[opendtv] Re: More on Verizon & Google

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:02:31 -0500

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

> 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 keeping the system locked down with outdated technologies.

True, but no more than what the Europeans are experiencing, as the installed 
base of DVB-T integrated receivers grows. These are facts of life with consumer 
appliances. Anyway, as you saw, M/H did happen, so the standard is not forzen. 
DVB-T2, just like M/H, is being introduced by combining the introduction with a 
new service, precisely to keep existing receivers viable.

> If instead the marketplace (consumers) had been allowed to decide

Consumers were not being given a chance, Craig. The special interests made 
darned sure of that. Consider the paucity of ATSC STBs on store shelves, 
consider LG's refusal to put out a 5th gen STB, and on and on. Your approach 
would simply have played in the hands of special interestz.

> 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;

Powell, or actually one of the guys in his FCC, finally got clever enough to 
count MVPD subscribers among the 85 percent who were not using OTA NTSC, Craig. 
Remember that we went though all of this recently, and I even dug out some 
posts from 2004 or thereabouts to make the point (again), since back then you 
opposed this sensible idea. Powell's FCC made some very sensible decisions. The 
only flaw, as far as I'm concerned, had to do with the broadcast flag.

> There was NEVER any talk of mandating cable and DBS receivers,

The FCC knew that they couldn't mandate cable or DBS receivers. But they made a 
push for cable (anyway) to VOLUNTARILY combine their cablecard system with the 
ATSC receiver. So that the majority of consumers would benefit. That's what I 
was trying to get across. The special interests prevented that, so the best we 
got out of it in practice was clearQAM.

And you even "explained" back then that the MVPDs preferred it this way, so 
they could make money renting their porprietary STBs (duh, as if I didn't 
know). The Powell FCC did not work to further the best interests of the MVPDs, 
as this FCC is doing now.

> It was an illegal mandate forcing consumers to purchase something they
> did not need.

Right. Instead, this FCC is perfectly happy to have renters hide the cable fees 
in their monthly rent, even for those renters who use OTA or DBS instead. Their 
excuse being, "they can always buy DBS if they want to."

I don't understand how anyone can complain about "special interests" running 
the ATSC, when ATSC reception the ONLY unwalled game in town, when it comes to 
TV program distribution. Maybe we should be pushing for a return to the AOL and 
Compuserve walled garden "Internet" pretenders.

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.

Other related posts: