[opendtv] Re: Cablevision to offer HBO Now streaming service - MarketWatch

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:51:45 -0400

On Mar 29, 2015, at 9:18 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> There goes Craig again, with his unsubstantiated, inflexible comments. We 
> know that's not true, Craig. At least, not always. I posted this article 
> already:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/12/comcast-to-stop-blocking-hbo-go-and-showtime-on-roku-streaming-devices/
> 
> I'll grant that HBO Go is not HBO Now, and that therefore the case for net 
> neutrality is much more tenuous, IMO. Still, the history of MVPDs (taking the 
> ISP role now) is clear -- one of non-neutrality, one of proprietary boxes and 
> walled gardens. It's in their DNA. So, that Ars Technica story is 
> unsurprising.

Actually there should be no difference between HBO Go and HBO Now. Both require 
a HBO subscription, and both require authentication. The issue with lack of 
support for specific hardware is quite troubling. This is the only case I have 
seen where an ISP is blocking a hardware platform; there have, and continue to 
be many cases where content owners block specific hardware. The only meaningful 
takeaway here is that whoever is blocking is doing so in an effort to negotiate 
some kind of fee to support the platform.

At least Comcast eventually supported Roku, although Roku my be paying for the 
support.

This is not a net neutrality issue per se' but is still troubling, given the 
years of failure by the FCC to implement the STB unbundling mandate from the 
1995 rewrite of the communications act. I do not have a problem with a 
negotiated exclusivity agreement, as was announced by HBO and Apple for HBO 
Now, or a service designed for specific hardware - e.g Sony Play Station 
Network (games) and Vue (VMVPD), Google Play, or Apple iTunes. But denial of 
service to specific hardware when a service claims to be open - e.g Hulu, ABC 
and CBS blocking Google TV, is wrong. And blocking subscribers from accessing a 
TVE site when the content owner pulls their content in a retrans consent 
dispute is troubling as well.


> 
>> Content owners may not be, especially when the block some devices
>> that can be used to stream their service.
> 
> Content owners don't have any "net neutrality" mandate placed on them. They 
> own the content.
> 
> BUT
> 
> I always look at "natural self-regulating mechanisms," before suggesting to 
> impose artificial ones. And content owners, by nature, would never want to 
> limit who can consume their content. So it does not usually behoove them to 
> block any device from access, except under quite unusual circumstances. Plus, 
> they also know that there are plenty of OTHER content owners out there, who 
> can provide a viable alternative to consumers, if they get too greedy.

This still gets back to playing gatekeeper and trying to force the hardware 
makers to pay the content owner to support their hardware.  This is far more 
troubling to me than the few cases of blocking or throttling that were used by 
the FCC to justify Title II regulation. 
> 
> On the other hand, middlemen, especially when they are "the only game in 
> town" for a particular service, e.g. broadband providers, definitely do 
> benefit imposing limits.

It's one thing to require a content management system to protect the content - 
e.g. cable card. It's quite another to pick and choose among devices that 
properly implement security. That's just highway robbery.


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:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2015