[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 00:55:53 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Sorry, but the fact that a large percentage of the
> population can stream SD quality video does not mean
> that they are doing this enough to change the mix of
> OTT versus traditional linear streams from MVPDs and
> FOTA broadcasters.
Of course it does, and it also means that at times of day when people are not
at home watching TV, the Internet has become more than capable of carrying the
load. And by the way, even if much of the load throughout the day is not purely
TV material, but for instance other video, what matters is that the Internet is
capable of carrying that load. More TV watching, e.g. during prime time hours,
will be balanced by less watching of the other stuff. You're simply not getting
how the demand is met, in this type of network. You seem to be thinking in
legacy broadcast network terms.
> It is rising like this for several reasons.
Craig! We know the reasons. The point is that this sharp and accelerating
increase in demand *is being met*. No one is waiting, as you seem to be, for
some magical threshold to be breached. The essential thresholds have already
been passed, for carriage of TV material, and now the bottlenecks are attacked
on a case by case basis, as they emerge. In real time, practically. I explained
how this is done already, and you seem to be stuck thinking in legacy broadcast
network terms.
> You have DSL right? So you rarely get to see anything in HD. I had
> DSL and the QOS for streaming was terrible.
Craig, so now pay attention. What this proves is that it wasn't your connection
speed that was the problem. I've already explained to you how glitches often
occur, especially with ad breaks, how they occur for one OTT site but not the
others, how an update of Flash will eventually fix the problem, and how later
some other fancy ad-break protocol will start the cycle again. In short, the
problem is LACK OF DISCIPLINE. You didn't get it when I first said it, so here
we are having to repeat it again. Lack of discipline when deploying new
protocols, Craig. Lack of testing. Lack of accountability.
For example, even during the most egregious problems, like migration from IE 8
to IE 9 some years ago, Hulu worked like a champ. True professionals. The
various network sites became useless. The problem had nothing to do with
connection speed. It took more than a few weeks, hard as that might be to
believe, to get everyone up to speed. Lack of discipline.
> What matters is broadband access in the home - that is where
> most program length TV entertainment is consumed.
As I said, the volume of content is all that matters, not whether it's TV or a
game. Wireless is far more challenging than fixed broadband, Craig.
> Thank you for finally being honest:
No, Craig, the problem is that you don't listen. I've said countless times that
the increasing demand is being met as it occurs. You insist on coming back with
vague generalities, every single time.
> The reality is simple people are increasingly using OTT
> video services in addition to the traditional video services
> to which they subscribe.
More or less a feel-good banality. The reality is, Craig, that people are
dropping traditional service, or SHAVING traditional service (which amounts to
the same thing), in accelerating numbers. The reality is that many MVPDs and
many content owners are responding to this RIGHT NOW, rather than sitting back
as you seem to do.
> What I don't understand is why you get so worked up about
> all of this.
I'm only worked up by your astonishing misinterpretation of what is happening
and misunderstanding of the technical details involved. Just as I was at the
beginning of the HDTV era, Craig. I get worked up over insistent and persistent
misrepresentation of facts.
> There is nothing false about it Bert. Most of the world DOES NOT
> watch HDTV.
It was false, from day 1, to think that the US version of spectrum-compatible
HDTV was meant as some sort of luxury service. It was false, right from the
start, to claim that HDTV sets would cost in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
It was definitely false, by the mid-2000s, to continue on that notion that HDTV
was a niche product. This sort of obstinacy is what gets me worked up,
especially when it's pronounced as though it's being simultaneously etched in
stone.
> Give it up Bert. I was talking about Comcast, which is in your
> eyes the "Evil Empire."
Same applies to Comcast, Craig. Any MVPD, as it morphs into an OTT site, can
separate its neutrality when providing broadband service from whatever
negotiations it has to make with content owners, for streaming rights for its
OTT portal. Why would you think that comment would apply to Cox but not to
Comcast??
> What's the point here Bert? MVPD services are what they are.
> Geographic restrictions DO exist both in the MVPD and FOTA
> business models.
Craig continues not to understand the obvious, because Craig continues to only
focus on what he says. With Internet distribution of **any content**, the
geographic location of the consumer is irrelevant. TVE attempts to retain this
artifact, for reasons I have already explained to Craig. TVE can therefore
**hardly** be called an end-game, as Craig has done. When technology permits
bypassing a previous limitation, that previous limitation becomes history.
There is nothing in this paragraph that can possibly take months to understand!
> Wrongs you cannot access the live linear streams via HULU.
Hey Craig, I can get thousands of live streams from wwitv.com. Does that make
it a VMVPD? I can get live streams from CBS All Access. Does that make it a
VMVPD? Live streams can be added to Hulu whenever they please, Craig. Live
streams are no differentiator for "VMVPD."
>> What "monopolies" did the government create, Craig?
> The government did not create any of these per se,
The government did not create them at all, Craig. But people don't want to have
high tension towers from multiple different companies tangled up in their back
yards, so they had their governments put restrictions on these networks. As a
result of such perfectly legitimate and understandable restrictions, the
government had to regulate those industries, because they could not credibly
compete.
And yet, the FCC **does not** regulate the pricing of telco or MVPD services,
Craig. So there's no excuse for your alarmism concerning FCC regulation of
broadband prices.
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:
