[opendtv] Re: FW: USDTV Lands in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:54 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> By maintaining the status quo they protect re-transmission consent
> and get the multi-channel service to handle the customer service and
> billing. Why compete when you can lean back and get a check from your
> competitors?
But that state can only persist as long as the OTA broadcasters are seen
as a value added middleman between the networks and cable companies.
The content owning networks can now easily switch content from OTA to
cable-only channels, thus greatly limiting the power of the local
broadcasters to negotiate at each successive renewal of affiliate
contracts. And they can schedule every rerun season to advertise OTA
and then switch customers to those cable channels. (anybody watched
Psych or Kyle XY recently?) How long can this continue if the locals
don't offer anything special besides an expiring claim they have the right.
This declining state may continue until the content cartels are allowed
to purchase the rest of the affiliates (I think sort of what Bert says).
- Tom
> At 12:14 PM -0400 7/12/06, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>>The point is, IMO, USDTV is the one trying to compete against cable
>>here, not the broadcasters. USDTV, to an OTA broadcaster, is not a whole
>>lot different from a cable system. USDTV does rent a piece of the
>>broadcasters' transmission infractructure, unlike cable and DBS, but
>>USDTV installs their own reception systems at customer premises, just
>>like cable. And USDTV acquires broadcaster content, just like cable.
>
>
> The problem, as we have discussed many times is that to compete
> effectively with cable you need to offer virtually the same content,
> at least in the extended basic tier. This is nearly impossible in
> most markets due to the limited amount of spectrum available, which
> is further reduced by the need to use in excess of 10 Mbps for the
> primary network when it is delivering HD programming.
>
> To compete effectively with cable, broadcasters will need to:
>
> 1. Pool ALL of their spectrum and develop the marketing, customer
> service and billing infrastructure to compete;
> 2. Use the spectrum they have much more efficiently - aka single
> frequency networks that allow improved spectrum re-use in adjacent
> markets;
> 3. And develop a platform that incorporates PVR capabilities to push
> non time critical content.
>
>
>
>>My take on this is that broadcasters aren't the ones killing USDTV, in
>>spite of the CEO's assertion. My take on this is that USDTV is no
>>different from Quiero or from ONdigital/ITV. People who want to
>>subscribe to any sort of TV service prefer to go straight to cable or
>>DBS, where they can begin with something cheap, maybe, but have lots of
>>growing power.
>
>
> You're on the right track here Bert. People ARE looking for lower
> cost alternatives to cable and DBS, but they are not willing to give
> up the NON-BROADCAST programming they have become addicted to. USDTV
> and On Digital failed because the content offering was too limited to
> justify the cost. Freeview has succeeded in part because of the
> improved channel line-up, but MOSTLY because it is FREE (after buying
> the receiver).
>
>
>
>>No amount of AVC/H.264 migration hype was capable of changing that
>>picture for USDTV, even though when constrained for spectrum, of course,
>>you look for any help you can get.
>
>
> One thing we have not mentioned is that the reason many of their
> installers had problems is that there is still a high percentage of
> homes where it is difficult to establish ATSC service. I know you
> will come back with glowing tales about the improvements in ATSC
> receivers, but the reality is that they deployed an earlier
> generation of receivers that did not work well in marginal areas.
>
> If USDTV had deployed better receivers with built in PVRs they could
> have pushed more content to subscribers, which MIGHT have made a
> difference.
>
> Too little... too late!
>
>
>>And broadcasters do compete, for OTA audience. As evidenced by the very
>>interesting new lineup Fox seems to be concocting for next season, just
>>as a "for example." If Fox thought they didn't need to compete for the
>>OTA audience, why don't they go back to EDTV and reduce power of their
>>transmitters? (You know, behave more like UPN, still impossible for me
>>to receive in OTA digital.)
>
>
> Sure they do!
>
> But this has nothing to do with the reason they rely upon cable. The
> OTA audience is composed of a small percentage of laggards such as
> yourself, and a large percentage of bottom feeders who cannot afford
> a multi-channel service. But this audience is not sufficient to
> support the business. The congloms need the other 85% to be
> economically viable.
>
> By maintaining the status quo they protect re-transmission consent
> and get the multi-channel service to handle the customer service and
> billing. Why compete when you can lean back and get a check from your
> competitors?
>
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: