[opendtv] Re: Estimate of MVPD subscriptions
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 09:19:06 -0400
Regards
Craig
On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise, Craig. What is in demand, and no
one doubts this, is broadband Internet access.
Not disingenuous at all. Yes the industry growth is coming from broadband and
home phone switching, but the TV side of the plant is still VERY profitable -
more than $100 billion annually. And the decline in TV subscribers continues to
be quite small as a percentage of the homes they currently serve.
Again, no one doubts this.
You do.
But not the walled-in, facilities-dependent TV broadcast service.
Yes, Bert. The linear broadcast service will survive, although the number of
rerun channels will decline. We have seen a business strategy for the past two
decades that is running out of steam. Over this time frame, the MVPDs were able
to raise rates at a rate higher than inflation, by adding new linear channels
each year. The ability to keep adding more channels is clearly going to be
difficult moving forward, and we may start seeing a reduction in channels that
cannot sell enough ads to survive.
But the core business is still doing fine, and is not likely to go away.
Sports, news, and first runs of new programming will still attract large
audiences for the linear service.
I doubt "linear," at least for most content, but once again, you are being
disingenuous.
I am completely serious, and you are just plain wrong.
People will continue to subscribe to "bundles," because they subscribe to new
services like Netflix. So, sure. What is in decline is viewing of linear TV
programs, aka by appointment, and the number of subscribers to the
facilities-dependent bundles, aka traditional MVPD service.
Clearly there is a shift in viewing behavior, but it is not going to
fundamentally change the way people watch TV as you believe. There will be a
mix of linear viewing and VOD viewing, as there has been forge past three
decades. All that has changed is the convenience of VOD viewing. We no longer
need to get in the car to rent a movie from blockbuster, or binge on an old TV
series.
As for Netflix, I'm pleased that you are finally calling it a bundle, which it
is.
So think of it this way. Consumers are likely to subscribe to a MVPD bundle to
access the live and special interest content they like, and a SVOD bundle to
watch both new and library content. And a share of the viewing on the MVPD
service will shift to the TVE apps that let the viewer decide when they want to
watch their favorite shows.
Unwalled, if that's what you mean by "generic."
No, just a shift from dedicated MPEG TS linear streams to broadband streaming
of both linear streams and VOD content. The customer will still be buying a
MVPD bundle from the same service that they are buying their broadband. And
even this will take years before the MPEG TS streams are turned off.
Not facilities-dependent.
Yes facilities dependent.
There is no net neutrality regulation on the TV side. If they shift from MPEG
TS to IP streaming they can dedicate bandwidth and ensure QOS. In essence they
are still operating a walled in network with a division between the bandwidth
used for the MVPD service and the broadband service. That being said, the TVE
sites will be accessed via the broadband service, and will be subject to the
net neutrality rules.
You went off on a tangent and missed the point. When a trend is ongoing, the
industry has to accommodate it proactively. The trend to 16:9 sets was
something that only you, Craig, disputed for the longest time.
For a transition period Bert. This did not happen overnight. Many TV stations
did not embrace HDTV and 16:9 until they were forced to around 2009. I argued
for, and bought a 4:3 HDTV in 1998, because most of the content that would be
available during the life of that TV would be 4:3, with widescreen content
coming mostly from DVDs. I was right. As 16:9 became more common I replaced
that set with a 16:9 display.
The fact that TV productions were going to embrace 16:9 whole-hog was obvious.
But they did not. It took more than a decade, and many of these shows are shot
in wider aspect ratios.
It did not take lots of statistical analysis, nor did it take anyone keeping
count until "50%," before virtually nothing TV was being produced in 4:3
anymore.
Stuff is still being produced in 4:3, and 1.66:1, and other formats - we moved
to a system where it is no longer necessary to lock everything down to a single
format.
Netflix is shooting House of Cards in 2:1 aspect ratio and Orange is the New
Black in 1.77:1 aspect ratio.
The camera in my phone can shoot 1:1, 4:3 and panoramas. DSLRs shoot HD and
higher resolutions in multiple aspect ratios - source can be cropped in post to
any aspect ratio.
And for modern computer screens and smartphones too.
Most computer screens are 16:10, but some are 16:9. Very few notebook computers
have 16:9 displays; most are 1.6:1. Phones are available in many screen aspect
ratios and resolutions, and most tablets are 4:3 or 1.6:1.
Again, screen aspect ratios no longer matter - we have been liberated from a
world where one format rules them all.
Aren't iPhone 5 & 6 also 16:9? In fact, many computer monitors use exactly
the same pixel count as HDTV. The legacy iPads are the holdouts for 4:3.
iPhone 5 - 16:9 (1136 x 640 @ 326 ppi)
iPhone 6 - 16:9 (1334 x 750 @ 326 ppi)
iPhone 6 plus - 16:9 (1920 x 1080 @ 401 ppi)
iPad Air 2 - 4:3 (2048 x 1536 @ 264 ppi)
5K Retina iMac - 16:9 (5120 x 2880 @ 320 ppi)
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: