[opendtv] Re: NAB: FCC's Wheeler Piles on Praise for Broadcasting | Broadcasting & Cable

  • From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:07:26 -0400

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

Please tell the whole story. The issue is video quality, or more accurately,
compression artifacts. With 1080i you need the entire ~18 Mbps payload to
deliver good quality HDTV, actually more for high action sports and flying
graphics.

Whole story? That's one mode out of what, 18? And it's not what I'm talking
about. Your contention was the now familiar vague mention that to carry many
channels you needed a "proper infrastructure," not ATSC, with no justification,
no proof, and at best, a few half-baked notions that we've hopefully put to
rest by now.

The number of channels is irrelevant. The content they deliver, and the
ratings
that these channels generate is what is relevant.

No, Craig. One subject of conversation is the RF standard. An entirely
different topic is what type of content gets carried on it. You evidently
allowed your personal tastes on the content to block any hope of educating
yourself on the RF standards issues.

The facts are obvious. If you start sharing transmission assets/expenses you
are part of the local broadcast oligopoly,

Okay, I'll buy that, but with at most two stations sharing any OTA multiplex.
Craig complains about maybe two stations sharing an OTA multiplex constituting
an "oligopoly" (even though everyone has instant access to all the other
multiplexes). And yet he's blind to the fact that 200 stations sharing a single
locally-monopolistic pipe would enable a far more credible form of "oligopoly,"
at least while they operate on that medium. Odd, no? Let's give Craig a
generous break. Maybe he's being distracted by that TV droning off in the
background. :)

As if that isn't proof enough, Craig should read the NYT article Monty
posted. The part where HBO needs to cajole middlemen, in order to compete.

No, HBO needs to convince more people to pay $15/mo to access their content.

Not what I'm talking about. This is the NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/business/media/at-the-head-of-the-pack-hbo-shows-the-way-forward.html

And this is what I'm talking about:

"Mr. Bewkes and Mr. Plepler argue that the new service is complementary to
their existing business, appealing to those who refuse to pay for cable or
satellite TV. Yet some cable and satellite executives complain that HBO Now has
the potential to undercut their offerings. For some smaller cable operators,
the cost of HBO Now is cheaper than the rate they charge for HBO packages."

*This* is proof of how a medium creates what Craig calls "oligopoly." This is
what inflates prices. This is an example of the content owner having a
difficult time competing as he sees fit, because the locally monopolistic
distribution pipe has conflicting self-interests. Although I would certainly
agree with the cable operator, if the cable company refuses to be the
administrator of HBO Now. HBO needs to do that on their own, or find some
neutral third party.

Bert

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2015