[opendtv] Re: Gatekeepers of Cable TV Try to Stop Intel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:02:28 -0400
On Jun 16, 2013, at 7:13 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> 1. How to access the content you want - access, price and bundling
>> issues
>
> Easy to solve, and the technical aspects have already been solved. Now the
> definition of MVPD has to be allowed to evolve.
This is NOT a technology problem Bert. It is business and politicos. Clearly
the ways in which we are accessing content are evolving - but the MVPD business
model is a huge impediment, and it is far from clear that the FCC can break up
this oligopoly with a new definition for MVPD.
>> 2. How to build value around "your service" via improved human
>> interface;
>
> You mean, just like any other web site on the Internet?
No Bert. A web browser is not the answer to everything. Human Interface is a
complex area which may involve the use of multiple devices to control the home
entertainment (and control) experience. As we move to HTML5 it may be possible
to build better websites, including sites that emulate Apps which can run on
any device. But current web site technology is not the next big thing for the
family room.
>
>> 3. How to build value around "your service" via interoperability
>> with the mobile devices you use;
>
> I can't even parse that one. Unless you're championing the cause of mobile
> devices only able to access certain sites, which I definitely would not,
> "interoperability" is the job of the IETF! And they have been doing it well.
> Those who deliberately try to thwart that interoperability hardly get my
> support.
Then maybe you should have paid more attention to the Comcast presentation.
They already have a family of Apps that work with Xfinity; these apps can
handle functions such as remote control, and they can become second screens for
Comcast content.
The IETF does ratify standards for the ongoing evolution of the Internet, but
they do not determine how devices and services interact. That is the domain of
the marketplace, where companies compete with both hardware and software to
create services that we use for nearly every aspect of our digital lives.
I will agree that the Internet has played a significant role in enabling and
promoting interoperability concepts, yet we still see many vertical markets
where devices do not interoperate well.
Giving you access to content that is only available via MVPD bundles is NOT a
question of interoperability. Clearly any content can be delivered OTT; it is
equally clear that this is not happening because of politics and business
models.
>> 4. How to create innovative new services (both hardware and cloud
>> based) that create demand (stickiness) for your service.
>
> Web site designers always go for that, and no reason to believe it should be
> different for TV.
What has web site design got to do with this? Yes they want to create services
that are sticky; GMail and Google Docs are good examples; but it is the
service, not the technical implementation that makes them sticky. In the case
of the family room, the company(s) that can pull all the pieces together in a
functional ecosystem may be able leverage multiple devices and services via the
TV.
And now it appears that the cable guys may finally have figured out how to do
this. Nothing new here; the Time Warner Full Service Network was going to do
all of this; until the Internet came along and let companies and individuals
set up shop in cyberspace. There is still much to be learned in this area...
>
>> It is abundantly clear that Comcast is already thinking outside
>> "their box."
>
> The only thing that was "abundantly clear" is that Comcast created yet
> another proprietary cable STB, this time with a nicer UI, but an STB that is
> still digesting the same one-way broadcast streams as always. I'd expect the
> DBS companies have a greater incentive to take this approach, given that
> changing their infrastructure to two-way is far more complicated, and would
> reach far fewer subscribers.
The STB for the Full Service Network that rolled out in 1994, was a $3,000
Silicon Graphics workstation (a networked computer). This level of
functionality is now available on a $99 Apple TV or slightly more expensive
game consoles from Sony and Microsoft.
The box that Comcast may offer is now a commodity. The company may continue to
pursue this business, but it can just as easily open up its network to any
number of third party boxes. What is most important here, is what Comcast would
get in return; perhaps a cut of all transactions that take place via third
party devices?
It is too soon to know exactly where this is headed, but it is abundantly clear
that consumers now want to have access to the content that the MVPDs have tied
up on multiple screens. Comcast already allows this on many devices. The MVPDs
are going to leverage their current market position to stay in the game…
They do not want to be relegated to the role of an ISP in a intensely
competitive broadband market.
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.
Other related posts:
