[opendtv] Re: News: Northwest Station Pulls Signal In Retransmission Battle
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:12:47 -0800
They aren't extortion payments, since cable firms have a choice of content
-- even multiple sources for network programming if they want to pay 3.5
cents per subscriber per month per channel, and nothing unlawful is
occurring.
They can, if they have the cojones, create their own high-demand programming
to actually compete with broadcast.
If the compulsory copyright license, must carry/retrans consent and other
cable benefits were eliminated today, cable would lose more than half their
revenue. OVERNIGHT.
The rules of which you whine actually prop up cable, and are long overdue
for sunsetting.
John Willkie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:51 AM
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Northwest Station Pulls Signal In
> Retransmission Battle
>
> At 2:46 PM -0500 1/2/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> >But this is standard business practice, Craig. The way this should work
> >is that consumers should have alternative means to get to that content,
> >via competing distribution media, and it turns out one of those is FOTA
> >TV. If there's anything out of kilter here, it's that the umbillical
> >media, and possibly also the broadcasters, seem to think that demand for
> >umbillical TV distribution services is completely inelastic. As long as
> >the programming *is* available FOTA, from the broadcasters, I just can't
> >get all worked up over any of this.
>
> It may be standard business practice Bert, but it can only happen
> because Congress gave the broadcasters the legal ability to demand
> these extortion payments.
>
> Ask yourself this Bert. Why is it that this is the only country in
> the world that I am aware of, where a broadcaster can demand
> compensation for something that has already been paid for? In the
> rest of the world, broadcasters are queuing up to PAY for the right
> to be carried on the popular distribution platforms?
>
> Please explain to me why broadcasters should be compensated for
> carriage of their programming, when, as you point out, these signals
> can be pulled out of the air for free. And remember, the deal between
> the broadcasters and Congress is essentially free use of a valuable
> public resource in return for offering their programming in the free
> and clear. We all know that it is not free, as the commercials are
> expected to pay for the content that is delivered.
>
> So now, the broadcasters are demanding millions in retransmission
> consent payments, while they basically run the free OTA franchise
> into the ground. And the government does not get a dime of this. In
> fact the politicians pay dearly to use this medium to run their
> campaign commercials, and we all pay dearly, because the politicians
> spend most of their time raising money from special interests to run
> for re-election. I saw a story yesterday about the poor prospects for
> ad revenues this year for broadcasters. Ad revenues are flat, if not
> declining, the cost per thousand has hit the glass ceiling, and
> ratings are going down. But the biggest reason that revenues will be
> lower in 2007 than 2006, is that the broadcasters will not get a $3
> billion cash infusion from the politicians. Not to worry
> though...they will probably pull in $5 billion in the 2008 election.
>
> Perhaps I am being a bit too harsh on Bert. After all, he is the one
> who is standing up for principle here. He refuses to pay the
> extortion demands, and is willing to live with the content that he
> can access for free. If we all were like Bert, this would not have
> happened.
>
> Maybe he would get more excited about the prospect of having this
> mess extended to the Internet. At least for now, with the Internet
> there is a clear distinction between carriage and content. You pay a
> fee for net access, and you have the ability to access content from
> anyone who wants to offer it in the free and clear - and you ALSO
> have the right to pay extra for content if you want to.
>
> Contrast this with cable or DBS. Clearly a portion of your monthly
> subscription fee is applied toward the cost of building and operating
> the distribution infrastructure. This is an industry (cable and DBS)
> that has invested significantly more than $200 billion in
> infrastructure since the mid '80s. This is an industry that has a
> customer support infrastructure with trucks that roll to maintain the
> infrastructure and guarantee service at your location. And this is an
> industry that collects billions in subscriber fees for "competitors,"
> the vast majority of which flow back to four media conglomerates.
>
> Why is there not a breakdown on our monthly cable/DBS bills that
> informs us what we are paying for. For example:
>
> Carriage - the amount charged to pay for the infrastructure and
> customer service;
> Taxes - actually this IS typically broken down on our bills;
> Subscriber fees - this is the black hole that no one wants to talk
> about, much less quantify.
>
> Why is the industry so opposed to ala carte selection of channels?
> Could it be that the present tiered system forces us all to pay for
> content that we rarely if ever watch?
>
> >The piece claims that the amount asked for is not that big:
> >
> >"Neither side will say how much KAYU is seeking, but the station says it
> >is asking for fees smaller than what cable companies pay many cable
> >channels for the right to carry their programming."
>
> Would you pay $2.70 per month for the Fox network? That is the
> rumored average that ESPN receives per subscriber. This accounts for
> about 35% of the gross revenues for the Disney corporation. ESPN is
> clearly the highest, but there are many channels that are getting
> between $0.50 and $1.00 per month per subscriber. Fox News has been
> asking for $1 per sub per month, and recently has signed deals
> rumored to be in the range of $0.75 per month.
>
> The word on the street is that broadcasters are asking for $1/mo per
> subscriber, although it is unclear that any have actually attained
> this goal. Even if the station was only asking for $0.50 per month,
> what justification is there for this, other than the reality that
> everyone is jumping on this bandwagon and screwing the consumer?
>
> The only good news in all of this is that they are building a classic
> house of cards, that may fall down under its own weight if a new
> channel of distribution is able to bypass them.
>
> AND THAT is where this whole network neutrality debate gets interesting.
>
> If the media conglomerates, together with cable and the telcos can
> charge a premium to get bits from one source versus another, they may
> be able to protect their existing cash cows. IF, on the other hand,
> we can download content form any source, without paying a "use tax,"
> we may see alternatives that provide real competition, which will, in
> turn, cause the house of cards to crumble.
>
> For $70 per month I can buy a lot of content, especially if my cost
> is apportioned reasonably. The actual cost to create and deliver even
> the most expensive content to my home is measured in pennies, not
> dollars. CBS estimates that a set of eyeballs generates about $.035
> to $.050 per hour. I would gladly pay $0.50 to watch a one hour show
> WITHOUT commercials.
>
> >All I can say here is "boo hoo." The only bad guys in all of this are
> >the consumers who cave in, instead of taking alternatives that are
> >already available to them.
>
> I fully understand your position. I even respect the fact that you
> refuse to cave in. What i DO NOT respect is your complacency in all
> of this. IF you lived in the U.K. you would now have access to more
> than 30 channels of unique content, and it would not cost you any
> more than you are now paying.
>
> It's kind of like sex. You don't know what you are missing until you
> get it. And then once you get it, you can;t live without it, and you
> begin to understand just how much it is really costing you.
>
> ;-)
>
>
> >You know, the same thing as consumers who get all sanctimonious about
> >global warming while driving their Ford Expeditions. Boo hoo. They read
> >Al Gore's book and feel somehow absolved of sin.
>
> Do you mean solar warming?
>
> Based on my experience, those who have read Gore's Book or seen the
> documentary are the ones who get all sanctimonious. What is amazing
> is the lack of factual basis for Gore's claims. Just goes to
> illustrate how powerful the visual medium is in influencing public
> opinion.
>
> TV is the most powerful tool to influence an electorate - or the poor
> souls who live under dictatorships - ever put into the hands of
> politicians. Can't really blame them for trying to maintain their
> control of it. Sadly. in most countries the people understand that TV
> is a propaganda tool. Here in the U.S. we are constantly reminded of
> the "fact" that the government does not control the media.
>
> So how is it that we wound up with the most powerful propaganda
> machine in the world, and now - most of us - pay extra every month to
> have the Soma delivered?
>
> 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: