[opendtv] Migration to Internet-delivered TV

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 02:18:11 +0000

Craig wrote:

> Do you have to make absurd statements just to disagree? It has
> not happened. Every local cable or fiber System that sells MVPD
> services still uses those pipes to deliver linear streaming
> networks. Some still offer analog and digital MVPD services.

Speaking or irritating. You said this:

> Let's skip forward a few years to the point in time where the
> facilities based linear streaming infrastructure of the local
> monopoly pipes is no longer needed.

IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED NOW, CRAIG. Can you wrap your head around that? The 
legacy infrastructure will continue to be used, just as analog OTA TV would 
have gone on and on, potentially ad infinitum. But the fact that TVE is offered 
**now**, and plenty of other streaming sites, means THE BROADBAND PIPE CAN 
ALREADY CARRY TV CONTENT. AS THE DEMAND GOES UP, THE ISP NETS ACCOMMODATE THAT 
DEMAND with distributed servers, adding as necessary, right along as increasing 
demand dictates. And, the broadband pipe CAN AND DOES ALREADY CARRY CONTENT 
BELONGING TO DIFFERENT LOCAL MONOPOLIES.

How many times have I repeated that this far-future you keep referring to is 
now? The problem is, you only listen to yourself, Craig. And yes, Craig, I 
deleted a whole bunch of unnecessary verbiage, in which you go around and 
around on these same points. Check back to your post.

> Amazing how Bert just ignored the most irritant stuff in my post

You mean, the most irritating things you wrote? I did ignore lots of words you 
wrote that repeated what I had already explained to you long ago, e.g. 
concerning how the video servers are distributed in ISP nets, sure. Like, "I 
subscribe to Netflix. Where are the servers that host the bits I consume? 
................." We covered all of that already, Craig.

> They were already paying for it. But Comcast was asking Netflix
> to pay access fees in addition to what they were paying Akamai
> and Cogent to deliver their bits to Comcast.

That's why so many people complained, Craig. Comcast is making money from 
broadband subscribers who pay for the faster links speeds, Netflix was willing 
to fund their own CDNs, and still Comcast wasn't happy. It's a bit like the 
Russians pretending that all they want is to protect people being brutalized, 
in the Ukraine and previously in Georgia. We know their history. Whatever they 
pretend today, their history precedes them. So now, Comcast got Title II. Do 
you think their antics played no part in that decision? The simple fact is, Tom 
Wheeler got such a huge avalanche of mail on this subject, in the millions, the 
vast majority demanding NEUTRALITY, that he went as far as changing his 
previous position.

> On the other hand, if I could buy my MVPD service from Comcast, as
> you suggest, and many other Cox ISP customers did the same, then a
> local Comcast edge server might be required.

Whatever, Craig. These are design details made as needed, if Comcast wants to 
morph into a ubiquitous OTT site. Or they can let others manage the TV content 
instead, and Comcast becomes only a neutral broadband provider. The only point 
I was making is that your street address should NOT be relevant to what TV 
bundles you have access to. Why is it so hard to get such simple points across? 
Does your street address determine whether you can get Netflix? No. As long as 
you have a broadband pipe to your device, you can get Netflix. If Comcast wants 
to offer online TV bundles, THE SAME SHOULD APPLY.

> I can deal with Cox, DirecTV, Dish, and Dish Sling NOW

Impressive! And I can reach a practically infinite number of businesses on the 
web, Craig. I'm certainly not limited to three!! (Sling is not an MVPD.)

> The new rules will allow the FCC to regulate interconnections at
> several levels, to set the rates for interconnections, and to shift
> costs by setting rates below actual cost - i.e.  an OTT service
> could be required to pay higher interconnect fees,

I very much doubt that. Speaking of "pure speculation." The FCC *might* do what 
they do to telephone service. In order to provide broadband to those who can't 
afford it, they dump a bunch of taxes and fees on your broadband bill. But 
let's not make up fantasy scenarios. If you want a scenario that's AT LEAST as 
credible, without Title II, Cox could obsolete your IP appliances, and insist 
you only buy their own proprietary systems.

> Hardly anyone pays for the traditional extended basic MVPD bundles
> just to watch ESPN. And real sports nuts want other regional sports
> nets as well.

Regional sports are already available over other media than just MVPDs, right? 
And I'm certainly NOT the only person who thinks, or thought, that sports is 
the last bastion of MVPDs. I've posted more than one article that said the same 
thing. Which makes Sling TV that much more amazing. Another example of 
something happening almost instantly, right after Craig claimed it would never 
happen.

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: