[opendtv] Re: Electronic Design: The end of TV as we know it
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:28:07 -0400
On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another article that ignores the obvious. Once again, making it sound like
> the only Internet sources for TV content are this handful of pay-OTT sites.
I would say it restates the obvious - to paraphrase: "There's a whole lot of
interest in changing the way content is delivered, but very little real change."
But there is a great deal of FACT in the reality that most OTT TV viewing
involves a relatively small number of sites. This is to be expected for several
reasons:
1. OTT services like Netflix and Hulu Plus are overwhelmingly populated with
content from the content oligopoly. The same content that a decade ago, people
would drive to a video store and rent. This content is primarily movies, and
libraries of television series, most of which were previously released on DVD.
2. The most popular OTT shows are television series that viewers may have
missed when broadcast. But the real "change" here is that viewers now look to
OTT services to watch TV on their schedule, not a broadcast schedule. In other
worlds, OTT = VOD.
Bottom line, there's not much new here, just another generation of technology -
i.e. from VHS to Videodisc, to DVD, to DVR, to OTT and MVPD based VOD.
> Also, after discussing the differences between the CEA and the Gfk surveys of
> US OTA usage, which are striking differences indeed, it dismisses the
> importance by saying, "Regardless of who is right, the OTA percentage is
> shrinking."
You have a short memory Bert. The NAB has ALWAYS been overly optimistic about
the number of homes that use Free OTA TV. Do you remember the days BEFORE the
DTV transition, when the NAB told us that more than half of all U.S. homes
still used the OTA service? This percentage was based in large part on the fact
that most homes still had TVs with rabbit ears that could receive analog
broadcasts. If we went back into the really OLD OpenDTV archives I'm sure I
could find some predictable exchanges between us about the discrepancies in
various reports about the usage of OTA TV.
Here is a MODERN example of what I am talking about:
http://www.nab.org/documents/newsroom/pressRelease.asp?id=3168
"The 2013 Ownership Survey and Trend Report, part of The Home Technology
Monitor™ research series, found that 19.3% of all U.S. households with TVs rely
solely on over-the-air signals to watch TV programming; this compares with
17.8% of homes reported as broadcast-only last year. Overall, GfK estimates
that 22.4 million households representing 59.7 million consumers receive
television exclusively through broadcast signals and are not subscribing to a
pay TV service (i.e., a traditional pay TV service such as cable, satellite,
Verizon FIOS or AT&T U-Verse)."
These numbers are certainly in dispute, and I personally have little confidence
in them. Then again, the 7% number from the CEA is probably a bit on the low
side. Who knows, the NAB (GfK) may be measuring homes that still have analog
receivers tuned to LPTV signals…
What is not disputed is the number of homes paying for an MVPD service, as the
MVPDs are fairly reliable at reporting their numbers.
> Now, I know that most trade scribes are probably English majors, but is it so
> difficult to get these things right? Way up at the top, it says, "If you are
> a broadband TV subscriber like about 85% of the U.S. population you get your
> TV via a bundled group of TV channels from a cable or satellite company."
> Surely, surely, this supposedly shrinking OTA percentage might not be
> shrinking after all? Simple addition here. What is 85 + 19.3? And/or, how
> does that long term 15 percent compare to 19.3 percent?
The fact that the numbers may add up to more than 100% may be related to double
reporting - i.e. the home has TVs that are used to pull in OTA signals AND an
MVPD subscription. The only thing one can realistically conclude is that there
has been a slight decline in MVPD subscriptions; whether this is due to the
economy, or a real fundament shift in consumption patterns is debatable.
> The CEA is very close to where I work. Maybe I should go ask them why they
> have been working so hard, and for so long, to try to hasten the demise of
> OTA TV. What would they gain from it?
Given the fact that it was primarily CEA members who financed the development
of the DTV standard and forced the DTV transition, I think it would be
inaccurate to say they have been trying to hasten the demise of OTA TV. Then
again, in recent years they have been very vocal about reclaiming spectrum from
broadcasting to expand wireless broadband.
So maybe the right question to ask is what how has the CE industry ever
benefited from OTA TV? The one obvious answer is selling TVs; and the related
corollary, that they helped force the transition to HDTV by forcing
broadcasters to support it (reluctantly).
Did the VHS standard help broadcasters? - NO (but it did help the media
conglomerates that provide content to broadcasters).
Did the CD help radio broadcasters - NO.
Did the DVD help TV broadcasters - NO.
Has the Internet helped broadcasters? - NOT really.
Do smart phones and tablets help broadcasters? NOT really.
Now simply replace the word "broadcasters" with "CEA members" in the list above
and you might understand why the CEA has better things to do that save
broadcasting.
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: