[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 03:16:03 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED NOW, CRAIG.
>
> Wrong. It is very much needed as the broadband infrastructure
> is not yet capable of handling the complete conversion to IP
> delivery for more than 100 million homes.
Craig, by now I hope you realize that I don't just buy your arm-waved
assertions. Provide proof. As I explained to you already, as quickly as people
would ever make the switch, the ISP nets accommodate these people. Using
various techniques, which include placing mirrored servers (topologically) at
the edges of their nets, as demand for different content requires.
>> And, the broadband pipe CAN AND DOES ALREADY CARRY CONTENT
>> BELONGING TO DIFFERENT LOCAL MONOPOLIES.
>
> This is largely incorrect. The only local monopoly provider
> that is ALSO a major content owner is Comcast (NBC).
If your cousin, who is a Comcast subscriber, comes to visit you, Craig, he can
access his Comcast TVE bundle through your Cox broadband. So, that part is
already in place.
> You can repeat this until you are blue in the face. That
> does not make it correct. We are not there yet.
Hey Craig, is HDTV still a niche product? Can SFN towers simply be located
around the Beltway? You need to inform yourself before being credible. The
future is now, and as happened already, it's passing you by.
> As was the case with telephony, the interconnection business was
> the reason that Title II was created, and we are seeing this
> repeated now with the Internet, where regulating interconnections
> is the real meat in the new FCC rules.
Remember that the original Title II came from previous rules and regs, which
required AT&T to allow the small competing local telephone companies to connect
to the backbone. Nothing has changed in that regard. When walled-in and
un-neutral cable TV companies morph into Internet and telephone service
providers, they need to be neutral to the same extent as the telcos from that
previous era. Same problem recurred, same solution has to be applied.
> It's not that easy. There are legal issues in play here as
> well. There are local franchise agreements, anti-trust
> issues, and governments that want their pound of flesh.
Again, whatever it takes, this happens. There are tons of businesses from all
across the country, and the world, ALREADY operating over the Internet. TV
content distribution is only unique if you make it that way in your own mind.
Any issues with franchises and taxation get muddled through.
> Comcast is playing at every level of this new game, and
> they are trying to dominate it. They will never be a
> neutral broadband provider unless they are forced to
> divest some of their current businesses.
Not at all. They simply get into both businesses, Craig. They provide the Title
II broadband service, and they can also provide the OTT TV content distribution
service, over their own and others' pipes.
> I suspect that the ultimate resolution will be to tax
> the ISPs and give up trying to tax the delivery of
> entertainment over these pipes.
No different from anyone else doing business over the Internet. Aren't we still
debating to what extent local taxes have to be applied to merchandise bought
online? This will get resolved in time. No reason to think TV content should be
any different.
> All I am saying is that we are in a transition,
You are making it sound like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc., don't exist yet. You
are making it sound like there's some special reason why we need any sort of
TVE interim period. I don't buy it, Craig. TVE attempts to retain the old
limitations, when they are no longer necessary.
> Sling IS a MVPD Bert.
Not even close. For one thing, anyone with broadband can subscribe, just like
they can to Netflix. Can you do that with the TVE from Comcast? Can you do that
with TVE from TWC? So quit with the political tactics, Craig. Sling TV is just
like a Netflix or Hulu, except that it carries ESPN.
> I did not make any of this up. It is a "composite" of all of the
> analyses I have read about what the FCC can do under Title II
> regulation.
Come now. I read that as "I made it up." The scenario is not historically
credible.
> Remember when Ma Bell had a nation monopoly on long distance service.
> Remember what it cost?
The FCC did not mandate a monopoly, Craig. When competition is viable, it
always improves matters. When it's not viable, then regulations have to be
imposed.
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:
