[opendtv] Re: AT&T to launch DirecTV Now streaming video service before 2017 - CNET
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 08:49:14 -0400
On Oct 22, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Irrelevant, Craig. Now AT&T has those customers, being the parent company.
Correct. They bought their way into the game with DirecTV - their wired MVPD
systems have NOTHING to do with this.
And now - if the Time Warner merger is approved - they have a seat at the big
table with Comcast, Disney, Fox, and CBS/Viacom.
And AT&T has the Uverse cabled IPTV-based MVPD too. And the content owners
seem to be okay with allowing AT&T to have access to every household in the
US.
The content owners had no choice when the DirecTV sale was approved. The UVERSE
systems are a liability, not an asset.
Sorry, but Dish got there first with Sling.
Sorry, but Dish was a different situation.
Nope. Exactly the same.
Dish THEORETICALLY already had national footprint, being a purely DBS system.
As did DirecTV.
But Dish was not a cabled MVPD, restricted to only certain neighborhoods. So
it was not an obvious example of how this "license" issue you keep bringing
up is a non-issue.
And DirecTV is not a cabled MVPD. They are a national DBS system licensed to
sell ANYWHERE in the U.S.
The fact that AT&T has a small number of cabled systems is interesting, but
irrelevant. They may well sold to pay for the TW deal.
With AT&T, it becomes obvious. AT&T, the parent company, previously
restricted to its own neighborhoods, got the rights to stream to all
households.
No. they BOUGHT these rights for $48.5 billion. And their primary cellular
business is national as well. It is their wired assets that are two-limited.
Obtaining the licenses required is not a credible obstacle. The content
owners only need to see that it's in their own best interests. There's
nothing supernatural or divinely ordained about these agreements, Craig.
More like "the Star Chamber."
AT&T is buying a seat at the table.
The DSL versions of UVERSE are useless in the long term. They cannot
compete with the cable ISP monopoly.
Whoa there, Craig. Think this one through. AT&T broadband is ADSL2+, but AT&T
is looking to expand that to FTTH and to wireless broadband, much as Verizon
is and has been doing.
I doubt you will see another FTTH build by AT&T. They will milk the copper
plant as long as they can, but the future for AT&T is wireless data. This is
obvious from several recent announcements, particularly the free video
streaming data when someone subscribes to both DirecTV and AT&T cellular.
These infrastructures are quite competitive with other broadband ISPs. ADSL2+
is good for 25 Mb/s downstream, per customer. I'd say that AT&T is doing this
right, if anything, by not leaping into the FTTH-or-nothing solution that
Verizon attempted.
DSL is not competitive: never will be. Cox is now offering gigabit in my
neighborhood - AT&T can hit 12 Mbps for a handful of customers in Gainesville.
I doubt Verizon will build more FTTH systems either. Their cost basis is too
high, in large part because of their union contracts.
DSL is a dead end Bert. Ain't gonna survive long term.
But the other legacy MVPDs won't create this confusion, when they begin
this transformation.
Because they will not be allowed to play.
Haven't you learned yet not to make these proclamations, Craig? You say
something like this, and sometimes in a matter of days, you're proven wrong.
Waiting...
Don't be ridiculous in your arguing. The geo limitations of legacy cabled
MVPDs were to neighborhoods, and were caused by laws of physics.
True. But the restrictions I cited are caused by the "laws of the marketplace."
And those licensing "laws" are not going away. It remains to be seen how "The
Star Chamber" deals with the geo-limited MVPD systems. They don't need to give
them a piece of the content pie anymore.
With the Internet, any geo limitations are created artificially, if and when
it is in the content owner's interests to do so. The fact is, content owners
are giving OTT sites license to operate nationwide to any household, and if
they want to, could bring this worldwide too.
Just depends on the type of content Bert. The artificial restrictions are not
going away.
Do you really not see the difference between a hard limit caused by physics
and an artificial limit created by a signature on a piece of paper, Craig?
Yes, I see the differences clearly. The physical limits are transitory as
technology evolves. The limits imposed by licensing are independent of
technology and are used to maximize profits - they keep expanding and are used
to create competitive advantage, especially as it relates to exclusivity (at
both the national and regional levels).
They are critical because they pay the critical second revenue
streams for retransmission consent.
You're once again mired in the past. The second revenue stream, if at all,
will NOT be coming from the provider of the physical plant.
Really?
Internet streaming services don't have server farms?
Sling and Sony PSVue pay subscriber fees to the content owners just like the
wired MVPDs. Sony pays retransmission consent fees in the markets where they
sell the local broadcast signals; Sling DOES NOT provide access to the
broadcast networks, or local affiliates - they have not resolved the licensing
issues, despite the fact that they sell the local station packages via the DBS
service.
If the content owners use Hulu, DirecTV and Dish to deliver MVPD bundles they
will still be paid subscriber fees, and they will still collect retransmission
consent fees if the services offer local stations.
That was yesterday's model. Today's model is that the physical plant is
neutral. *If* the content owner distributes his content via a third party OTT
service, *then* the second revenue stream would come from that web portal,
Craig.
Duh.
That is what "moving the MVPD bundles to the Internet" means Bert. The pipe
evolves to broadband, and the content is delivered from a few national
head-ends. The local broadband providers may still host edge servers, and they
might still be able to insert local commercials. Time will tell.
Not from the ISP/broadband cable plant. The legacy MVPD "head end" morphs
into the ISP broadband infrastructure, with NO part to play in creating a
second revenue stream for content owners.
Time will tell. It will be years before the "head ends" disappear. Much can
change as the process evolves. Or the whole content business could implode and
something new take its place.
Some think that this is why Trump is running for President - to create public
demand for a new source of news and information that is not controlled by "The
Star Chamber."
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:
