[opendtv] Re: Two articles about sticking it to the TV consumer
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:27:25 -0400
inline ...
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Tom Barry wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you think the TV networks need more bargaining power?
>> They already control almost all OTA and cable content. It
>> is the OTA broadcasters, not networks, that are losing
>> bargaining power as OTA gets marginalized and bypassed.
>>
>
> I'm after FOTA survival, actually.
>
>
Actually, so am I. But I don't think it really looks all that good in
the long term and I am starting to believe the recent digital transition
may have made things worse with issues like 30' antennas and marginal
power VHF stations. Any time a customer exceeds his pain threshold and
goes to cable it is harder to get him to put up the next antenna.
> OTA broadcasters *are* the major networks, as far as their viewership is
> concerned. But these OTA networks are hopelessly fractured by archaic rules,
> and handicapped thusly when negotiating with advertizers and MVPDs. This is
> causing the OTA nets all the grief.
>
>
NO! The OTA broadcasters are NOT the networks. Networks may have some
O&O's but mainly they or their parent companies are content producers
and brokers. The networks can and are peddling their content
increasingly on cable. This lowers the bargaining power of the local
broadcasters, including affiliates. Many stations that are affiliates
today may not be in the next year or 3. And once their contracts come
up they not get as good deals the next time because of their decreased
bargaining power.
> When people in this market think of ABC7, what could they care whether that's
> an O&O or whether it's owned by Allbritton Communications? Why should the
> survival of ABC7 depend on overly restrictive regulations, which pit
> Allbritton against nationwide advertizers and giant MVPDs?
>
>
What they are probably thinking of is the network, not the station.
That is where the power has gone and owes little loyalty locally.
> Other models could be contemplated. For instance, *all* of the service
> providers could be forbidden from owning content. And *all* of the service
> providers could be allowed nationwide coverage, much like the MVPDs are.
> Aren't just two DBS nets allowed to each cover the entire country? Don't
> those two DBS nets serve 25 percent of households? Why can't just two OTA
> station groups be allowed to cover the country, just f'rinstance? Wouldn't
> that give them more clout with advertizers?
>
>
I have no problem with any of this. Though I think there are still
some restrictions on DBS national coverage.
> Anyway, the reality is, the OTA nets are at a distinct disadvantage, thanks
> to archaic regs that only they need to adhere to.
>
I think there are lots of reasons. Much of it is the simple fact OTA
broadcasters used to have a monopoly on delivering video to the home and
now they don't anymore. That's got to hurt but legislation won't change
it much.
> 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: