
>
>And what percentage is that?
Unfortunately, there is no authoritative study on this. I have seen
stories that suggest the number is in the range of 3-5 million homes.
So I would guess that it is in the range of 15 to 40% of the laggards.
>
>> Another portion already has cable or DBS and only
>> uses off-air TV infrequently for a 2nd or third set.
>
>No. The 15 percent are households with OTA TV only,
>not households that use both OTA and a subscription
>service.
So you say. I have also hear the NAB say that 40 million homes still
use OTA TV. There is much smoke but little light in these claims.
>
>> By the way Bert, the percentage of off-air viewers
>> have not been a constant. They have been declining
>> steadily for two decades.
>
>Well, I've been reading about 15 percent for at least
>the past 6 years. Sure, if you go back to the early
>1980s, the percent of OTA users was higher. Cable
>hadn't been fully deployed yet. What matters is now,
>with DBS and cable available to virtually anyone who
>wants it. And the level has stabilized for the past
>several years, by all reports I've read.
It was 18% 2-3 years ago.
>
>> If you REALLY want OTA to become a competitive
>> factor, all that is necessary is to eliminate must
>> carry and retransmission consent.
>
>That's a different discussion. In any event, the
>broadcasters and congloms benefit from cable and DBS
>coverage as much as those subscription services
>benefit. Without the content, those services would
>have to roll their own, which would increase their
>costs. You're always going to see tension there, but
>the fact of the matter is, each needs the other.
There is plenty of content available. That's why 55% of prime time
viewers DO NOT watch network programming - the percentage is higher
during the day. The cable guys DID roll their own, and got pretty
good at it before the congloms bought up everything in sight.
The issue is quite simple. Why do we pay twice for "Free TV?"
I can't blame the congloms for wanting to collect subscriber fees.
They are a greedy bunch and will use any weapon available to make us
pay for the stuff that was once free. And they are scared to death,
because the number of options for watching TV without commercials
keeps increasing. But the facts are clear. The TV industry was built
on the apparently acceptable system of bartering content for
commercials. It worked fine for decades until the networks started to
face competition. Now we get even more commercials AND are forced to
pay subscriber fees for stuff we don't even watch.
And please don't waste your time telling me that no-one is forcing me
to subscribe to cable or DBS. Nobody is forcing me to buy gas at $3
/gal, but the alternative is not driving, and thus, not working. The
alternative to multichannel TV is not working either - that's why it
is slowly dying.
>
>Without going off in a zillion different tangents, I
>was simply saying that the market for ATSC STBs would
>be huge in the US, if NTSC were turned off, relative
>to this market in countries which have shown a viable
>DTT model.
And I gave good reasons why I disagree. At BEST, you are talking
about 17 million homes. The real number is probably less than half of
that. The UK will probably have more than 10 million DTT boxes
deployed within the next year or two. SO your market size estimates
are questionable at best. What matters in the UK and Germany is that
a viable competitor to multichannel services has been created, which
is stimulating demand. IF the same thing were to happen in the U.S.,
we would be talking about 30-50 million boxes, not 10 to 15 million.
>
>As to "going back to antennas," aside from the fact
>that indoor antennas will work better with the new
>receivers than they did with NTSC, your negative
>estimate about people's willingness is misplaced.
This is just rubbish.
NTSC can produce something to watch even under adverse conditions.
With DTV its all or nothing. If it works, that's great. But in many
cases it won't work without more effort than most people will expend.
perhaps the government can accept large return rates on subsidized
boxes; but consumer electronics retailers are unwilling to play that
game - they have better alternatives to offer.
>I'm sure cable companies would have loved for that
>to be true, when DBS came to be. But it wasn't.
>People are apparently perfectly happy to erect their
>own antenna or hire someone to do so. Given a good
>reason.
Apples and oranges. A professional installs the DBS antenna, which
works, or you don't pay. There is no issue of having to receive
signals from multiple transmitters in different geographic locations.
When it is installed you have only one device to deal with, the
remote.
People got tired of getting up to change channels several decades
ago. About the same time they grew tired of fiddling with antennas.
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: