Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)
You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get
these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you
diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of
USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable
this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you
don't have one.
When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local,
you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of
course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to
create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that
your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying
near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long
it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they
have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select
10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has
a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't
need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right.
Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350
channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new
counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription
based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long
time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision
THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They
will fail.
In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share"
networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another
broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects
satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice
of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new
counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is
irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around
the question as you have the 8VSB.
>Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
>own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the
means
>to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
>customers you have lost over the years to cable?
It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't
lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they
lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they
could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE
television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is
anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the
industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion
content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they
have to pay...
>No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
>but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
>offering a less expensive package.
I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are
most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must
incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer
support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence
techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really
compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a
satellite provider.
> They CAN'T by law charge for the free
>SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel
now.
>OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters
if
>they sign up as subscribers just like cable.
All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB
5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these
300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and
subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You
position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school
thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription
televison services
>There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with
cable
>on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected
for
>years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises.
There
If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right
now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were
available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I
might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's
not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless
access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies
have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they
can combine services and provide a discount.
-Jeremy
You did not answer the question about how customers are going to get
these 5th gen 8VSB recievers to make all this work, in fact you
diverted to USDTV like services which have no future as the failure of
USDTV has shown. For you concept to even be considered as plausable
this question you would need a solid answer to this question and you
don't have one.
When I mentioned that customers would have to pick cable or local,
you've said they wouldn't pick they would simply drop cable (which of
course would be picking). You suggest the local networks are going to
create 400 something new channels in the next four-five years (is that
your time frame, I don't think you've given one, but you're implying
near future best I can tell), not going to happen.... Look at how long
it's taken the cable companies to get it right (and I'm not saying they
have it 100% right), but out of 350+ channels I have I have a select
10-15 that are watched in my household regularly, my mother in law has
a different set of 10-15, my brother yet another set. You see we don't
need 350 channels, but it's taken cable a long time to do it right.
Where is their funding going to come from to create an additonal 350
channels? Why is advertiser X going to pay the OTA networks new
counterpart to ESPN (which according to you will be a new subscription
based service) for advertising when ESPN has been proven for a long
time. If the networks charge for these new channels that you envision
THEY are starting at ground zero, they have to prove themselfs... They
will fail.
In order to provider 300+ stations the cable/sat companies "share"
networks (CNN, ESPN, A&E, etc...), I asume by charging one another
broadcasting rihgts to the networks they own. If a customer selects
satellite or cable, for the most part they are getting the same choice
of networks... To assume local OTA can just magicly create new
counterparts to all these statons, have them compete and win is
irrational. Explain exactly how they could do this? Don't jump around
the question as you have the 8VSB.
>Why should the broadcasters let cable carry the best content that they
>own and which they deliver free OTA? Why give your competitor the
means
>to better you when you can keep it too yourselves and capture back
>customers you have lost over the years to cable?
It only makes sense if the OTA networks charge, otherwise they haven't
lost anything when their content is broadcast on cable. How have they
lost? They only lose if the cable company is collecting a fee they
could be collecting themselfs.. then again, that's not FREE
television. Regardless of how you position this, your stance is
anti-Free High Defintion OTA programming. Which is bad for the
industry, why should customers have to pay more for High Defintion
content... Your thoughts are more along the lines of why shouldn't they
have to pay...
>No sense. If broadcasters are charging a fee for most of their content
>but not the one free SD program then they are competing with cable and
>offering a less expensive package.
I never disagreed with that, if they are charging any fee then they are
most definately competing... but if they charge a fee they still must
incure the cost of becoming a services company... From a customer
support department to a accouting office to contracting maintence
techs.. There is a huge cost their that you ignore.. and to really
compete they would have to provide all the services of at least a
satellite provider.
> They CAN'T by law charge for the free
>SD program per channel but cable DOES charge for that free channel
now.
>OTA receivers will be given to OTA customers for free by broadcasters
if
>they sign up as subscribers just like cable.
All high level details... explain to me how they will get these 8VSB
5th gen tunners into homes, explain how they will magicly create these
300+ channels, explain how they are going to steal advertising and
subscribers from cable. In your mind the pricing is everything, You
position your ideas as visionary, but they aren't. They are old school
thinking. By integrating phone, high speed internet and subscription
televison services
>There will be a flood of wireless ventures that will compete with
cable
>on the broadband front. Cable is big and fat and has been protected
for
>years by having no competition behind their exclusive franchises.
There
If you see a "flood" on the horizon, I challenge you to name five right
now. Broadband cable has had competion for years ISDN lines were
available long before, and DSL is available now (often for cheaper I
might add), yet still DSL falls behind, because it's not consist, it's
not realable. In Houston TimeWarner is already setting up wireless
access points around the city for their subscribers, cable companies
have the infrastructure and to counter these start ups and again they
can combine services and provide a discount.
-Jeremy
Facebook
Twitter