[opendtv] Re: 20050509 Mark's Monday Memo
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 19:06:54 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> > The telephone system will handily reject new users
> > if its bandwidth is in short supply. If RF
> > bandwidth is in short supply today in OTA TV, it
> > will continue to be in short supply no matter who
> > manages it.
>
> What kind of an absurd response is this?
>
> The ability (or inability) to provide service at any
> location is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Only if you forget to put on your thinking cap.
The issue here is whether or not this fictious
"utility" of yours effectively bypasses the gatekeeper
problem. That is, whether it avoids having to keep
certain bandwidth aspirants out. It does not, because
its bandwidth is still limited compared with what its
competition has (i.e. compared with cable and DBS).
The telephone system uses a simple strategy: first
come, first served. If its bandwidth is in short
supply, you simply get a busy signal. A broadcast RF
utility can also use that strategy, which would allow
those with 24 hr/day streams to have perennial access.
Not very different from what we have today.
Or they could solve the problem by allowing only the
highest bidders access to the spectrum. Again, not much
difference from what we have today.
Or they could solve the problem by allowing only those
with popular content to have access. Which again would
favor the major conglomerates, as we have today.
Or they could use your Marxist preferences of giving
access to unpopular content (to each according to his
needs, from each according to their abilities), based
on some altruistic criteria established by some
bureaucracy, which would only succeed at reducing
access to popular content for the sake of giving local
PTA meetings equal access. And viewership will
decline.
So your whole thesis falls apart.
> The "copy protection paranoia" is just another
> WALL that the oligopolies have erected to prevent
> competition.
Except that it's pervasive. Not just for industries
that deal with media steams, such as TV
broadcasting, but also for industries dealing with
content that can be viewed any time, such as the
Hollywood studios. But there are ways of making
these non-real-time downloads quite secure, so in
time the content creators will be more flexible
and the broadcasters can use this new flexibility
to their advantage.
> Non-real-time download is a huge threat to the
> existing business model of television. It can
> turn non-productive bandwidth into competition for
> the most productive bandwidth, ...
> It is CENTRAL to this discussion, not orthogonal.
The discussion is orthogonal, because it's up to
content creators to get over the paranoia. And
content creators would be the ones who create the
bits, whether it's in your single "utility" model or
in the current multiple utility model. The same
solution solves the bandwidth problem for either
model. Hence, ORTHOGONAL to this discussion.
> I NEVER said that the rates would be regulated by
> anyone. They would be regulated by the marketplace.
> I did say that there is a role for regulation in
> preventing a few major players from dominating the
> new marketplace.
That's doubletalk, internally inconsistent and
contradictive. If the marketplace sets the prices,
by definition that means the highest bidder gets
access. That is the definition of unregulated. If
you weasel as you did above, then you're a
gatekeeper that does NOT simply respond to the
marketplace. You would need to keep certain
content creators out in order to give "Turkish
sitcoms" a chance at the airwaves.
> The utility concept changes the fundamentals of
> the infrastructure, which is how we can achieve
> higher levels of spectral reuse.
Which multiple utilities can do just as well. Just
give them a chance, which means shut off analog.
> I refuse to base arguments about the future on
> what has worked in the past. I prefer to knock
> down the barriers to real competition and see
> how the marketplace responds.
Spoken from someone who has nothing to lose and
everything to gain from this strategy. Sell more
copy, and with vague enough arguments which can
be contradicted later, risk nada.
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:
