[opendtv] Re: Migration to Internet-delivered TV
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 01:12:15 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Your insufferable!
>
> Just because the Internet is capable of doing something does not
> mean it is happening. It's as if you are saying that Amazon is
> capable of handling 95% of all our shopping needs, so we can stop
> building shopping centers...
That's "*you're* insufferable." A contraction of "you are." Not possessive.
Just to be more insufferable.
Back to the point, you claimed that "the infrastructure" can't handle the load.
I responded to that. How fast people make the switch is a different discussion,
Craig. Like I said, it could be made to happen way faster than you think. There
are still good reasons why people need to shop at old style stores. Not sure
the same can be said about TV distribution, though. That's the difference. The
transition could be dragged on ad infinitum, as much as the digital OTA
transition could have been. Finally, all it took was for the FCC to set a date
certain. As long as there's no imperative for MVPDs to become way more
competitive than they are now, one can expect the old school methods to soldier
on. **All depends on how many MVPD customers continue to bail**. My guess is
that MVPDs will do what Dish did, what Verizon, TWC, etc., are getting ready to
do, and offer both solutions for a period of time. Walled-in MVPD plus
competitive OTT site.
> Please tell us when 50% of all TV entertainment will be
> delivered OTT.
See above. This may be another example of how Craig misses trends. For me, I'm
way past the 50 percent figure, Craig, and the same goes for most of "cord
shavers." Comcast or Cox could say, we will transition our networks to IPTV
exclusively in the next 12 months, if they wanted to, as the first step to
morphing into OTT sites, and to maximize the IP capacity of their nets. Just
like analog OTA could easily have ended in, say, 2003-2004 (when really good
receivers became available). Finally, it ended when someone in authority said
so. There was no other insurmountable obstacle, Craig.
> It has everything to do with habit and culture.
I already covered that, Craig. Why repeat it? I already mentioned luddites.
There are luddites, just as there were for analog OTA, but ultimately they
didn't stop the transition. No need to repeat the same things over and over
again.
> Lack of HD for Bert because he has slow broadband.
True, but what does that have to do with anything? I can opt for FiOS, or Cox
broadband, problem solved. This does not change the fact that the glitches you
were experiencing most likely had nothing to do with the speed of your DSL
link. Discipline matters as much for IP delivery of TV as any other protocol,
Craig. In an unwalled medium, such as OTA and IP delivery, discipline is
paramount. Why do I have to explain this?
>> 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.
>
> Challenging?
Or explain this. Hey Craig, how long has it been since wired broadband could
offer 20 Mb/s, and how long has it been since wireless could do so? Do you
really need me to explain that providing broadband wirelessly has been more of
a challenge than it was through fiber or coax? And that EVEN SO, ain't it
remarkable how it already happened, in spite of your assertions that the
infrastructure is not ready?
> Please note our first grandson -Carter Jackson Arnold - was
> born February 24th.
Congratulations! I have one 3 year old grandson, and one 9 month old
granddaughter. Amazing how this happens. (Thanks for the diversion.)
> Look at your absurd argument here. Nothing you said addresses
> the reality that most of the world still does not watch HDTV.
The reality is that in the US, practically everyone has HDTV. Nothing remotely
"niche" about it. This is true because HDTV was developed as a replacement for
analog fuzzy LDTV, *not* as a luxury add-on service. Right from the start,
right from 1991. The reality is that Europeans developed DVB-T without initial
HD capability, which obviously became an obstacle for providing every primary
channel as HD. HD required another transition, in Europe. The reality is that
in the 1990s and early 2000s, when all of this was occurring, Craig didn't get
it. He felt obliged to argue when I explained how Europe wouldn't be able to
offer as much HD as we could here, because of that decision early in the DVB-T
process, which mandated a second transition and spectrum-wasting simulcasting.
The reality is that Europeans also buy HDTV sets, at thoroughly affordable
prices, because it is not "niche" there either. And that reality in several
Asian countries, the same is true.
> There you go again. Hulu does not offer live streams. Please
> stay on subject.
Craig, you're dancing around again. What was your excuse for pretending that
Sling TV was a VMVPD? Did your excuse include live streams? Nope. Take a look:
> I can subscribe to Sling to obtain - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION -
> Multiple Video Programs Delivered for my viewing pleasure.
Clearly, a poor definition. Okay, so now you quickly add live streams, but that
makes an equally poor definition. I've already covered this too, Craig. Any
sensible definition of VMVPD has to be an online site that duplicates the
bundle and tier model available now in walled gardens. In spite of your dancing
around on this, Sling TV doesn't even come close.
> Wwitv.com does not provide access to the live streams I can access
> via a MVPD bundle.
And Craig continues the dance. Oh, so now CBS All Access is a VMVPD? HBO direct
is a VMVPD? I already told you, Craig, that content from your "the bundle,"
just like other MVPD-exclusive content, would migrate online outside the garden
walls. This happened almost instantly after you claimed it wouldn't. So now,
you feel obliged to weasel around trying to redefine VMVPD, and all you keep
doing is describing something much like any number of OTT sites.
Dish managed to get the rights to ESPN, for an OTT site that hardly resembles
an MVPD. I'm confident that Hulu can achieve the same goal. If the technology
is not the obstacle, and it ain't, then all it takes is for the bean counters
to see a business advantage. End of story.
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:
