[opendtv] Re: EE Times: Set-Top Era Over, Says FCC

From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:23:20 -0500

On Jan 28, 2016, at 7:22 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The FCC is a bit like Craig. They think in terms of legacy technology only.
However, that doesn't mean that actual implementations of their basic
concepts would need to be so retro. Unlike 20 years ago, we now already have
obsoleted the whole concept of the MVPD STB. The MVPDs themselves have been
forced to move beyond, because that's what their customers want. Yes, there
are plenty of nostalgic luddites who still can't wrap their heads around this
newer reality, but the tea leaves are very easy to read.

To this point in time FCC attempts to open up the STB market have been a
MASSIVE FAIL. This has NOTHING to do with legacy technology. The FCC gave the
MVPDs a 20 YEAR extension to a lucrative monopoly.

And nothing about the Internet and IP streaming changes this reality. You still
need some kind of appliance to handle the IP streams, DRM, audio/video
decoding, and navigation/program guides. Many existing MVPD STBs are already
doing this to offer IP streams to new screens inside the home.

I do agree that the shift to IP streaming does create a new opportunity for the
FCC to Do what Congress authorized more than 20 years ago.

The idea that we would have to revisit the arguments of 20 years ago is about
as useful as the idea that the Internet should be used to duplicate the
legacy (restrictive) MVPD model, using the FCC's definition of VMVPD. It's
legacy thinking. Somehow, reading this EE Times article, the similarity in
retro thinking couldn't be missed.

Sorry, but this is a different discussion. The VMVPD NPRM may be related as it
relates to the technologies/protocols required, but that proceeding is about
program access for new competitors, not consumers.

By your own arguments, there will be little difference between a VMVPD and a
legacy MVPD that moves to IP transport.

As for the EETimes and NY Times articles, it is clear that the content and
distribution oligopolies are not going to roll over. That is why I provided the
analogy to the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services. As you
correctly noted, the technical issues have mostly been solved. But the business
issues are quite complicated. And there is the minor issue of how long the
legacy MVPDs can drag their heels transitioning from MPEG-2 transport to IP
streaming.

Assuming that the FCC approves this proposed rule making, and
an industry panel is created to implement it, how many years
will that take?

It takes no time to implement. When you use TVE today, you bypass the
antediluvian STB, and you bypass whatever special DRM that STB provides, and
ain't it incredible, the signal is already compatible with your IP appliance.

Correct. But TVE is a new service operated primarily by the content owners. The
legacy MVPDs only operate the authentication servers. And the current system
for authentication is a joke. All you need to do is borrow someone's username
and password; clearly this is intentional, encouraging consumers to learn about
and get hooked on the service.

You can bet your last dollar that whatever these oligopolies agree to in terms
of authentication, to access their systems, will be far more sophisticated than
a username and password.

So Bert. What makes you think this attempt to open up this
market is going to "happen quite rapidly?"

Because there is nothing new to invent. Remember how I said that the
old-school broadcast streams will decline, and you insist they'll go on
forever?

Yup. And You are still wrong.

And you are fooling yourself if you think that the parties to this new FCC
effort will suddenly start singing "Kumbaya," develop the needed standards, and
implement them in a matter of months.

Sorry, Craig, but those old-school broadcast streams could just disappear in
a matter of months, or very few years, if the FCC manages to get this passed.

Sorry but this NPRM has nothing to do with old school broadcast streams; even
if everything is implemented in this decade, live linear channels are not going
to disappear; the way they are delivered will simply evolve.

Why? Because it will be in the best interest of all involved *not* to
reinvent the wheel. This would be one incentive to move everything to IP
delivery ASAP. You know, just like your "the bundle" suddenly broke up. These
things seem to happen a lot faster than you imagine.

Your imagination continues to run wild. There is NO evidence that the MVPD
bundles suddenly broke up. They are evolving, and many new walled garden
bundles are being created as OTT services.

Let's not confuse two different topics. In order to move all of their MVPD
walled-in content to IP, for the purpose of meeting this hypothetical new law
easily, the MVPD does not need to observe net neutrality on the slice of
capacity that handles this walled up content.

Thank You.

Now sure, having moved to an all-IP scheme, it would seem foolish for MVPDs
to not branch out, becoming more of an OTT service. But that is another
discussion.

If the MVPDs continue to use all (DBS), or a portion of their bandwidth
(cable/FIOS), for in-band IP streams, nothing changes. These services will
still be limited to the reach of their umbilicals. Becoming OTT services is
certainly possible, but is limited by licensing agreements, not technology.

As to QoS, you tend to over-hype the problem. We have already seen that the
very vast majority of MVPD net capacity is wasted on one-way broadcast
streams. Freeing up that capacity will do wonders for QoS. The actual,
real-world, practical way of offering good QoS, over IP, has always been to
offer lots of excess capacity. And since this is doable on the cheap,
compared to circuit-switched systems, that's how QoS is managed in reality.

I mentioned QOS simply because the FCC has already implied that advantaging any
OTT service with a "fast lane" would violate net neutrality. What a system does
for in band services CAN guarantee QOS.

You missed it, Craig. If the DBS services remain old tech, they won't be able
to exploit existing standards to achieve this new FCC goal.

DBS is already ahead of cable. They can transition to any IP delivery standard
the industry and FCC can agree on. But it will not be part of the Internet.

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.

References:
- [opendtv] Re: EE Times: Set-Top Era Over, Says FCC
  - From: Manfredi, Albert E

[opendtv] Re: EE Times: Set-Top Era Over, Says FCC

Other related posts: