[opendtv] Re: Multichannel News: FCC Needs to See the Light (of Innovation)
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 07:49:12 -0400
On Oct 3, 2016, at 9:02 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The problem with this approach is, it sounds too much like vague and
self-serving FUD, while not insisting enough on a well-defined solution that
perhaps the FCC would understand.
You would have a point, if this was just one voice in the wilderness. But the
concerns are widespread. When the U.S. Copyright Office raises red flags there
may actually be some smoke in those "smoke filled rooms"...
Doesn't this author know that smoking is prohibited in Federal buildings? Or is
that law ignored by the political elite too?
The problem is your conflicted. On one hand you seem to want to let the
marketplace decide; on the other you accuse the marketplace of collusion that
requires the FCC to step in and regulate licensing.
The FCC wants to rid the consumer of the imposed STB rental, and the MVPD
industry has already begun to go that route, to serve the various streaming
appliances.
The trend is clearly in that direction, however, the STB is still critical for
access to the live streams, many of which are not available via TVE Apps. I
agree that it seems likely that this issue will resolve itself.
. Instead of vague FUD about "licensing," why not hammer home that these
appliances already do not require the rented STB and (presumably) have met
whatever "licensing" issues really exist? And that the STB can similarly
become OBE?
Sometimes you can't see you hand in front of your face Bert.
The FCC has had decades to open up the market for MVPD STBs - they have dropped
the ball.
Now that the issue is becoming largely irrelevant, due to major shifts in how
content will be distributed in the future, the FCC is trying again, but in a
much more intrusive manner. This is not about the boxes, it is now about
regulating content distributed via the Internet.
The author is right to ask for a much more open process than the NPRM that is
currently being considered. The only winners here will be the lawyers, and the
MVPDs, who can tie things up for a few more years litigating the FCC order if
they move forward, as the author aptly notes here:
The FCC's attempt to regulate licensing and set-top boxes involves vague and
complex rules guaranteed to spark years of confusion, bureaucratic lobbying
and lawsuits. The U.S. Copyright Office, which is another branch of the
federal government, has warned openly against the FCC's effort because of how
it would spur piracy.
The author lays out the real issue here:
But there's a crucial distinction between the FCC's plan and this growing
openness. This current trend is fueled by the growth of "TV apps," which are
doing for TVs what mobile apps have already done for our smartphones. With
these apps, viewers can watch what they want when they want it, through
proper licensed channels.
Maybe Bert should be nominated to chair an Advisory Committee on Internet
content licensing. We can't have collusion between competitive businesses, when
we CAN have collusion between a Government regulator and the businesses it
regulates. Gotta keep those lawyers on K-Street busy, and the lobbyists writing
those checks...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
