[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Copps on the Fox vs Cablevision dispute

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:37:06 -0400

At 3:05 PM -0500 10/22/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
So? They are still providing their content, free, both over the Internet and over the air, just like I said. They are witholding it from the Cablevision walled garden.

NO. They are blocking Internet access for Cablevision broadband subscribers, many of which MAY NOT be cable subscribers.


 And it's not just Fox. The following story covers the Fox Cablevision
 dispute AND the fact that ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking access to their
 content via the internet, for new Google TV devices.

Again, they are blocking their content from other people's walled gardens. They are still providing it, on their own terms, both FOTA and FOTI. So again I ask you, why do you blame the content owner alone?

There is nothing walled about Google TV; unless you have some problem with a TV manufacturer integrating a computer that provides Internet access with the TV. Google TV is free - there is no monthly subscribe fee, although it can access services like Netflix that do charge subscribe fees. It allows video delivered via the Internet to be displayed on your TV, just a a web browser allows you to do the same on a PC.

BUT.

When you attempt to open a connection with the Hulu server from a Sony TV that runs the Google TV software, the server blocks that connection. It does this because ABC, CBS and NBC have a deal with Hulu to SELECTIVELY block access to their content. If Apple were to enable access to Hulu via Apple TV, it is highly lickly that that devices would be blocked as well.


Like I said, Craig, if the content owners want to use the Internet to distribute what THEY own, they have zero reason to want to introduce anyone else in that process, except for the ISPs. Which ISPs, so far, have kept themselves relatively neutral when it comes to their IP broadband pipes.

The ISPs are not the problem Bert, unless they are owned by a company that the congloms are "negotiating" with.

Why is a browser on a TV different than a browser on a PC?

Why should the congloms be allowed to block specific devices or services UNLESS they are RESELLING the content or blocking features like ads? If the conglom is giving the content away - as you say - then it should be available to any device. Truth is that they are not giving ANYTHING away - they are streaming entertainment content that contains ads that pay for that content - ads that you cannot skip.

And consumers should absolutely boycott specially designed TV sets that only further the aims of unnecessary middlemen.

Are you kidding?

So in essence you are saying that consumers SHOULD NOT support ANY effort to put the Internet on a TV?

Yet you are GAGA about the wonderful open world of the PC...

Did Internet Explorer further the aims of Microsoft?
Did Microsoft attempt to block other browsers from working properly on PCs?
Did Microsoft develop back end server technologies that ONLY worked with Internet Explorer?

Should consumers boycott Microsoft because they have used their monopoly to control their wonderful "OPEN" platform?

 > As you can see from the story above, the Congloms are doing EXACTLY what
 you object to. And that is what I tried to point out in my previous post.

NO. You did just the opposite. You said that the consumer could get around the impasse between Fox and Cablevision by watching the OTA signal or via the Internet. I had to find another article to prove to you that Fox is blocking Internet access to their content for Cablevision broadband subscribers.

Stop trying to twist the facts Bert.


No, Craig, they are not. What I object to would be if the congloms created their own web sites that could only be accessed via their own, non-standard boxes and protocols. If the congloms are making their content available over their respective web sites, via standard IP, I see that as being analogous to how they distribute their content OTA. Each have their own set of broadcast towers around the country, however every TV set can receive all of the OTA signals from all of the broadcasters. Similarly, each have their own web sites, and I can reach any of them via a standard PC (or, in the future, IP connected TV).

So apparently you DO believe that it should be OK to access Internet based video services via an IP connected TV. But for some strange reason its OK for the congloms to block some of these TVs...

Unbelievable.


 Fox has properties "across the dial" on MVPD platforms.

And they can provide those over the Internet, as they please, for free or for pay. Big deal.

It seems you have a tough time with the concept of "unwalled."

You clearly do not understand the difference between a real walled garden and devices that allow anyone to deliver content and services to those devices.

Get real.

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.

Other related posts: