[opendtv] Re: More on Verizon & Google

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:14:07 -0400

At 7:47 PM -0400 8/14/10, Albert Manfredi wrote:
The receiver mandate IMO was one of Michael Powell's great achievements. As was the inclusion of MVPD subscribers within the 85 percent rule, to finally allow the transition to end. This was a way to finally have access to the 700 MHz band, and to do so in a way that benefitted TV consumers at the same time.

Perhaps. Personally I think it was a huge mistake, as now we are seeing broadcasters using the installed base of ATSC receivers as an excuse for keeping the system locked down with outdated technologies. If instead the marketplace (consumers) had been allowed to decide what kind of receivers to buy there might have been a chance to get broadcasters to embrace extensibility and use new technology to attract viewers. Instead this innovation is taking place via devices that will pull their bits from the Internet, where anyone can leapfrog the current players, as is now happening with Flash.

And Powell had NOTHING to do with bringing the transition to an end. Congress finally made this happen in early 2006 when the US Deficit Reduction Act of 2005[6] became law. It was Congress that set the 85% threshold; the FCC did not have the authority to change it. At best Powell and company could try to interpret the law, which would have led to the kind of court challenges that have frequently resulted in an appeals court overturning FCC orders.

Any action the FCC might have taken would have been challenged by broadcasters, most of whom did not want the transition to end. You might recall that this legislation ALSO set up the "government cheese" program for ATSC STBs, which was administered by the NTIA, not the FCC.


If there's anything that went wrong with this plan, it was that special interests, i.e. the MVPDs, did all they could to PREVENT the incorporation of a complete cable/DBS receiver. Specifically because it was in their best interest (and not the consumers' best interest) to rent out their own proprietary and incompatible boxes, so the MVPD subscribers could pay the price of the box many times over, as a steady revenue stream for the MVPD. Instead of once only, when buying the new TV set or the stand-alone STB.

There was NEVER any talk of mandating cable and DBS receivers, as the FCC had NO AUTHORITY to mandate this. It would have required an act of Congress. It is worth noting that Congress DID give the FCC authority to open the market for cable STBs. But the FCC handled this badly and the cable industry simply ignored every attempt the FCC made to open up this market. In a sense, the cable industry did exactly what the broadcasters did...

They drug their heels, spending a decade developing the Open Cable specs, which to be completely accurate are still not finished for 2-way interaction.

So if you want to talk about special interests, you need look no further than that. Not to mention all the nonsensical hollering about how the built-in receiver would cost everyone more than $200 for something they wouldn't use. What was that, if not lies by the special interests to further their cause?

It was an illegal mandate forcing consumers to purchase something they did not need. That the price turned out to be a little lower than projected has as much to do with the smoke coming from the companies developing the receivers as those who were objecting to the mandate. When the mandate was created they did not have a clue how to build a cheap receiver that worked. Many consumers still say that they do not work well.

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: