Craig Birkmaier wrote: >> When Apple invented the iPhone, they didn't have a cell network of their >> own. Ideally, they would have simply created a generic smartphone that >> could run on any cell network, without need for collusion. But they >> couldn't, the way cellcos operate. Unfortunately, in the US, that's how >> this still works for wireless telephony (although no longer for wired >> telephony - anyone can make telephones for the wired telcos). > > What an amazing re-write of history. > > If ever there was a walled garden it is the U.S> telephone industry. Thank you for restating what I just said. (What an amazing lack of reading comprehension.) > Apple convinced AT&T to change the business model. Like I just finished saying (above), ideally Apple and anyone else could have designed generic smartphones that could be used on any network, just like we can now buy generic land line phones to use on any telco RJ-11 jack. So Apple is playing the same collusion game with MVPDs that it previously played with the AT&T cellco. To the consumer, it's more of the same. Collusion between hardware maker and service provider. The name "Apple" does not change anything in this regard. > The important take away here is that EVERYONE is negotiating with the > content owners in an attempt to bring some real competition to the TV > business, much as we are now seeing with the mobile telephony business. Overstated, Craig. The companies **hosting content** have to deal with content owners (and rightfully so). The companies developing the devices to watch TV *DO NOT NEED* to collude with anyone. All they need to do is to meet the interface standards. This same story has been out a long time now. Apple is simply trying to horn in on the proprietary, non-interoperable STB game, outdoing the incumbent proprietary, non-interoperable STB makers, nothing more and nothing less. For the consumer, it's the same old game. One more box to prop up the aging MVPD model. Just like I said at the top of my first reply ("Same-o same-o"). The only reason you think this is different, Craig, is that you're an Apple acolyte. But to the non-zealot consumer, whether Apple or Scientific Atlanta make the non-standard box, big whoop. > Why do the content owners care about the MVPD bundles? > > 1. That's where most viewing takes place; > 2. They get a subscriber fee from everyone, not just those willing to > pay for that channel; > 3. They are guaranteed that people can watch their channels - without > the bundles people could choose NOT to pay for those channels. Repeating myself: all the content owner wants is revenue. If some other distribution system can create the same or more revenue for the content owner, using either some different bundling scheme or whatever other means, the content owner has no reason to insist on the *incumbent* MVPDs. > Bert has a point, that thew Sky content was already available over > the Internet. But it is not available, for example, on my Cox Cable > bundle. It's available over your Cox broadband service or it's available over your DSL broadband service, AND it's also available to any WiFi hotspot you might use on the run. So it's already available to any media you might need. The ONLY technically valid question is, why are the dunderhead TV appliance makers not making this easy for your TV set to capture? This is supposed to be a technical forum? The technically meaningful question is, why can't TV sets capture these FOTI streams? It's ridiculous to pretend that Apple is required to solve this "intractable" problem. 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.