[opendtv] Re: Supply chain agrees switchover measures
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:44 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The difference is primarily related to the actions of the
> broadcasters in each country respectively. In the U.K the
> broadcasters are actively competing with cable and DBS,
> creating a very real market opportunity for the CE industry,
> which is responding with very real products.
>
> In the U.S. the CE industry largely controlled the process
> to develop the ATSC standard. They have been able to do this
> in two ways:
>
> 1. The Advisory Committee process allows competitors to
> collaborate on the development of a standard. Virtually all
> CE manufacturers were involved in the development of the U.S.
> DTV standard - to be completely fair, the broadcasters
> allowed and encouraged the CE companies to bear the majority
> of the expense in developing the ATSC standard - in large
> part because this was a delaying action for the broadcasters,
> many of which never believed that they would be forced to
> move to the new digital standard.
>
> 2, The ATSC is allowed to operate as a standards group with
> members collaborating to develop the standard and extensions.
> The ATSC is controlled by its CE industry members, who have
> more than enough votes to control the standards process,
> again with broadcasters in the minority position.
>
> So the difference in outcomes in the U.K. and the U.S.
> cannot be blamed on the legal system or regulators. The
> difference is market based. In the U.S. the broadcasters
> could care less about competition - they depend on
> competitors to deliver their content and increasingly on
> being paid by these competitors for the privilege. There
> has been NO INCENTIVE for the CE industry to promote the FTA
> DTV standard; there has been no promotion of the service by
> broadcasters and there is little reason for the CE industry
> to do any more than has been required by the FCC.
These arguments work well in European countries where OTA is thriving.
But what about countries where OTA was not, and still DTT products are
available? How do you explain that?
Besides which, I'm not limiting the question to DTT. How is it that I
can find long lists of DVB-C recording devices on line, and yet over
here third party recording devices for cable are seen as something that
only an overbearing govt agency could love? Where does that attitude
come from? It seems like a brainwashed buying public to me.
> On the other hand, CE manufacturers and to a much greater
> extent, CE retailers have been partners in the development
> of the U.S. DBS industry. They have provided STBs, and they
> are provided financial incentives by the DBS industry to
> promote the DBS services. Cable has been dragging their
> heels with respect to opening up the markets for digital
> STBs, but they have been cooperating with retailers,
> providing incentives to get people to hook up to cable.
As far as I can tell, the differences are minor. In DBS and cable
examples, the STBs are proprietary to one system. Although it's true
that you can buy outright the DBS STBs at any TV retailer, you still get
to pay extra every month for the "privilege" of doing what should be
mundane. I just see collusion between manufacturers, retailers, and the
subscription services here, and not there. This is not ATSC-specific.
Thank goodness for the FCC mandates.
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:
