[opendtv] Re: Cox: Hard-wired cable users must soon switch to mini box | Gainesville.com
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 22:33:44 -0400
On May 3, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Okay, I wasn't clear. If Comcast wants to expand to an online nationwide
OTT-style presence, whether or not Comcast also owns NBC, why wouldn't
certain other content owners, say Scripps with Food and HDTV, or for that
matter even ESPN or HBO, consider becoming available over that Comcast OTT
service? As well as on other OTT sites that create appealing bundles?
First, HBO has no reason to hook up with Virtual MVPDs. They can sell their
bundle direct so they do not need to share the subscriber fees as they do with
the legacy MVPDs.
Second, did you notice who is not part of the Hulu VMVPD service?
Third, Comcast and NBC/Universal are already operating under a consent
agreement with the FCC; a condition of the merger. It is HIGHLY unlikely that
the FCC would allow Comcast to go after the subscribers of other MVPDs with a
VMVPD service.
But Cox and the other MVPDs would raise a stink.
Rather than raise a stink, which they are free to do of course, they can do
the same sort of thing instead. The FCC has not objected to Sling TV, and
shows no inclination to.
First, Sling is a subsidiary of a MVPD service that already operates with a
national footprint.
Second, other facilities based MVPD services that operate under franchise
agreements, face the same issues as Comcast, with respect to going after
potential subscribers in areas served by competitors.
Comcast already owns NBC, and yet they also carry Disney, Fox
, CBS, and other content. Says that content owners make whatever arrangements
they see benefitting themselves. In this new OTT model that is emerging, I
wouldn't automatically discount new arrangements. The FCC only complains when
competition is threatened. The opposite is the case here. Every player now
has access to the neutral Internet pipe.
It remains to be seen how the FCC will define and regulate VMVPDs. They "could"
require that the content owners license their networks to ANY VMVPD at fair and
reasonable pricing, as they do now with the DBS systems. Or they could et the
marketplace work it out.
Obviously new arrangements are happening. We will he to wait and see how
everything works out.
But that happened in an era when MVPDs had local monopolies on content
distribution. With OTT-style service, they do not.
That's not the way the FCC would look at it. They are concerned with market
dominance, not unlike the ownership caps on broadcast stations. They are
unlikely to allow one MVPD go after the customers of all of their
geographically constrained competitors.
The broadband part of their business is separate, and is mandated to be
content-neutral, so I don't see any potential for an erosion of competition.
I see the opposite, which the FCC should not object to.
We'll see...
As to Comcast expanding their broadband service footprint, that's an entirely
different topic. The FCC would likely object to that, exactly the same as
they now object to the TV networks owning too many OTA stations nationwide.
(Although even there, if wireless broadband becomes competitive with wired
broadband, the FCC might not care.)
So if the FCC would object to facilities based competition, why would they
allow the geographically constrained MVPDs to compete outside their franchise
areas?
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:
