IVI UPDATE: There is a link to this interview following. IVI founder Todd Weaver has some interesting things to say in this FierceOnlineVideo interview. Here are a few snips.
They said "no." Just like they did when cable started, and like they did again when satellite started. We even said we'd pay the same or more for their channels than cable or satellite does today, limit their content to their market, and report all the increased viewers to Nielsen so their advertising rate card goes up. The answer was then and still is today "no."
........broadcaster's cannot just say "no" they need to negotiate and provide their channels in good faith. (just as they do with cable and satellite providers)
.........when cable was new broadcasters sued them. The Supreme Court said what cable was doing was not copyright infringement.
(when satellite came along) The broadcasters sue, Satellite is temporarily shut-down under an injunction and it was later reversed on appeal.
We know we're right on the law, and even though we knew the broadcasters would not like competition and sue as they've done twice in the past, we factored that in as a price of admission.
Cable and Satellite all distribute to out-of-market locations, the royalty percentage is higher for distant location delivery.
We have added some independent channels, more will be added, and some new packages, larger channels are still in negotiations, but most large channels are waiting on a reversal ruling.
(they now have one religious station from San Francisco $1.99 extra per month).
.....if ESPN said they wanted 5 bucks a sub from us, we'd obviously do it. If ESPN wanted to be a la carte for $19.99/mo, people would pay it, and we'd love to carry it. The average price per sub is just over 20 cents per channel. (but their $5.99 per month fee would go up also).
http://www.fierceonlinevideo.com/st...dd-weaver-its-better-be-right-rich/2011-03-09
They said "no." Just like they did when cable started, and like they did again when satellite started. We even said we'd pay the same or more for their channels than cable or satellite does today, limit their content to their market, and report all the increased viewers to Nielsen so their advertising rate card goes up. The answer was then and still is today "no."
........broadcaster's cannot just say "no" they need to negotiate and provide their channels in good faith. (just as they do with cable and satellite providers)
.........when cable was new broadcasters sued them. The Supreme Court said what cable was doing was not copyright infringement.
(when satellite came along) The broadcasters sue, Satellite is temporarily shut-down under an injunction and it was later reversed on appeal.
We know we're right on the law, and even though we knew the broadcasters would not like competition and sue as they've done twice in the past, we factored that in as a price of admission.
Cable and Satellite all distribute to out-of-market locations, the royalty percentage is higher for distant location delivery.
We have added some independent channels, more will be added, and some new packages, larger channels are still in negotiations, but most large channels are waiting on a reversal ruling.
(they now have one religious station from San Francisco $1.99 extra per month).
.....if ESPN said they wanted 5 bucks a sub from us, we'd obviously do it. If ESPN wanted to be a la carte for $19.99/mo, people would pay it, and we'd love to carry it. The average price per sub is just over 20 cents per channel. (but their $5.99 per month fee would go up also).
http://www.fierceonlinevideo.com/st...dd-weaver-its-better-be-right-rich/2011-03-09