[opendtv] Re: TV Programmers Put Subscriber Caps on Skinny Bundles | Media - Advertising Age

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:23:08 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

In essence you are agreeing that the broadcast multiplexes are
growing increasingly irrelevant.

Let's not confuse OTA broadcast stations with TV network content, Craig. I have
said many, many, many, many times that the TV network content is now available
without needing that OTA broadcast station, over the Internet. And that
THEREFORE the OTA broadcasters need to carve out a new, Internet-related role.
No sooner had I said this, that Leslie Moonves came up with his new plan (CBS
All Access, where the local broadcasters play a part).

They only serve a tiny fraction of TV viewers, and they are
filled with programs that nobody is watching.

The programs are very much in demand. That's where you continue to confuse the
issue. Whether watching OTA live, or VOD online, the shows are the same ones.

So it sounds like you don't use that antenna much anymore,
despite the fact that you have more than 50 channels to watch.

One wonders why one has to repeat the same things over and over, with Craig.
Why one has to laboriously belabor the obvious. Craig, did you not inform us
that you are one of those luddites who continue to watch by appointment TV? I
think you said 90 percent of it by appointment? Well, there you are. That's why
the OTA signal is still needed. For luddites, or for the news or other things
that are best seen live, unless and until live is put online.

Again, you are helping me make my point. Except for live
events and the first run of a handful of shows,
appointment TV is dying.

See above. You continue to confuse the two issues. The content is still very
much in demand, so the TV networks have nothing to worry about. But sure, the
OTA broadcasters need that new role, perhaps with the help of clever guys like
Moonves.

Because the options you claim are available to me do not
interest me.

You are not the universe, Craig. The fact that the multiple new options don't
interest YOU does not mean they don't exist, and CERTAINLY does not mean that
they will never exist. This is where you are unable to see trends in the
making. Remember when HDTV didn't interest you? That's when you claimed it was
always going to be too expensive, no one cared, niche, and so on. So now, you
claim these new options don't exist, will never exist, we are controlled by the
"oligopoly," bla bla.

There is no single gatekeeper anymore Bert.

There is for Craig, the loyal subject. You do *not* have options of MVPDs,
Craig, because you are not subscribed to all of them! And even if you were,
they would offer exactly the same content. Why? See above. The oligopoly is
created/enabled/fostered by that pipe, not the owners of the content.

Huh? Do you think there's something religiously improper about
using satellite to distribute TV content to ISPs nationwide?

Setting up a viable TV streaming portal on the Internet is not
free, or easy. There is a good reason that so many of these
services pay CDNs to deliver their bits.

So I have to belabor what should be obvious. Let's say you are a content owner,
a TV network, Netflix, whoever, and you want to allow efficient online access
to your stuff. You can certainly use satellite to feed your distributed servers
throughout the country. You DO NOT have to send everything through cables, end
to end, as you claimed. When the infrastructure is shared, i.e. the satellites
and the ISP networks, in spite of the wild arm-waving I see, it's not at all
clear that the solution is more expensive than the alternatives.

No Bert. The ESPN portion of that bill is only $5-6/mo.

Get real, Craig. First, you have no idea what ESPN is charging Sling. I suppose
it has to be "fair," but that $6+/sub/mo is for regular MVPDs, where ESPN gets
an inflated number of subscribers (I hope not to have to belabor that obvious
point too). Anyway, rather than Sling, I would be WAY better off with CBS All
Access and Netflix, for example. I would get infinitely more program variety, I
would get the channel I watch most, and I would pay significantly less per
month. Sling makes most sense for sports addicts.

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.

Other related posts:

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