[opendtv] Re: Free TV URL list
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 01:11:55 -0500
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Well, first off, the ISP could, in principle, attempt to play such games,
> with TV content.
Ever hear of network neutrality?
To date the only influence an ISP can exert is limiting bandwidth if you exceed
your data plan. The idea that they could advantage some content over other
content would bring the FCC and others down on them in a heartbeat.
> All I'm saying is, the local broadcaster fills a legitimate role for OTA
> distribution of network TV (and for distribution of their own local content),
> just as an ISP fills a legitimate role for delivery of network TV content
> over the Internet.
Sorry, Bert but this analogy is ridiculous. An ISP provides their customers
with a connection to the Internet - a pipe that connects to any server on the
Internet. If a network seeks to distribute content, e.g. From their own website
the ISP has no role other than delivering the bits the customer requests.
A local TV station buys or creates content and delivers it OTA. They have
EXCLUSIVE legal rights to distribute this content in the geographic area they
cover; this INCLUDES the right to seek carriage and/or compensation for this
content from MVPDs in this geographic area. I agree that this fills a
legitimate role for the content owners/syndicators.
I also agree that the content owners (networks) COULD contract with local ISPs
to deliver their content to the ISP subscribers. OR they could contract
directly with the MVPDs, as is the case for most "MVPD ONLY" networks. But they
choose to prop up local broadcasters for political/regulatory advantage, in
particular so they can use the MVPDs to collect subscriber fees.
Personally, if I could pay only the subscriber fees for the channels I watch,
the Internet would be the perfect distribution platform.
Now here is the part you don't get (or like) Bert. The congloms DO NOT want to
sell to you direct; they WANT you to pay for the "bundle" of channels. Why?
Because they own many of these channels and they do not want to risk the
possibility that you would not pay for all of them.
> All those additional middlemen that get added to this mix, do not. At least,
> they don't today. Local broadcasters may possibly have a legitimate role in
> Internet TV, depending how Internet TV becomes architected, as we already
> discussed (e.g. supporting the mirrored server structure at competing local
> ISPs).
Yes. Local stations can create content, just like local newspapers. Or they
could create a competitor to Netflix or Hulu, signing deals to distribute
popular content. By the way, most ISPs are not mirror sites; theses are
typically operated by CDNs.
> It seems that the networks prefer for an ever increasing number of
> unnecessary middlemen to be added, with each innovation, which can only
> DILUTE the TV network brand identity, as time goes on and innovations are
> added.
The networks create or buy content. The value of this content varies based on
the audiences it can attract. Fresh content becomes the backbone of these
networks, but rarely makes a profit in its first (most profitable) availability
to viewers. But the content continues to have value. In another era this value
was primarily obtained via network reruns and syndication. The VCR and later
the DVD provided another channel for distribution. Now VOD from MVPDs and
Internet streaming services are the new distribution channel.
While I agree that the congloms could go direct and cut out all of these
distribution channels, they CHOOSE the current business model. The best hope
for change is that content producers can also go direct (rather than selling to
the congloms) and many are starting to do so. The problem is discovery and
promotion. The congloms, working through the MVPDs are a promotion machine - a
machine intended to keep you in the MVPD walled garden. But Netflix, iTunes,
Amazon et al are also promotional machines.
>
>> The MVPDs are the bagmen,
>
> Sorry, but for that to be a good excuse, their cost structure needs to be
> totally rethought, when streaming over the Internet. If I use some
> independent ISP for broadband, there's no way I would pay MVPD rates on top
> of that. It's a ridiculous duplication of costs.
Apples and oranges. ISPs provide bandwidth to the Internet. MVPDs
accumulate/distribute/sell content. Cable systems can do both. The problem
Bert, is that you object to paying for content.
But the fact remains, that the MVPDs are the bagmen. They have the local
customer service organizations and billing departments that collect the
subscriber fees for each of the channels they distribute. It is well worth
noting that broadcasters, and the networks that provide them with programming
do not know who the viewers are, nor do they have any way to collect money
directly from them. It is much easier to deal with a handful of middlemen than
millions of viewers.
> And when I buy something on the Internet, I use my ISP as the communications
> link, and I pay the store for the item. If I buy the item directly from the
> manufacturer, there is no other middleman than the ISP. If I buy from a
> store, I have a huge selection of stores to buy from. I don't have to make
> any long term expensive commitments to just one store, as I would to this
> unnecessary MVPD middleman.
You can use your telephone to order a pizza. The communications link enables
the transaction, but does not participate in it.
If a competitive marketplace for TV content existed, it might look much like
what you want. But we are all at the mercy of government supported oligopolies
that are allowed to control competition and pricing models. We have few
choices...
1. Pay monopoly prices
2. Don't watch
3. Wait until the content is made available outside of the MVPDs, at a reduced
price or ad supported (free).
> The only glimmer of hope I've seen in this regard is that some networks, e.g.
> CBS, have begun accepting a number of alternative portals to act as their
> "bagmen," rather than just the MVPDs. Still, duplicating at least the FOTA
> stream as FOTI seems a FAR better way of cementing the network brand identity
> over the Internet, than hiding behind a growing list of superfluous middlemen
> *and* being complicit with device manufacturers in crippling their devices!!
Network identity is growing less valuable by the day - program discovery and
identity are the critical issues for the future. The ability to control access
to live first run content is what keeps the conglom/MVPD business model alive.
There will always be multiple ways to access content once it enters the
resale/syndication markets.
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: