Bert wrote:
"This is what the FCC could do, to speed this along. Mandate that every
MVPD must provide all of their walled-up content over IP (no big deal, TVE
goes a long way to doing this anyway). And let the marketplace do the rest."
Does this solve the problem?
First, what this proposal would do is turn all MVPDs into VMVPDs, correct?
If so, what are the ramifications? Here are a few I see:
1) Disconnects the MVPD service from the transmission provider so the
network provision would be by a third party. This presents some problems
for the current business models, which would have to make some radical
changes. Rather large Capex infrastructures would lose their ROI. I think
this would cause the distribution side to crumble and a new system would
have to rise from its ashes. But perhaps that transition is already far
enough along?
2) A new standard would have to be developed. Which standards governing
body do the consumers, manufacturer's, content owners, and government
trust? Who would spend the money to develop this new standard? How open
would this standard be? There would have to be some reward for the
developer (which usually equates to money).
3) There could not be local caching. Are customers ready to be connected
full-time to consume?
4) Doesn't requiring IP only stifle development? Some share criticism to
holding onto old standards. No doubt IP will become a legacy standard and
then be criticized for not allowing development. Or perhaps IP is great
enough to hold relevance for a good deal longer?
I believe Craig already addressed many of these with actual details. But I
still had questions, both theoretical and practical, as to whether IP is
the god of media delivery.
Dan
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:09 PM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager <
ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
opendtv Digest Mon, 01 Feb 2016 Volume: 03 Issue: 032
In This Issue:
[opendtv] FCC plan would give consumer control of set-top
bo
[opendtv] FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX:
C
[opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP
BO
[opendtv] Re: EE Times: Set-Top Era Over, Says FCC
[opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP
BO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Monty Solomon <monty@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:57:49 -0500
Subject: [opendtv] FCC plan would give consumer control of set-top box
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/31/fcc-plan-would-give-consumer-control-set-top-box/07egxGkGX2nFqtr60rs2xH/story.html
------------------------------
Subject: [opendtv] FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX:
CREATING CH
From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:21:43 -0500
The article Monty posted this morning contained a link to a document
providing more details about the Set Top Box NPRM that the FCC is planning
to vote on at the February meeting.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0127/DOC-337449A1.pdf
As I expected, and discussed at some length, this is just the beginning of
a process that could take years. It IS NOT something that could happen in
months as Bert suggests.
First, this is just the NPRM. There will be an extended comment period
before a potential Rule Making could be voted on. Then there is the
potential for additional years of delay to create and implement the
standards required to connect to the MVPD systems.
As I expected, the FCC is asking for a standard that DOES NOT require a
hardware component to deal with DRM. But this document also notes that
systems can continue to use different DRM solutions.
As I discussed, there are a number of elements to the proposed solution.
Here is the key part of the Chairman's proposal:
To ensure a competitive marketplace as required by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, the proposal identifies three core information streams that
must pass from MVPDs to the creators of competitive devices or apps:
ï‚· Service discovery: Information about what programming is available to
the consumer, such as the channel listing and video-on-demand lineup, and
what is on those channels.
ï‚· Entitlements: Information about what a device is allowed to do with
content, such as recording.
ï‚· Content delivery: The video programming itself.
Standards: Promoting interoperability and removing barriers to innovation
ï‚· Instead of mandating a government-specific standard for these three
information flows, which might impede innovation, the Chairman’s proposal
recommends that they be made available to the creators of competitive
devices and navigation solutions using any published, transparent format
that conforms to specifications set by an independent, open standards body.
ï‚· The proposal identifies five characteristics that must be met by an
independent standards body: openness in membership, a balance of interests,
due process, an appeals process, and consensus.
In other words, Cable Labs does not get to set this standard. At a
minimum, an existing standards organization that meets the above criteria
will need to create the new standard. And in the end, it will require
consensus of all the affected parties. As I discussed, this is very much
like the DTV process with the advisory committee, and the ATSC acting as
the "impartial" standards body.
With respect to security it states:
Security: Preventing theft and misuse
As technology has evolved, so has the market’s ability to prevent theft
and misuse. Smart TVs, for example, currently ensure the same security for
copyrighted material as the traditional set-top box. The proposal provides
MVPDs flexibility in the security systems they use while putting in place
some constraints to ensure that they do not use their security choices for
anti-competitive purposes.
ï‚· The proposal does not propose a single mandated security system, but
rather simply requires MVPDs to offer at least one content protection
system that is openly licensed on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
This will allow each MVPD to determine the content protection systems it
deems sufficient to prevent theft and misuse, and will not impede the
introduction of new content protection systems.
This is where Bert came up with the misguided notion that the DRM in HDMI
is sufficient. All it does is prevent the recording of programming in a
manner that the content can be pirated.
DVRs are temporary caches that are protected by the DRM system in the STB
that is used to decode content from the MVPD. The NPRM continues to allow
MVPDs to operate proprietary DRM systems, and license them to would be
competitors.
And there is the minor issue of "reasonable and non-discriminatory
licensing terms. We could end up with something like the ATSC standard,
where the license fees burden the cost of the third party devices. This
would certainly be much less than $7/mo, but would still be a lucrative
revenue stream for the MVPDs and their DRM vendors.
The rest is open to interpretation, and will no doubt be the fodder for
voluminous comments. All programming must be accessible, but rules for
recording and the terms of existing licensing agreements must be honored.
This is a huge can of worms.
There is nothing here that even requires the MVPDs to move to IP
streaming. They can continue to use MPEG-2 and MPEG-2TS. There is a
provision that MVPD content be available to tablets and other IP
appliances, but the burden to enable that may well fall on the device
manufacturers, as is the case today with MVPD STBs that transcode to h.264
and make these streams available via WiFi in the home.
Realistically, the desired outcome of this process would be to move beyond
existing compression and transport standards to the Internet standards Bert
rightfully claims already exist. In an ideal world, most of this could be
hashed out by the "standards body" in a year or two.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
Regards
Craig
------------------------------
From: Mike Tsinberg <Mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX:
CREATIN
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:49:19 +0000
Z ŠÇî Ö¦z{Z–\œ…©ày×(š–«zÚ i¹^qªÝŠx‰«b½ìžj» ‚ Ô¦Ú'£ nWœ¢jZž'¬¥¨
¢yr–*lz»âqëhÿÿè¥éÿÿ÷ nW¢ž+bjدzȧr[ Šx ²Ö›–+!Šx i¹^•¦ìnëgz÷«‚+Þº—(žÚè–‡í…ä“
ñ/z|!z{ ™èZÜ êej×è®h¬ºÇ jj'
Ê&¥ëbž/ü6¢—/ÑzWš±ë?¨¥Ëðn²)Þ²ÏöÓ^¿u½5Û¿Ã8/÷ß¾8ôÿ¥×À°‡±¥ç-yßÚ
×b±Ë¬±çZ¶Ê&zW§‚Øÿ¶ ¬ŠÈî²Ûay· Šyâž
jšèqë,¶ r‹¥vÖ¤{'š®ÏÈ´„ 9;(™ëaŠx-…«\¢é]…ªizx§š‰í†Æ¬ êí²è
zËlüX«²ßí†+"²;¬¶Ø^4ôLý8^ì"–VÞjw±µéÝy×(šg§¶—«Š‡[yú+yªhµé퉩QºWŒjH§
Ê.•ÖÞ¾‹^v‰ÿN §¶ «z+-…êhµé퉩_¢¶ v+b¢v¥É櫲‡ÝzV²¶‡+y«^jwbš™^™éí¶
¬µ©Ýj·lꮊ· ¶‡(žwœ¶Ú-…ã <;2²×¦³ð,!ìiyË^wûaxP‚ŠÆ¬’)à~ŠÚ²Ö§uªÝ¶ á
4äëz«¢æ¡j·pj·œ¢jh éí¶‡^j\"¶ Ñ3ðn¶Øb±Ú
ºg§µ©l¢z-zËajÛ2²×¦±Æ§r‰íŠ{ž¶‹¬yØŸ}êÞžÐÑ2Ê%ºØ¨žÏÀ°‡b±Ë¬±çÿ¶
«yªÞj{¦mêè}é^™éí²Ú-…êk¢š,yÛ(–ëb¢ Çz·¢²Ø^‘ì©j»h~Ø^
¢®f§þÊk¢š,j_Ó¡é캷šr‰©zØŠ÷¦j¹ ¶™Zqæ¬ê®Š· o+ay7¥yÊ&šéâq«b¢{‰íz{]zX¯z¼ÿN
¯‰×¨¦º ©¦Šx"¶Ç¥ ôjwZÛÿ>º&¢Ø§‚)ízº)z¶›ŠXÉ©Ý騾)àmªë‰ê춈§ž‹Ú¶*'ÿÿÿü‰ìµæ
¡ùš ÖŠx ‚‹Þ®yžžßì¥ç"~',µ©Ýj·_¢»azdž·žŠwè®fŠ‰ß–Œ,ÿ br ¢‚ bš— z)ç¢öŠ‰ÿ¶
‚…¨«™©ÿÿû)®Šh±©kyÊ&™éݲØZ¶Ø^É·¦iך½¨¥i¹^¶‹ayÊÞjÚ+²‡Ü¢j^¶+b½ç^¾' ±©Ý «â
«b¢{(–ëb¢{.²)àj|©¹¹b² þÚÚžÊZéí~ŠæjÛaj×( ú+šËh²—œ‰øœjبžË
µ¼šž)Ýz—§uéíþŠ^žËZ Ö«vÆèw/ÿÿÿÿN ©®Šh±©buéí‰øž±ø¯yÈZ§-z¸¬¶',¶
šë-méžµ¼šž)Ýz—§uéí²Ö§uªÝ±º Ëú)zy޲ȧ™é›z»!ŠŸÚm©Z
Ǩ~)íz·¬¶Ïݹêk¡Ç¬³ö§jš^j[)®‡ ²ÏÚ ×(žÇ§²ëÿ"z-…êð¢·lü&›•âÚnÇhzÉè¶ ¶‹ ¶Øb²ËZ
Ö«wð-jh§Šk¦ý©ÞÆ+-Šx,µ©Ýj·l¢¸ ž,Ú¶*'¶ ™ç²Ø^iº/yÊâµêâk ¥–wžvÚ æzØ^
ì,µ©Ýj·ÿ wbžØ^zwÿŠÜ"–ZÞªè«yÊ'±éìºÊ
jYm…æŸ}ç-yÚZ®Øž³ð,!جrë,yßí†+"²÷«Êkœ†X¤zØ^5i®‡ ²Ì"¶ ay§oŠÊ+ÉÊ&š+myïÚ Ûax Ò
§-Šx ²Ø^þ)©j»bj_쵩Ýj·ln‡rýh†·¬¥ç-¶‹ rêâ·(²ÖzÏÒyË«ŠÜÿ>·¯z{bž ayûZ Ù¢²ë
Ë^r è–ˆ2…« ¾‰oyßì¢ ¬¶ ¦j¹ ·ÿÿ±¦â–+r¶Škz÷§¶Ø^~Ö§vh¬ºÇÿJf«µ5lýú+{
¦¦Wÿrêëz{eÉé캷…ë ™ë rêâ·'èÊ)ʸ †× ™«^®&¥jËazÚÚv+b¢v¥±ëÿ¶Š[£ Ó…êk¢š,jZk¢ø
zà <; •ìbn)b·(§¶ ¬yË«ŠÜ¬ÊË^šËa{+¬{ b•ên¶Ø§‚)镧 ²‰žr‰ì
¶¶¢žÛ-¡é캷…«m…ì ¢z-ºÇ…諱ç.®+rr "që ¢¶§¶/Ü¢j^¶+b½ên®š,zÏÿÿôázšè¦‹ •Ú
²z-¦º)¢Çš²)à•éš ÖyÛ rêâ·+2²×¦ý»«az»"š™rꮊ·¬1SòÚ(}÷«jÙ^jËh
ç(ž×§¶šèµç-Š‰ìÊË^šØZ¶+(¥éåÊXœz{ v‰ëy«( ¦åy©Ýž‰ÿv+ ®)¢ «h¯+^®kÿN
¬Â)ejYhÁ朄ÅO Ú z׫š)Þ¶
œ¢{^žÚk¢×œ¶*'³+-zk"µ×žšË.}øœ‰éí¶Škz÷§¶Ø^~Ö§vh¬ºÇÿjwpŠYg¢Ø¦¥ç^¶
¢žÚèvç-Š‰è~w°r‰íz{i®‹^rبžÌ¬µé¬ý8b²+0…êÞ êíq©žºœ"¶ azh¬‚è yÙè¶*'¶ ¶ ƒDȧ 3
ŠË.}øœ‰éíü
eŠ×hzȬ¦·¯z{m…êÞrŠÝŠx(~šè‚¶¦š)àŠv¦jyÞ®ØZ¶Ø^r‰íz{\jvÞ¦*ÚµçÿTlj·zjhªòq§!zËajÖ«zšèµç-yÖò¶
ƒDË2²×¦Š{ay$Á¶ ŠË¬yÛhuç(uç(ž×§µúèšØ^1SÃý8^4ôLr‰íŠ{ž²Ú
–Z01SòÚ(¥êÚµêk¢šâzÖ«È4L³+-zkÿjwe‰Ç§±ëazkh‹¥u·œ¢j^¶+h®ÏÀ Ûaz·¢²Ø^š)è®+,¹ê
þ·š²‰ÚnWš ÙèŸ÷b±Êâš)Ú¶Šò–' žÈ§‚׫šÏÖyÊ.•×§vêpŠØl¢g†)à–) ¶ €M ¬µ©Ýj·ÿÂ
«zØ^–' žÇŸyë º·^žØ^r‹-¡ûazØbÚZ®Ü
zøœzÏÓ†+0¢é]qêíj)åÉ·¦¹ÈezË-…©ÿïù¨ý»Â‹¥vËb–VÞj[œ«b½êÞ½éîzËky©Ÿ¢»axÅO
ƧvØ^Š°Ñ2÷§vŠìý8^ë-ŠÊ)z{hŠ{^®šÞµ«b¢ Ú
Ü"–Yèv‹›µ·…çèu׫~Šï¢[¦Šz.±Ê&™éí³ð%–šè‚¶¦š)àšë-mæœqë,‰¹^ý»®é^±ú+ç(ا ©Ý¶
z¹¬¡÷±ŠËbž bqéìŠx ‚·ž™éí²k¬µ·¡¢z+yßÓ†+"±¨n ç
ž‡ð¢¹¬ý8^謞‹aŠx!z·…«^½éëz«¢ë-…ã <;-¢j/zÚ >Ëky©¢ž Ó…ìœjw
(žØ§¹ëhºÇŒ<AÿÙ©Ý0ñ ÿdÒý8^è¬jšè¾+"¢{ajÓ
<7(ž×§µ·š½¨¥i¹^¶‹ZnW±©Ý¢Ø^¬ƒÚ¦™bjw ³öî¶Ø^nêÝz{hzv›•ëajÙšË ¥•ö¥–‰í…ç^¾'
™©î}§-º·«³ö¬ŠËayƬzÚ k,"¶ <4“ ËajÛkj{ ¡×¢
ö놧vf¤zØ^±ë-榱«ÚŠV›•ëâih…Š)í…èh™ïÑy©b²ØœjYrþØ^uë"çhº×(™ê ¶ ¬¦º
zË0¢é]mëhš‹Þmì¨ ×±ŠËbž (ššÞ²È¨ ©Ý¶¶§²š+¶ËZ Ö«vËh¶ ˆž×« ëlµ©Ýj·l
êí®(!µû¥—'%j)¬jZÞiÜžÆ+-ü‰Úž'^j\(®Wÿš‹-¡ûaŠÇ(ºW[z ¬…çhºÖò¶ ÿ²Ö§uªÝ±º
Ëø§k'š®ŠíÂ Ô ú+¶éÚµérÿ ¢z-–+ÞŠv§‰×š—
+•ßÑz «vÀ«
------------------------------
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: EE Times: Set-Top Era Over, Says FCC
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:46:58 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Exactly. That's why CBS is NOT going to abandon the live linear networks
No, you continue to not get it. The two are not mutually exclusive. CBS
will continue to serve luddites with linear streams, and will continue to
increase those rates faster than inflation, as long as they can. This does
not mean that they aren't simultaneously developing and deploying more
up-to-date schemes. Between this, and the FCC NPRM on STBs, things could
change a lot faster than you think, Craig. As has happened in the past.
No. Because many people make appointments to watch the premieres of
their favorite shows.
A minority and dwindling amount of TV viewing is done by appointment,
Craig. As this is happening, it makes less and less sense to dedicate a
huge amount of bandwidth, 24/7/365, to just one-way broadcast.
Game of Thrones continues to gain momentum.
Good for it. It does not need to be sent over spectrum dedicated,
24/7/365, to just broadcast one 60-minute episode per week. Even if many
people continue to think that they need to tune in at precisely the right
second.
An encore helped Game of Thrones surge even more. 1.6 million
viewers tuned in to the 11 p.m. replay for a nightly gross of
8.2 million.
Which they could equally have done without dedicating a huge amount of
spectrum, 24/7/365, to just one-way broadcast.
This has nothing to do with loyalty Bert. It is reality.
Reality is that people are bailing out. Reality is what John Skipper said:
it only takes perhaps 10% drop in viewership to create major changes. This
is reality.
You are hopeless. Which is why I chose not to continue the
other two current threads, and now this one.
You mean, except you did continue by private email? Give it up, Craig.
Bert
------------------------------
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC CHAIRMAN PROPOSAL TO UNLOCK THE SET-TOP BOX:
CREATIN
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 02:31:02 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
As I expected, and discussed at some length, this is just the beginning
of a process that could take years. It IS NOT something that could
happen in months as Bert suggests.
There are always stupid ways of doing things, but the FCC is not mandating
doing things the lame way. The FCC thinks you need a separate STB still,
which clearly you don't. But they want this STB to be an IP streaming box,
in addition to being the old school cable STB. So that should be a clue
right there. Focus on the IP streaming aspect, ignore the rest.
The FCC is NOT mandating that the MVPDs must retain their MPEG-2 TS
broadcast streams. The FCC might be stuck in the mud and assume that the
cable companies would, but it's hardly technically required.
But this document also notes that systems can continue to use different
DRM solutions.
Just like you can already do now, with IP streaming. The FCC is not
planning to mandate just one standard.
Same goes for service discovery. I have no problem with service discovery,
on any and all TV portals I use. The fact that the FCC still uses the term
"channel" is just proof of legacy thinking. That's all. The standards
exist, and they are based on HTTP.
Conditional access. Well understood by now, and the MVPDs already use
conditional access for TVE. Same goes for other TV sites.
Streaming standards. Same thing. As long as the scheme is IP-based, as
long as the boxes are built like most IP boxes are built today, they are
upgradeable with software. No need to mandate just one standard for
streaming.
Security. Already exists, and the MVPDs already deploy secure IP streams.
There is nothing new needed for any of this, and much less is there any
excuse to continue to think in terms of requiring a separate stand-alone
STB. Is there a lame approach that could be used, to drag the effort out
for many years? OBVIOUSLY, like anything else.
The rest is boilerplate, about enabling more choices, more minority
content, and the like.
Bottom line. To me, there is plenty of evidence of legacy thinking, but
the NPRM does not need to be implemented with legacy ideas. The stated
goals can be met very rapidly, if the MVPDs gradually eliminate their
wasteful one-way broadcast streams, and just use TVE for everything. Yes,
that would require upgrading their edge servers, so it won't happen
overnight. Nothing ever does.
This is what the FCC could do, to speed this along. Mandate that every
MVPD must provide all of their walled-up content over IP (no big deal, TVE
goes a long way to doing this anyway). And let the marketplace do the rest.
Bert
------------------------------
End of opendtv Digest V3 #32
****************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
