[opendtv] Re: FCC wants to redefine MVPD
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:25:20 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
I acknowledge that the NCTA does not want more competition via the
Internet.
That's beside the point. The point is, instead, that the term "MVPD" is not
well defined anymore, or agreed upon by the players, nor has it been
definitively redefined even by the FCC itself.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-63A1.pdf
You stubbornly broadened its meaning, without acknowledging that you were doing
so, only to continue with your mantra about MVPD content. Fact is, the online
OTT sites bear almost no resemblance to traditional MVPDs, no matter how you
slice it. And, they are so different and so competitive that they are now
starting to "encourage" the traditional MVPDs to make big changes in their own
offerings. Changes which **had not happened in decades**, garden walls being
what they were.
The FCC NPRM asks whether they should extend the program access
rules to virtual MVPDs.
No, Craig. That's only part of what the FCC is asking. Read this:
"In the NPRM, the Commission requests comment on a proposed interpretation of
the term 'multichannel video programming distributor' ..."
Quoted directly from that link I just posted. They are asking, not telling yet,
and they are proposing that "multiple linear streams for purchase" might be the
only requirement. Which means, no ownership of infrastructure, and no
insistence that the linear streams be MPEG-2 TS broadcasts, or analog
broadcasts. That's what the FCC is asking.
With that redefinition, I'd say that CBS All Access would also qualify, as long
as they have "multiple linear streams" in that mix. Note: the FCC is not even
suggesting that the various linear streams belong to different congloms.
You ignore the fact that the traditional MVPDs offered more than
linear networks before OTT became a practical reality,
Exactly how do you conclude that I ignored that, or anything else? You seem to
have this irresistible urge to advertise the wonders of old school walled
gardens? Why is that? A few years back, you were all in favor of "a la carte."
What happened, Craig? Change of heart?
As for exact replicas, this does not exist even among facilities
based MVPDs.
Craig contradicting himself when it is convenient to do so. Yes, the bundles
might not be identical, even though you yourself claimed they were. Remember
when I was pointing out why networks like ESPN and others on the "the bundle"
may not have lost EXACTLY the same number of subscribers, with all the cord
shaving and cord cutting going on? Because the numbers of lost subscribers for
ESPN and others were not identical? Predictably, your response at the time was
that the figures had to be bogus, because all of the "the bundles" were
basically identical. I explained why, Craig, but you insisted. And now? About
face? Repeating my words back to me? What?
Facilities based MVPDs can also compete based on flexibility.
Actually they already do. Just call and threaten to cut the cord
and they will pull out the unpublished price list.
So to begin with, I've never limited to what extent your "facilities based
MVPDs" can or cannot provide more competitive options. My point has
consistently been that in the past, as the only game in town (or at least, in
that neighborhood), they had **no reason to**. And that is indisputable. As I
already said many times, now that OTT competition exists, they are making
changes. Only because that ubiquitous OTT competition exists, over the
mandated-to-be-neutral Internet broadband pipes. For no other reason.
That's what props up the bundles. It is the leverage that the
content owners use to sell/require the carriage of all of the
second tier rerun channels.
Aaargh! More circular arguments. The simple fact is, when competing OTT sites
grab your subscribers away, you, the content owner of previously walled up
content, re-evaluate your previous positions. HBO did so, and explicitly said
so, in articles we have seen. ESPN did so, and is planning on doing more of
this. Competition gives the customer leverage, Craig. How many times do I need
to repeat this and provide examples? Can we move beyond please?
No doubt some people cut the cord and subscribed to Netflix,
Cut and shave. ESPN lost viewership, as did HBO, because of this. Again, why
are you rehashing old news?
But the majority of Netflix subscribers ALSO subscribe to a
MVPD service.
Cord shaving is a bigger phenomenon than cord cutting. By the way, it took me
about a millisecond with a search engine to find multiple articles about
non-neutral treatment of HBO Go. But since spoonfeeding doesn't ever seem to
work, sorry but I have to be blunt, best you search this out on your own.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
