[opendtv] Re: Ideal A La Carte Package: 17 Channels | Multichannel
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:44:21 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
So there you have it Bert. "The Commission proposes to interpret
the definition of an MVPD to include providers that make multiple
linear streams of video programming available for purchase,
And what exactly is different between this and what I already wrote to you
several times, Craig? Do you think you are in any way contradicting what I
already explained to you? If so, quote what I said, about the FCC's definition,
that contradicts anything you posted from the FCC.
(But as an aside, I find this definition to be archaic and pointless, at this
time. It is a definition that might have made sense back when the only way to
get TV was with live streams. So it strikes me as superficial anymore, and
needs to be updated.)
They [CBS All Access] are already doing this Bert, but no subscriber
can access more than one stream. ... You cannot access the CBS
Gainesville feed; I cannot access the DC or Baltimore feeds.
(Just like you can't access the DC CBS stream over the Gainesville Cox cable.)
You didn't read what I wrote, Craig. All CBS has to do, to qualify with the
FCC's definition, is to allow the local CBS affiliate to stream, live, their
multicast channels, just as they do OTA, along with the CBS channel. If you say
"They are already doing this," then it is a non-sequitur to follow it up with,
"but no subscriber can access more than one stream."
The FCC definition says nothing at all about getting streams from other markets
or from other congloms. It's not an issue. **BUT**, before your knee jerks, if
I watch, say, the "This TV" subchannel from the DC station that carries it
(CW), and then I switch over to the Baltimore station that carries it (Fox),
guess what, Craig? It's exactly the same stream! It is at exactly the same
point in the movie! So, even if your imagined extra requirement existed, OTA
broadcasters are already operating much like "mini-MVPDs," these days. They
ALREADY carry streams simultaneously with other markets, much like HBO on a
legacy MVPD would be. I'm sure the linear HBO streams are in sync, say between
DC and Gainesville, right?
Aside to broadcasters and This TV: Isn't it about time that "This TV" went to
proper anamorphic 16:9? Several other movie channels have done so for a long
time. It's much nicer to get to see movies as they were intended, instead of
broadcasting the compromised ancient TV format. Or for that matter even postage
stamp (which "This TV" rarely if ever uses).
On the other hand, if All Access also included your local CW
affiliate (owned by CBS) it would then be a MVPD.
Problem being, this is again your imagination playing tricks on you. Read again
the FCC definition. Read again my response above. This TV is not owned by CBS,
and yet CBS affiliates may carry it, or other similar non-CBS-owned content.
So, even this imaginary new constraint can easily be met in CBS All Access. But
you first need to grasp that it's your constraint, not the FCC's.
Explain this Bert, I did. Would you like me to go back and
show you all the messages where you claimed that services
that only offer content on demand are MVPDs?
YES! ABSOLUTELY! DO SO, CRAIG! What you will find is that any number of your
previous definitions were easy enough to discard. I mentioned many times, "If
you use this definition, then it can easily be met by this type of OTT site. If
you use that other definition, then it can be met by these other OTT sites."
But now, the FCC's definition exists, and it is clear. Only stipulates 2
requirements: (1) Multiple live streams, and (2) by subscription. As I said, I
have no issue with that, aside from it being antiquated anymore.
Perhaps there is more cord shaving today do to new competitive
choices.
BINGO!
Really?
No more live TV Bert?
No Olympics. No NFL. No Oscars. No newscasts.
Are these theatrics just to be annoying? What did I say, many many times, about
live streams, Craig?
I suppose that a broadcast spectrum utility could just
deliver live streams from multiple sources. But a local
station needs to fill up the program schedule with something.
Finally. So, this is legacy thinking, Craig. With distributed Internet servers,
and with the 2-way Internet medium, there is simply no need to "fill up the
program schedule with something." None. Or said another way, just "fill up"
that server with programming. This is why broadcasters will soon discover that
they can do better things than just broadcast these by-appointment streams,
just to fill up a one-way broadcast pipe, whether anyone is watching or not.
That's why the one-way broadcast aspect, still in ATSC 3.0, seems iffy to me,
if indeed that's still in the cards. The broadcast aspects will be used less
and less in due course, as "connected TVs" take over, and as luddites learn a
few simple new tricks.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is not the primary
network that is threatened. It is the second tier MVPD
networks filled with library content that are likely to
disappear.
Really, Craig? So, pick some arbitrary time of day, on some arbitrary day, and
you really think that every single conglom **has** to be using live broadcast
at the same time? You really think that even during prime time, it is mandatory
that prime time shows from all the congloms be simultaneously broadcast? I say
nonsense. Maybe, just maybe, there might be one game at that time, and maybe
the sports addicts want that truly "live." All the rest? Hardly. Even your 24
hour news spend the vast majority of their time repeating the same old clips.
There is simply no need for anywhere close to the actual broadcast bandwidth we
have now, once more people get connected TVs and wake up out of their luddite
stupor.
The FCC has enabled the monopolistic gatekeepers,
These are just political ultra-conservative platitudes, Craig. The FCC has
mandated net neutrality, aka no monopolistic gatekeepers. Their MVPD
redefinition will prove useless in due course, as the Netflixes of the world
have figured out what people really want.
No Bert. I have pointed out repeatedly that the Internet ALREADY
supports all kinds on monopoly and oligopoly business models.
Give it up.
Really, Craig? So, you really can't grasp that dealing with multiple
independent by subscription sites is different from dealing with only just Cox
cable? And you're really digging in on this point, Craig?
What's the channel number on the remote?
The content access method used by slow-witted luddites?
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:
