[opendtv] Re: Best apps to enhance your Super Bowl 50 viewing experience | Fox News Video
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 21:11:47 -0500
On Feb 7, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
I don't know why you feel it necessary to kill a service
You mean, migrate and old, inflexible, anticompetitive service, to something
that the viewing public actually wants (as opposed to have crammed down its
throat) and that can also expand the service providers own audience?
I thought you liked to watch CBS.
We were not talking about killing MVPDs Bert. We were talking about killing
live linear TV networks. Some are only available from MVPDs; some are also
available for free from broadcasters. And some of the programs they deliver
live are now available as Internet catch-up and SVOD services.
You keep complaining about "oligopoly." So I don't understand this. Who is
paying you to encourage the "oligopoly" to keep operating as one?
Nobody Bert. I am not encouraging this.
I am describing the realities of the TV business.
Your contention that this PRIVATELY OWNED bandwidth is being
wasted and should be used for broadband, so everyone can stream
TV entertainment from the Internet, completely ignores the reality
that almost everyone who wants to do this can.
Then there you go, Craig. Like I said, nothing new is needed here.
Then stop telling the MVPDs they need to kill their in-band services and use
all the recovered spectrum for broadband.
Just market these new IP-based TVs and STBs, the viewing public will force
the TVE options to be expanded just because they will demand it (or find
alternatives), resulting in more demand for broadband, and your
obstructionism will become history.
As you already noted, IP-based TVs, STBs, game consoles and PC already exist.
TVE already exists, and the options are expanding rapidly.
But content is moving behind pay walls, not into the free and clear. Broadband
has nothing to do with it. Most of the TV content people watch over broadband
is tied to paid services.
All we are talking about here is the monthly STB rental fee.
If you're among the 25+% of households with no broadband,
Where did you pull that spec out of?
Did we not already see that something over 70% of US households is connected
to broadband? So tell us Craig, how many households are NOT connected to
OVER 80% OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS GET BROADBAND AT HOME
78% with Broadband at Home also Access the Internet on a Smartphone
Durham, NH -- December 3, 2015 -- New consumer research from Leichtman Research
Group, Inc. (LRG) found that 81% of US households get a broadband Internet
service at home, an increase from 26% in 2005. Broadband now accounts for 97%
of all households with Internet service at home -- an increase from 91% in
2010, and 40% in 2005.
Overall, 84% of households get an Internet service at home, and 69% of adults
access the Internet on a smartphone. While the percentage of households getting
an Internet service at home is similar to three years ago, those accessing the
Internet on a smartphone increased from 44% in 2012.
So the answer is 19%. Another 3% have Internet access that is not characterized
as broadband. I doubt that this report is based on the new FCC definition of
broadband as 25/3. But the 2016 FCC broadband progress report tells us that 90%
of homes have access to 25/3...
So if you are among the 19% of households that do not have broadband it is
either by choice, or because you can't afford it, or you live in the limited
areas where it is not available.
And by the way, I have only ~1.8 Mb/s service, downstream, and that's enough
for one person streaming TV. So forget this idea that you need at least 25
I never said you do. That's the new definition from the FCC.
I already explained that satellite broadband, or other new WISPs, would be
required for rural settings. But don't be disingenuous. Percentagewise, these
are small numbers. In urban and suburban settings, connecting more homes to
broadband should be a relatively low cost endeavor, if the MVPDs eliminate
their broadcast streams.
How does eliminating the broadcast streams change anything?
Why would this make broadband cheaper?
t would make it necessary for people who subscribe only to lifeline TV services.
And it could make it more expensive for many families that would need more
bandwidth and higher data caps to replace the multiple broadcast channels they
Be careful what you ask for.
Or do you expect the FCC to lower broadband rates using Title II regulatory
Naturally, they can choose not to take the easy way out, and spend more money
to meet the increasing demand. That would push up their subscription prices,
especially for those who depend staunchly on the more anticompetitive
services, like Craig.
Either way they need to spend more money...
To make more money!
Other related posts: