[opendtv] Re: 20050926 Mark's Monday Memo
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:03:55 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Whether these network programs are delivered
> by a local broadcaster or directly via a national
> feed is another question entirely.
>
> I could care less about local channels
I basically agree with this, and so do most
European TV networks. Which is why it would be okay
with me if the major networks owned their own OTA
transmission facilities, *or* contracted them out
as they saw fit, without govt restrictions.
> You have previously stated that you see little
> reason why the broadcast networks should not be
> allowed to own all affiliates.
Of course. More like the Euro model, and you have
also stated that this would be okay for you. If
local programming is not important to you, then
this seems like the most efficient setup.
> We could easily create a system that could
> deliver at least 30 channels into every market
> filled with all of the most popular stuff. And
> those channels could easily exist on advertising
> revenue ONLY.
With NTSC off the air, this can happen. The FCC
local ownership caps already encourage such a
model, and the spectrum made available from NTSC
stations would make this possible. Small
operations that have little or no content of their
own could rent out space in their 6 MHz multiplexes.
Then sink or swim. If they are wildly successful,
they too will eventually be able to build a
nationwide net and produce their own content.
The conglomerates would have a greater incentive
to build a good nationwide OTA network if they had
more direct control of that network. As things are
now, the congloms have to deal with affiliates or
with cable and DBS systems to get their content
out. Doesn't give them a lot of incentive to work
the OTA system in particular, does it?
> Most of the homes that are still reliant on OTA
> do not have multiple TVs.
Is this another example of saying something you
would like to be the case without having the
numbers? You have no idea if that's true.
> You ARE correct that it is possible to use
> multiple OTA antennas [or a rotor] to get
> reliable service in markets with geographically
> distributed broadcast transmitters. But it is
> the customers responsibility to install such a
> configuration, and when they have done so, they
> still can only receive a handful of channels.
It is exactly the fact that OTA broadcasters don't
need a fleet of trucks to go around keeping their
customers happy that allows OTA broadcasting to
survive with ad revenues alone.
In any case, there are options available for OTA
reception that don't involve rotors. One of them,
that broadcasters can exercise, is to deploy gap
fillers for difficult areas. Makes antenna aim
very non-critical. High power transmitters make
indoor reception more successful as well. And
with good receivers coming available, use of
simple indoor antennas will be more possible with
DTT than it was with NTSC. And there's no reason
why antenna kits optimized for each market cannot
be sold to customers.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: