On Oct 1, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig has not heard the news: connected ;(to the Internet) TVs, as well as
outboard devices to connect TVs to the neutral Internet, are utterly
commonplace. Craig thinks the big TV still needs that proprietary STB.
Perhaps the problem is that the FCC commissioners and the hand-wringers, and
Craig, are too wedded to the legacy model to appreciate that the future is
here. It's a problem of lack of perspective.
Blah blah blah...yes Bert we know that there are smart TVs, the little boxes
you hate, game consoles and other devices connected to the big TV in the
family room. That does not change the fact that nearly 100 million homes
still subscrib to a MVPD service, and nearly all of these people still use a
MVPD supplied STB.
Only a handful of people get their MVPD service from Sling or Sony PS Vue.
Meanwhile the majority of MVPD subscribers DO use a connected TV device to
use TV Everywhere Apps and SVOD services like Netflix.
I'm not wedded to the past, just stuck in FCC limbo - the FCC was supposed to
open up the market for STBs TWO DECADES AGO.
Bert has been critical of TV Everywhere,
Yes, but not when it comes to providing an easy path to the third party
cable STB. So for this discussion, TVE is the perfect response to the FCC.
And access to the Internet too, of course, only strengthens the point.
Which is EXACTLY the point. As you pointed out when you posted this article,
were nearly there WITHOUT the FCCs help. Yet the FCC now wants to regulate
connected TV devices and services, after twenty years of allowing the MVPDs
to keep forcing subscribers to rent STBs.
And this is a trap Craig falls into time and time again. There is no issue
with licenses that the content owners and the content distributors can't
work out.
Yup. So why does the FCC need to stick their nose into these licensing
agreements?
Licenses are not divinely chiseled in stone, and content owners are hardly
likely to let their audience evaporate. Once the garden walls are breached,
as they have been, there is no need for FCC regulation. FCC regulation has
to make sure the garden walls can be bypassed, and they do that already.
Thanks. So you are now saying that the FCC should leave this NPRM sitting on
the table, and just let the marketplace work things out.
Craig's flowery rhetoric. They already were monopoly powers, Craig, for
reasons beyond government control. Plus, it's hardly an issue of "one the
one hand, and on the other hand" from the providers' perspective. Rather,
this is all part of the only solution feasible to date.
Bull. The Title II decision, and proposals like this NPRM are having a
chilling effect on potential competition.
FiOS and Google Fiber failed to expand for economic reasons. It's just plain
expensive.
Yup. I told you that for a month or two before you finally understood.
Craig has not been able to demonstrate that Title II causes this large
expense.
It does not cause the expense Bert. It casts a cloud over the potential
investment. It adds risk to a tenuous decision.
It's expensive because it's a hugely labor-intensive effort. That's why
Title II was necessary, and that's why the door is rightfully wide open for
government regulation.
No Bert it is NOT a justification for Title II, which cannot be justified at
all.
The Internet was getting along just fine without government micromanagement.
It is just another example of how the government gets its nose under the
tent, then creates monopolies for the mutual benefit of the monopolists and
the government's that tax the service.
I suspect in this case it was the carrot to appease the cable companies
before the FCC starts using the stick. Cable has a viable future as the
broadband monopoly, and the content owners get total control over
distribution.
I call collusion what is collusion. You didn't need any individual
"agreement" between broadcasters, or TV networks, and your Admiral TV set in
the past. Or even today, to a PC. A "good example" is not at all what Craig
mentioned.
A good example is instead that his Apple TV cannot use Yahoo View, in spite
of the fact that Yahoo has obtained the rights to that Hulu content.
Really?
Apple TV is now an open platform for which anyone can create Apps. The app
must be approved by Apple, as is the case for every App in Apple's App Store.
This is not collusion, it is curation, to make certain app function properly
and do not contain any malware.
The only limitation is collecting money when selling through the App Store -
Apple takes 30% from app sales, in-app purchases, and subscriptions initiated
through the app. Recently Apple announced a concession on their cut of
subscription revenues; if a subscription is continued after one year Apple's
cut is reduced o 15%.
Hulu allows customers to subscribe through the Apple Apps for phone, tablet
and TV. Other services require the customer to subscribe via a website so
they don't have to give Apple a cut. The Kindle Reader App is a good example
- you can read any book you have purchased on an Apple device, but you can
only buy books directly from Amazon's website, or using a Kindle device.
As for Yahoo View, apps are now available for iPhones and iPads, thus I can
watch Yahoo View content using AirPlay on my Apple TV. There is a Yahoo app
on Apple TV, but it does not appear to include access to Yahoo View. There
could be several reasons for this:
- The Yahoo View App for Apple TV is still being developed.
- Hulu does not want Yahoo View on Apple TV - they want to sell Hulu
subscriptions.
Bert Iike's to call this stuff collusion. I call it the marketplace working.
The collusion between device makers and content owners is a fabrication of
the device makers, for their own self-interests only. No consumer benefits.
No. it is just the marketplace at work. And it provides the consumer with
multiple benefits:
- verification of the apps integrity and security for customer data.
- competition is providing more sources for both free and subscription
content.
- the government is not regulating access; companies can create exclusive
deals that can help promote their ecosystems and products.
Sorry, Craig, but this is FUD and scare mongering. They have no reason to
regulate competition, when it exists. Such regulation wouldn't stand up in
the courts.
Sorry Bert, but this is EXACTLY the point - the reason three commissioners
could not support the NPRM. The courts did not block the FCC decision to
force the content owners to license their networks to the DBS systems at the
same rates as the cable MVPDs.
Now, if this obstacle "STB" were allowed to remain in play, there might just
be collusion issues to deal with, for the "apps" in the STB. If instead it
is allowed to dwindle away on its own, then we have multiple appliances that
may or may not collude, but at least these appliances are in competition.
Regulation is not needed.
Something we can agree on.
Regards
Craig
