[opendtv] Re: FCC wants to redefine MVPD
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 02:16:47 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
No Bert, it is the point. The FCC would not be doing a NPRM just
to create a definition.
I posted the damned link, Craig! And however you slice it, the FCC's proposed
definition can cover any number of by-subscription OTT sites. All they need is
a few linear streams. That's it
Furthermore, as I have pointed out repeatedly, the traditional
MVPD services are also evolving,
Sure, thanks to the healthy competition. Your arguments seem to be mostly that
regular MVPDs don't need to evolve, because (a) that "the bundle" will never
break up, (b) no one would ever want to use the alternative smaller bundles
from OTT sites, and (c) no one could possibly replace "the bundle" content with
anything similar an OTT site might offer. Craig's arguments are arguments one
would hear from MVPD PR departments, even while their engineering departments
are hard at work.
You are doing exactly what I suggested above. Cherry picking
questions to make your case. Sorry, but when you read the
entire NPRM
More proof that Craig DOES NOT READ. That link I provided was a short piece,
asking comments on this redefinition of the term. That's all. This is why you
won't learn new things, Craig. You don't even read.
I will bet anything that the FCC is not going to change the
definition of a MVPD to include a service from a single
conglom like CBS All Access.
You can bet all your want, and lose. Their request for comment is quite clear.
The simple fact is, this new definition is trivially easy for just about anyone
to meet. Even with CBS All Access and plus your imagined extra requirement,
Craig. All CBS All Access would need to do is to include the local affiliate's
multicast streams, and you got your other content right there. As long as it's
available by subscription, and includes linear streams, you're done. Read the
damned link. And now they can get even more stuff, thanks to the FCC.
Because you continue to tell us that the Internet is bringing
something new to the plate that was not possible with the
legacy technologies. That is just wrong.
It's true, it's obvious, and I've covered that multiple times, with examples,
too recently to bother repeating.
But the content owners say this is not possible. I disagree.
I believe they would drop most subscriber fees if faced with
the threat that people would not pay for them if they could
choose only the channels they watch.
You've gone back and forth on this, so whatever. Just recently, you were
arguing why bundles are essential to keep niche channels alive. Give it a rest,
Craig. You're thrashing about. Niche channels won't survive on ads alone, and
would not get the high subscription fees they would need by going a la carte.
So they would disappear.
And the net neutrality aspect is more coincidence than a reality.
We have only had a real net neutrality mandate for ONE WEEK, and
it is being challenged in court.
Challenged by who, Craig? The American people will not swallow a non-neutral
Internet at this point, and the FCC has the mail to prove it. Net neutrality is
essential, not just for a "reinvented" TV (which does not need Apple to figure
it out, in spite of that article you just posted), but also for anything else
which might EVENTUALLY conflict with the self-interests of the broadband
provider. I'll repeat: the Internet was introduced to people on **neutral**
telco lines. Those **neutral** lines were only narrowband. Eventually,
broadband was introduced, allowing Internet-based competition against the
broadband provider's self-interests, with outside-the-walls TV material. We
aren't going backwards on this, Craig, no matter what you might hope for.
You cannot argue on one hand that the Internet is changing
everything and enabling competition, and on the other hand say
that this is because of net neutrality.
Totally absurd, Craig. It is trivially easy to argue that neutrality of
infrastructure, in general, fosters competition, innovation, the whole economy.
Hardly matters what that infrastructure is.
Just as cellular telephony has allowed us to cut the cord of
legacy land lines,
Is that all, Craig? So, what if your iPhone could only communicate with other
iPhones? Or what if your AT&T service could only link to others on AT&T cell
network? You really don't see how neutrality plays in this, Craig? Honestly?
How do you shave the cord Bert?
You get rid of everything except basic service, for example. That's why ESPN
lost viewership.
Just one good example will suffice
Like I said, Craig, and demonstrated even at the top of this post, spoonfeeding
does not work. I have already posted one of those articles. It takes no time
for you to search this on your own, as you had to do with the LTE tower spacing
issue. HBO Go non-neutrality. Spend some quality time on this, Craig.
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:
