Craig Birkmaier wrote: >> Linear streams are hardly the only requirement, Craig. Which is >> why I object to your use of the term, for "political gain" in >> arguing. If linear streams were the only requirement, then >> www.wwitv.com would qualify, or at least would qualify if it >> were by subscription. > > Really? Within the scope of what the FCC can regulate, they > ARE the ONLY thing addressed by the program access rules. You are barking up the wrong tree, Craig. Any content owner can decide to put "linear streams" on the Internet, as a ton of them do over www.wwitv.com, or as ESPN agreed to do over Sling TV, *without* having to beg anyone for anything. The MVPD rules you continue to talk about APPLY TO MIDDLEMEN. They are only there to allow MIDDLEMEN access to valuable content. They ARE NOT there to limit what content owners can do. > TV Everywhere allows cable and DBS MVPD subscribers to > access some of the linear content and VOD TVE is a middleman trying to preserve the legacy MVPD model, Craig. It has nothing to do with a content owner like Disney deciding what the heck, we'll go with this Sling TV thing, or with HBO potentially offering even linear streams on the OTT site (don't know why they would, but whatever). This is what the FCC says: "This IP transition will enable **cable operators** to untether their video offerings from their current infrastructure, and could encourage them to migrate their **traditional services** to Internet delivery." And Craig's reply is, > DUH. They are already doing this with TVE, Exactly. A middleman. If a middleman wants to emulate over IP what they do with MPEG-2 TS, they have to follow the rules. If the content owner puts stuff online, they can do whatever they please. That's why Sling TV *did not* evolve as the FCC was thinking. Disney agreed to do things a totally different way, and they do not need to go begging to the FCC for this. Nor does Sling TV carry broadcast stations. More from the FCC: "Specifying the circumstances under which an Internet-based provider may qualify as an MVPD, possessing the **rights as well as responsibilities** that attend that status, may incent new entry that will increase competition in video markets. In particular, extending program access protections to Internet-based providers would allow them to 'access critical programming needed to attract and retain subscribers.' And extending retransmission consent protections and obligations to those providers would allow them to enter the market 'for the disposition of the rights to retransmit broadcast signals.'" > The first part simply says that they can access and buy > linear program streams just as any other MVPD can. Duh, Craig. And it does not apply to Sling TV. Disney did not have to worry about changing its modus operandi. Nor does Sling TV have to meet whatever other mandates of MVPDs (local content, public affairs channels, bla bla bla). > The second part suggests that the FCC may be looking at requiring > OTT MVPDs to honor the retrans consent regimen: The second part also applies to middlemen. If ABC decides to put their prime time stream live online, for anyone to access, no one can stop that. On the other hand, if a MIDDLEMAN wants to do this, that's a different matter. A content owner agreeing to be an OTT site, or to deal with an OTT site, does NOT have to worry about these FCC rules which apply to middlemen. > It is exactly what the FCC thought. It is an internet MVPD service. Craig being his usual stubborn, obstinate self. In spite of the utterly obvious. 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.