[opendtv] Re: Free TV URL list
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:32:39 -0500
On Jan 1, 2014, at 9:04 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> So, take the longer perspective view here, Craig. The combination of local
> OTA stations in a market provides continuous access to US TV network content,
> through that single RG-6 coax cable to your TV set. Precisely what your ISP
> does, through its broadband network, when you get TV from the Internet.
When did you get an MVPD subscription. I thought antennas used 75 ohm twin
lead...
;-)
This analogy is highly strained. Broadcasters do deliver bits, but at best,
these bits may contain only a few program streams, over which the viewer has no
control - you'll need a DVR to do something as trivial as pausing the program
to go to the bathroom. And you will need to conform YOUR viewing schedule to
THEIR broadcast schedule (without that DVR).
The ISP lets you watch any available content at any time, except for live
events. We went to bed before the last bowl game ended last night. We are about
to watch the second half via Watch ESPN this morning.
>
> That "delivery of network content" role is the primary and most valuable
> contribution of the local OTA broadcaster.
Only in the sense of making that content available on THEIR schedule in your
market. Obviously, much of this content makes its way to Internet streaming
services within a day, and for years to follow that broadcast.
The real value of the station is that it brings a bit of the revenue from
entertainment to local markets, and it provides a vehicle for local advertisers
to reach local customers. The broadcast service would disappear if it were not
profitable. And most network affiliated station are very profitable.
>
> The local station's role in creating their own content, typically news and
> weather, is an orthogonal role. That locally produced content can use the
> station's own transmitter facilities, but it can also use MVPD or Internet
> media to get to the customers. Much like ANY TV content can. This local
> production function need not be tied to an OTA transmitter at all, in
> principle.
This is now true for ANY local media. Our newspaper delivers video via the
Internet now. I will agree that broadcasters have always relied on other
peoples content to make money, and that local news ain't what it used to be.
But this is not likely to change as long as the networks stay with the
affiliate business model. When the networks either:
A. Are allowed to own stations in every market
Or
B. decide to go direct with the MVPDs
This may change. IMHO B is far more likely
> And I choose to point out that by doing so, the networks effectively
> undermine the perceived value or identity of their brand. The more
> unnecessary middlemen you add, the more your customers have to dwell on the
> middlemen. And I also choose to point out that the MVPD price structure is
> hardly valid, for TV content on the Internet. MVPD price structure derived
> from using *their own infrastructure*, not using the Internet and Internet
> Protocols, and someone else's cables, to deliver the content.
To paraphrase a prominent political figure:
What difference does it make how we got into the current duopoly mess with the
media conglomerates and the MVPDs?
Network brand identity was diluted long ago with the growth of cable
distribution and content that competes with the flagship networks. The networks
became conglomerates with multiple brands that include broadcast networks,
movie studios, and multiple MVPD networks. The congloms even own Hulu, although
they have tried to sell it and can find no takers; no surprise here, as there
is nothing to buy. The buyer would need to license content from the networks,
who could kill it at a whim.
A MVPD bill has always had multiple components:
1. Infrastructure cost
2. A Customer service organization including billing
3. Pass through charges for premium channels and subscriber fees
4. Local franchise fees, and local, state and federal taxes.
Items 3 & 4 are the primary reason the MVPD model is not going away any time
soon.
The problem with your theory us how do we make as much money if we cut out the
middlemen. Will viewers pay Disney $10/mo for their programming via the
Internet, as the do now via an MVPD subscription? Not just a few viewers, but
EVERY home that now pays for the extended basic tier of their MVPD service.
>
> But you're merely falling back on your old standby mantra. I gave you a
> SPECIFIC example. The TV networks *do* provide content on the Internet
> without any unnecessary middlemen. That's how I watch most of my prime time
> TV. But when it came to airing the Olympics, even the content that was being
> aired FOTA became buried behind a no-value-added middleman. This was FOTA
> content. There was no need for any bagman. It was simply an excess of greed,
> which made the network brand that much less obvious, as it instead emphasized
> the MVPD brand
Why do people pay for TV?
To access the content they want, much of which has almost all of its value when
broadcast - e.g. Sports and American Idol.
To access content that is only available within a bundle.
NBC paid a small fortune for the rights to the Olympics. They maximized
revenues by using all of their MVPD networks to carry hundreds of hours of
events that they could not carry on the FOTA flagship network. And much of
this content was available on demand after the event. Why give this away?
> If you want the Internet to become the primary medium for TV content
> distribution, it seems to me that you will require a lot of distributed
> server architecture in ISP networks. Mostly because people using the Internet
> expect most of that content to be available on demand, meaning the ISP will
> not be able to use IP multicast. If existing CDNs take on this expanded role,
> that would be a good strategic move. I'm just saying that local broadcasters
> could have this role too.
The distributed server architecture already exists at two levels:
1. Data centers for the major portals (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Google etc)
2. CDN server sites
Did you know that Amazon's CloudFront is one of the larger CDNs operating today?
Broadcasters SHOULD have their own servers, but it is unlikely that the
networks would let them take over this business, since they already have CDNs
that handle their Internet sites, and affiliation agreements do not grant
Internet rights.
>> ISPs can and do also deal directly with the networks, Craig. As usual, your
>> MVPD dependence makes you miss this. The networks have their OWN portals,
>> and the networks create THEIR OWN shared portals (Hulu), and the networks
>> also deliver content through third party portals (Netflix and Amazon, not to
>> mention multiple others including wwitv.com), all of which DOES NOT involve
>> MVPDs.
Can you provide an example of an ISP that deals with the networks for iInternet
services. The MVPDs have many relationships with the congloms, but I do not
think they host any network Internet services.
Back in it's glory days, AOL believed they could deliver TV, but the merger
with Time Warner killed that plan.
Please do not confuse portals, CDNs and ISPs. They are all involved, but
separate businesses with different functions.
> The problem is, Craig, perspective. Your MVPD addiction makes you miss
> alternatives that already exist. I do object to paying for shows that are
> already self-sustaining through ads, and I certainly object to paying MVPD
> prices for content that isn't distributed over the MVPD's infrastructure. And
> I'm not alone in this. You are gradually becoming the anomaly.
Anomaly?
Moi?
MVPD subscriber rates have barely budged, even with "the worst economy since
the Great Depression."
I'm now watching a replay of the Fiesta Bowl via Watch ESPN and my Apple TV.
Regards
Craig
> Bert
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: