This is the complete reply.
On Jan 30, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 29, 2016, at 9:19 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Similar to this STB discussion, the FCC's notion of what a TV content
distribution service should look like emulates a model that was developed 40
years ago. The world has moved way beyond that. At the VERY LEAST, the
emphasis on so-called "linear channels" is utterly misplaced. The American
public has moved way beyond such quaint notions.
The FCC did not create the MVPD business model, and the world has not moved
beyond it. It is a huge business that more than 80% of U.S. homes still pay
monthly fees to use.
The FCC created he program access rules to enable MVPD competition. It
allowed the DBS systems to access the same content as the cable monopolies.
One would think that you would applaud this Bert.
The VMVPD proceeding is trying to determine if the FCC should step in again
and require the content owners to make the content in the MVPD bundles
available to new competitors using the Internet for distribution. For
example, companies like Apple, Google. And Amazon, who refuse to agree to the
same bloated pricing for the same bloated bundles.
I have heard comments from some folks at the FCC that they believe this may
not be necessary, and/or would not work. I agree. The FCC can require the
content owners to offer their programming to new OTT competitors, but the
likely result will be what we see with Sony Play Station Vue - the same
inflated bundles and pricing.
Unfortunately, the FCC either lacks the authority, or the balls, to force the
content owners and MVPDs to sell channels on an ala carte basis. Thus new
competitors have no alternative to negotiating with the content owners and
working around the edges of the core problem. This is why you see the deals
that allow some content to be available on the IP appliances you hate.
It looked like Apple was close to putting a deal together, but in the end the
content owners said no. It may happen some day, but not now.
The emphasis on linear channels is critical - that's where some of the most
valuable content resides, and these channels are at the core of the
promotional engine that creates the demand for their programming.
It should be obvious to everyone, that linear channels alone are no longer
sufficient. That is why we are seeing TV Everywhere and other hybrid services
like CBS All Access. Consumers are interested in both live and on demand.
VOD eliminates the need for a DVR for most programming - it could be ALL
programming if the content owners were willing to support this, but that is
unlikely. For example, I would not expect the NFL to set up streaming so you
could start 30 minutes late and skip the commercials.
As for the EETimes and NY Times articles, it is clear that the
content and distribution oligopolies are not going to roll over.
No, they are taking the bull by the horns on their own, though, without
having to be told. The "oligopoly" only exists to the extent that consumers
slavishly (or lazily) comply with the legacy demands of the distribution
service, even when they no longer need to. More cord shaving and more
cutting is all that's needed here.
No Bert. MASSIVE cord cutting would be needed to force the oligopolies to
change their ways and stop bundling around their most popular content.
It "could" happen some day. Just as Moonves and his pals "could" start
selling their content ala carte at reasonable prices.
But TVE is a new service operated primarily by the content owners.
The legacy MVPDs only operate the authentication servers.
Ain't that great? The MVPDs provide the broadband access link, and try to
extend their old local monopoly by handling the authentication aspect. This
artificially links a user's home address with the service that is permitted
to authenticate the user.
Also extending the limited legacy "bundling" options artificially. The basic
point is, though, that the machinery that makes the content distribution
system work is all in place, and standardized. STBs are unused and
unnecessary. And the restrictive authentication service is easily replaced.
Yup. And You are still wrong.
How much do you want to be that by now, a lot MORE than 53% of TV is being
consumed on demand?
How do you forget what's being discussed, even in the course of a single
post? What "needed standards" are still to be developed? All of this has
already been resolved. The IETF has been doing this work for 45 years
already. TVE works now, as do any number of OTT sites. What
johnny-come-lately new players and new standards do you think we need?
There is NO evidence that the MVPD bundles suddenly broke up.
Really? I can get ESPN without MVPD subscription,
without being tied to someone's specific facility, without some unnecessary
STB, all of which you claimed would "never happen," and it's my imagination
that is running wild?
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.
Utterly nonsensical. DBS is one-way broadcast.
We have been over this time and time again. Any pretense of "IP," over a
one-way broadcast medium, is pure make-believe sound-good propaganda. IP
overhead, on packets sent over one-way broadcast media, is just wasted
overhead that serves no purpose.
Read RFC 791. The whole point of IP overhead is to ROUTE packets, over 2-way
networks, between individual end points. And please don't bother recycling
the "multicast" argument. We've already gone around that circle multiple
times. Multicast is hardly like broadcast. Look again at RFC 1112, for
starters.
DBS would have to reinvent itself as a satellite broadband service, to use
IP in a way that makes sense. Alternatively, DBS can become an OTT site, and
ride piggy-back on the existing Internet, much like Sling TV does.
