[opendtv] Re: Kodi: Open source TV app inspires full-blown copyright panic in the UK
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:07:34 -0400
On May 9, 2017, at 11:25 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
So why did Congress classify the Internet as an Information
Service and prohibit State and Federal Regulation?
You mean, at a time when all ISPs operated competitively, over strictly
neutral telephone lines?
No Bert. At a time where the nation was investing in an entirely new
telecommunications infrastructure including:
- A digital HDTV broadcast standard
- A massive investment in fiber optic WANs
- A massive investment in cellular telephony by multiple competitors
- A massive investment in hybrid fiber/coax digital cable systems
- Large investments in FTTH overbuilds of cable monopolies in major cities
The 1996 Telecommunications Act was massively deregulatory in its intent. The
implementation illustrates how entrenched bureaucracies can drag their heels
and protect their thiefdoms.
This has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality Bert.
ROTFL. Here is Craig, again claiming that something that is all about
neutrality is not. All of those ancient laws were precisely about neutrality.
The telephone companies were required to carry any conversation, without
consideration of who the parties were or what network they might have been on.
One cannot go back and try again a century later. We will never know if a
different approach to utility infrastructure and regulation would have produced
a different outcome.
But we do know what a century of heavy handed utility regulation gave us in
terms of reduced innovation, monopoly pricing, and a massive regulatory
infrastructure that is fighting to sustain its existence.
Let me make it plain. They were an utterly unessential, purely entertainment
oriented, frivolous service in the past. That aspect remains, but only in the
TV service tier. The Internet service, instead, is even more essential than
any telephone service was, in the past. People use the Internet way more, and
people use it even to replace the USPS. Pretty damned essential, Craig, for
those who know what it is.
No argument about the Internet being an essential infrastructure for modern
society.
That does not mean that it must be regulated, taxed and monitored by the
political class. And it certainly does not mean that the political class should
have ANY ability to regulate the content that flows over this essential
infrastructure.
Congress was absolutely clear about this:
`(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently
exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered
by Federal or State regulation;
What sense would it make for Cox to block Hulu Live?
Are you serious? Think it through real hard, Craig.
I did. What sense would it make for Cox to block Hulu live?
The answer is NO SENSE AT ALL.
You are quick to point out the millions of people like yourself that believe in
"net neutrality," whatever that means.
One thing it absolutely means is that any ISP fought blocking a legal Internet
service would be humiliated in the court of public opinion
Another thing it means is that Hulu would immediately challenge any blocking by
any ISP in our court system.
I really do not understand why you believe that any company would purposely
violate the basic tenants of net neutrality. That's just fear mongering.
What YOU do not get is that this entire situation is changing. Retrans
consent is not going away.
Retrans consent has already gone away, as anything that affects millions of
cord cutting households. Unless tha trend reverses, retrans consent is old
news.
That trend IS changing Bert Did you not read the comments by Disney's Iger
about the new VMVPD services?
Do you not understand the game that is being played here? Everyone selling the
extended basic bundles has plenty of room to move as the competition heats up.
The cost issue is being addressed - Hulu Live costs less than half of the
equivalent legacy MVPD bundles.
88 million homes still subscribe to bundles with ESPN in them.
So if I cut the TV cord with Cox and sign up for Hulu Live - a very
real possibility - who benefits and who loses?
Cox cleverly understood that they needed to get into the telecom line of
work. But they still lose, in the sense that they cannot control what
entertainment you can access, and what prices you must pay for it.
They have NEVER had the ability to control the entertainment I watch. They do
control the entertainment I choose to buy from them.
Every hear of Red Box?
Do WalMart and Target still sell DVDs?
Can I rent a movie from Apple's iTunes service?
Can I subscribe to Netflix?
Clever?
From Wiki:
In 1993, Cox began offering telecommunications services to businesses (the
first multiple system cable operator to do so). This eventually grew into Cox
Business, which now represents $1 billion in annual revenue. In 1995, Cox
acquired the Times Mirror cable properties.[5] In 1997, Cox became the first
multiple system cable operator to offer phone services to customers following
the 1996 Telecom Act.
Maybe way back in 1993 they had an Alexander Graham Bell moment:
"Mr. Watson come here..." we need to get into the phone business...
;-)
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
