[opendtv] Re: Controversial VMAs puts fresh spotlight on the
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:19:41 -0400
On Sep 8, 2013, at 6:55 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> Cox Cable and AT&T both share the utility poles in my neighborhood. And
>> AT&T has fiber buried in my front yard.
>
> You need to show me where Cox and AT&T share their fiber infrastructure, and
> use the same cable-to-appliance interface standards, before I can begin to
> agree that you have a point, Craig. You know, more like what the OTA stations
> must do. More like what Internet appliances must do.
>
> Just because AT&T and Cox trucks can both share the public roads, or just
> because their employees can eat at the same fast food joints, **hardly**
> makes your case. Unbelievable.
The electric wires on those poles can pull electrons from the grid that may
have been generated in Gainesville, Crystal River, or somewhere in Tennessee.
The phone and cable wires are just that: WIRES.
They share the rights of way, and COULD carry standards based signals. Actually
they do when it comes to broadband. But the regulatory structure was created to
protect their monopolies; as such, it really does not matter much if they use
common standards; at least the telephones and TVs you can connect to these
services are standardized. By the way, I just talked to some higher ups in Cox
Cable here in Gainesville; they have no plans to shut down the analog tier;
they still have too many analog subscribers, many of which are still using CRT
based NTSC TVs.
>> The entire previous message was intended to explain that the politicians
>> DO regulate broadcasters and the MVPDs in the SAME way.
>
> The entire previous message was totally unconvincing. Policiticans DO NOT set
> the rates that MVPDs can charge.
Not true. All rate increases for Cox Cable must be approved by our local cable
regulatory board; this board is appointed by the City and County commissions.
You will find that this is the case in virtually ALL cable MVPDs around the
country; and the new entrants, FIOS and Uverse are also regulated via local
franchise agreements. The satellite guys do not have to answer to local
franchise authorities, although many have tried to tax their customers locally;
but DBS is just another oligopoly charging essentially the same rates as the
other MVPDs.
> Politicians DO NOT hold the MVPDs to interface standards. All politicians
> have done is to tell content owners to provide their stuff to MVPDs in a fair
> way. AND they have done this on Verizon's behalf (FiOS) AND they are about to
> do the same for OTT sites. That promotes competition, Craig.
NOPE. It just promotes a larger oligopoly.
Try making your case again when SOMEONE, ANYONE lets you put together an ala
carte TV package with access to ANY content.
>
> [Multiple examples of competitive TV distribution allowed by government,
> including FOTI sites by the networks themselves.]
What is competitive about any of these sites? Providing access to a subset of
archival programming is little different than a generation ago, when we went to
Blockbuster to rent these programs on shiny discs.
Easier…
Yes.
Competitive...
No.
This is just one of many ways that content creators make money downstream from
the highest value screenings of their content.
>> To be fair they do not prevent this; but this IS NOT competition because
>> you cannot access the most valuable content in the bundles, or can only
>> access it on a delayed basis.
>
> Rolls Royce is not required to sell cars at Chevy dealerships, either. Like I
> said, bundles are a way for content owners to extract more money from addicts.
Any car dealer can sell a used Rolls Royce.
> The government has no say in this. Just like the government has no say when
> Crest might want to bundle a toothbrush along with their toothpaste. Or
> Gillette bundles blades along with the razor handle. We have been over this
> only a zillion times already. Besides which, bundling allows those struggling
> TV producers you claim to champion to get their otherwise unseen and
> undemanded content out there, on these non-standard walled garden
> distribution media.
Twisted!
Now your telling me that the walled gardens help small content creators (and
they do); but the Internet allows these new entrants to completely bypass the
MVPDs and go direct to the consumer.
I would think you would champion the latter approach, which is being used
successfully by many content creators, and wannabe's via You Tube.
> I never worry about bundles, Craig. You are free to do the same. If more of
> you did the same, funny how suddenly a lot of that bundled stuff would start
> appearing unbundled! Like magic!
Of course you don't Bert. You have chosen NOT to care about the content you
cannot watch, or waiting for a delayed release; I would add, that MOST of the
"domestic" content you are watching via the Internet can be viewed when it is
broadcast via your ATSC antenna. So even you have decided that it is easier to
watch this programming on demand, rather than by appointment or by programming
your PVR.
>
>> NO BERT. Demand feeds the system.
>
> No, Craig. Addiction and elasticity in demand are different. Elastic demand
> means that if you don't want to pay the price for a Rolls Royce, you are
> always free to buy a Chevy. Addiction means that you MUST have that Rolls
> Royce, and if you can't afford it, you whine about the high prices and look
> around desperately to find a scapegoat.
Terrible analogy.
The Rolls Royce is more akin to the skybox at the stadium; season tickets are
comparable to a BMW or Mercedes. Watching the game on the TV in your home is
what the people with Chevy's and Ford's do. That thousand dollar a year MVPD
bill provides year round entertainment and access to multiple forms of
entertainment, multiple sports, multiple stadiums, etc. Most big colleges
expect you to donate as much to the Athletic Association, just for the
privilege to buy that season ticket.
The issue has less to do with the price than the fact that you are required to
buy stuff you do not want. And then there's the minor detail that ALL of this
content should be free when it is ad supported, as it once was here in the U.S.
and still is in many countries around the world.
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: