On Sep 2, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As in several cycles of this same point that have already occurred, your
proclamations are unfounded, Craig. The switch can occur a lot faster than
you think, in large measure because a lot more people are already streaming
than you think. Do not forget that you responded this same way, quite some
time ago, when you thought that only 4% of video content was being streamed.
Wrong then, wrong now. The switch can happen about as fast as individuals can
make the switch themselves.
Just as cable companies are doing, with coax. They repurposed the
infrastructure, using it for new services, to extend the transition to FTTH,
to make it more affordable. That's entirely different from luddites who
insist on watching by appointment TV through their legacy rented STB.
But those streams will not be anywhere near the quality of 3-4
HD streams delivered via MPEG-2TS.
"Anywhere near?" Says who?
Prove it. For one thing, a lot of what's on MPEG-2 TS now is very compressed,
because it is wastefully broadcast 24/7. You may easily get better quality,
on a unicast with an edge media server. I get better quality in my streaming
TV content, over DSL, than (for example) I get out of France 24 broadcasts,
which are one stream of six, in the 6 MHz multiplex.
But that was not via the Internet. The vast majority of this
was MVPD DVRs.
Really Craig? Vast majority?
What was the perentage of time-shifted viewing, 1 1/2 years ago, that was DVR
as opposed to streaming?
By now you should have that memorized. Fact remains, people are not watching
a whole lot of linear TV anymore. There is REAL demand, as you say, for time
shifted viewing. And for this time shifted viewing, or for binge viewing,
DVRs are fading into the sunset. People stream, these days. They know how.
If the networks can force people to buy bundles, on a monopolistic medium,
arranging the price among themselves, take it or leave it, that's collusion.
On the Internet, instead, people DO NOT need to buy those
rammed-down-their-throats bundles, they don't even need to find all the TV
networks at the same web site. We already saw articles that explained this
phenomenon. Networks will definitely go it alone, or use combinations of
formats, if by doing so they capture more eyeballs. It's called greed, Craig,
and that's how business has to work. Networks are already using a mix of OTT
sites, not just one solution, so that's settled.
They cannot become national services because of licensing
restrictions.
BS. Licenses are constantly being revised, depending on the best interests of
the content owner. Once again, consult with Dish, and find out how it's done.
Don't tell me it can't be done?
That's bull. They never blocked any service.
That's bull. They behaved exactly as one would expect, but at exactly the
wrong time for their cause. If net neutrality was no big deal for them, as
you insist, there wouldn't have been all the uproar. They would have shrugged
it off. The fact that it caused so much angst is what proves you wrong, Craig.
What monopoly has remained, the broadband medium, is mandated to be service-
and content-neutral. Huge difference.
