[opendtv] Re: Commissioner Copps on the Fox vs Cablevision dispute
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:29:54 -0400
At 6:12 PM -0500 10/24/10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
BUT, the fact that ABC, CBS, and NBC might be blocking their
content from Google
(and therefore from Google TVs) is another matter entirely. That
is certainly
their right.
Who is the middleman here Bert?
Google, and the CE manufacturer that forces the consumer to use
Google (or a handful of other sites). The two have colluded, to make
Google a mandatory middleman. Or so I have to believe.
Bert
Ever hear the old saying: Engage brain before opening mouth?
Apparently, despite the fact that I have tried to educate you to the
fact that Google and Sony are not acting as middlemen, "you believe"
that they are.
You might want to look at the following site to learn exactly what
Google TV IS.
http://www.google.com/tv/
Or perhaps you would prefer a third party explanation:
http://gizmodo.com/5543822/what-is-google-tv
It's a software platform...
You know how the Nexus One is a piece of hardware by HTC that runs
Android, a piece of software by Google? That's how Google TV will
work. At its heart, Google TV is a platform. It's software. Hardware
makers will need to step up to use it in their devices.
The only difference between Google TV and Internet Explorer is that
it is web browser software that has been optimized to work with a TV
and other products that may be connected to the TV, or used to
control it.
According to the web sites cited above, you can use Goggle TV to
access ANY website. It is not limited to accessing a few sites like
Apple TV, nor does it require that video content be accessed via
Google or Sony servers.
> Is Microsoft the middleman when you use Internet Explorer to access Hulu?
I can use any browser to access Hulu. No one is forcing me to use
just one brand of browser. No one is preventing my browser from
accessing sites other than Hulu. So no, your example is completely
irrelevant.
Google TV is a browser Bert. It is not the Google Chrome browser, it
is browser software that is optimized for accessing the Internet via
a TV rather than a PC. Goggle does have recommended hardware
specifications to use this software, just as there are "hardware
requirements" to run Windows 7 and Internet Explorer.
ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking access to their content on Hulu for TVs
using the Google TV browser.
What I have been saying is absolutely relevant. And you are completely wrong.
What collusion is happening with Google TV?
When TV manufacturers only allow access to a handful of sites, e.g.
to GoogleTV, that is definitely collusion. It's saying to the buying
public, "You can watch TV over the Internet, but we (the CE company)
have agreed behind closed doors that we will limit your access only
to certain sites, with which we have made certain undefined, under
the table agreements, that you don't need to know about. And you are
given no options to select any other sites." Sounds like collusion
to me.
There is no Google TV website. Look at the URL above. it is
google.com/TV and what you will find there is information about the
Google TV platform...not TV content.
Is Google or Sony blocking access to any websites?
If Sony TVs only allows access to online TV through certain sites,
then yes, Sony is limiting access. The Sony Vaio STB did NOT do
this, but it seems that the new Internet connected TVs are. Our LG
BluRay player, for example, certainly does limit what sites you can
go to. One of them is NetFlix. I forget the other three or four. But
literally, it's only that many sites. Can I go to www.tf1.fr with
that box? No. Why not? And I can't change that (well, maybe with
some fancy hacking).
Clearly there are products for use with a TV that do not provide
unfettered Internet Access. Apple TV is one example. Roku is another:
http://www.roku.com/roku-products?gclid=CKWa64To7KQCFaFa7AodUApRRg
It is worth noting that the Roku boxes will provide access to Hulu
Plus when the service becomes available in the coming months. So it
appears that the folks who own Hulu have no problem allowing you to
use a device like the Roku box if you pay a subscription fee ala
Netflix; but they won't let the same box access the ad supported Hulu
service.
Who;s the gatekeeper here Bert?
> But what is Google doing that is any different than accessing
Hulu via a PC based
web browser?
Must be doing something with the CE companies, if the these CE
companies agree to allow access to Internet TV only through Google
and a couple of others. Mostly, it's the CE manufacturers' approach
that I dislike intensely (since I don't know what the few sacred web
sites are doing to achieve that status), and I cannot blame the
content owners for rejecting this distribution model.
Would you feel better if the CE manufacturers built a PC into their
TVs and used Internet Explorer to access Hulu?
Your arguments ring rather hollow.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that RIM should not be using the
Internet to access the servers that provide services to their
smartphones.
This Bert is the kind of stuff that happens when businesses run to the
politicians for protection and market advantage.
Politicians are doing this? I doubt it very much, Craig. Politicians
may have created the OTA TV national cap and local caps, but so far,
they have not done any such thing for the Internet. Therefore, what
I see is that the congloms are objecting strenuously to the idea
that TV manufacturers are trying to control access to the congloms'
content by making agreements behind the backs of the congloms. And I
cannot blame the congloms at all. I would do the same thing, most
likely.
How bizarre. You have it exactly backwards. It is the congloms that
are requiring Apple, Google, Sony, Roku, et al to enter into
agreements to access their content. It is the congloms that are
blocking access to their sites for certain devices.
If your beer were under heavy demand, and whatever distributor you
are using now was doing things you didn't like, I'm sure you would
have a say in that. Either set the distributor straight, or use some
other distributor.
More proof that you are not paying attention. Once I sign a contract
with a beer distributor in the State of Florida I lose control. I am
at their mercy.
I can try to work with the distributor to further our mutual goals,
but I cannot fire them and hire another distributor. The sad fact is
that many beer distributors are entering into contracts with craft
beer brands then sitting on them and doing nothing. The ONLY recourse
we have is to refuse to ship product to them and look to other
markets where we can establish distribution, or do as Bells did and
stop selling our product and create another brand.
If you feel vulnerable to the whims of your distributor now, it is
only because you are a microbrewery. But CBS, NBC, and ABC are
hardly micro-anything. They do not have to feel vulnerable to any
handful of web sites. They have their own web sites, and/or they can
pick and choose who to do business with. Why? Because consumers get
in an uproar if middlemen can't deliver the conglom content.
Consumers are in an uproar because the congloms use their content as
a weapon to reach deeper into our pockets. They are in an uproar
because that are forced to pay for content they do not want or watch.
And they are upset that the congloms seek to extend this
anti-competitive business model through the Internet.
Funny how there is all kinds of noise about "network" neutrality, when it
comes to the business that is providing Internet Access, BUT, it
is perfectly
OK for a television network to block access to its content to specific ISPs
and devices...
Net neutrality SO FAR has been addressed only to the ISP. But what's
the point of making the pipe "neutral" if you're going to turn
around and allow device manufacturers (special interests) to limit
your access to that scrupulously "neutral" pipe? For some reason,
you have missed that part of the equation.
I have not missed a thing.
The device manufacturers are limited in the content they can offer.
There is no "neutrality" with respect to the deals for their content.
They can charge one device manufacturer/store one price, negotiate
another price for a different device manufacturer, and block others.
If you doubt this, this is exactly what has happened with music sales
via the Internet, and it is now happening with TV content as well.
Furthermore, any device that offers only limited access to content
streamed via an IP connection states this up front as part of the
business/product proposition. You yourself stated above that you
purchased an LG BluRay player that allows access to Netflix and a few
other sites. Apparently you brain is saying one thing and you mouth
is saying another.
Consumers are free to evaluate the value propositions of any device
and the services that they can access. And believe it or not, some
people may not want to extend the PC experience to their TVs.
You are very critical of Apple and the ecosystem they have developed
around their growing range of devices. Apparently this does not
bother some people, as Apple will soon become the worlds most
valuable public company. Its all about the value proposition and the
end user experience.
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:
