[opendtv] Re: Multichannel News: FCC Needs to See the Light (of Innovation)
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 03:03:06 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
As for TVE, it is an industry initiative that has NOTHING to do with
the FCC proposal. The operators of TVE servers have complete control
of the streams since they write the apps for each device.
Not this again. It has everything to do with the FCC proposal, Craig, if the
MVPDs would just make the point to the FCC. At least one commissioner seemed to
understand that streaming was the future, not proprietary STBs. You tell the
FCC that there are already third party appliances capable of playing their
walled-in content, with no new STB effort required. They only need to point out
that they are getting the rights to stream an ever increasing amount of their
walled-in content.
The objective of third party STBs is being met already, by streaming
appliances, even for the walled-in content of the MVPDs. Not just for neutral
Internet bandwidth, but also for what's walled-in.
It all comes down to WHEN the MVPDs decide to move to the new IP
infrastructure.
The IP infrastructure exists, for TVE. The transition is underway already.
There's no step function new effort required. A gradual expansion of TVE
offerings, and as required to support demand for IP, a gradual dropping of the
MPEG-2 TS broadcast streams. That's what the FCC should by now have figured out.
That "may" be true, but it does not change what I said. The functions
currently performed by the MVPD oligopoly still need to exist.
Funny logic. According to who do they "need to exist"? Some of the MVPDs
decided already that these functions didn't "need" to be provided by themselves
at all. Yes, only smaller MVPDs for now, but so what? It sounds like you're
saying, "How can the MVPDs remain the local monopoly, if they don't continue to
provide these administrative functions?" Well, guess what, they don't NEED to
remain that local monopoly. Those functions you list are just as well provided
by any number of web sites.
And to be more specific, how much power the FCC and other government
regulators will allow the content owners to amass.
Non sequitur. The content owners are not likely to amass any more power, as a
result of these changes, than they had before. As a matter of fact, if
anything, the *opposite* is true. The content owners no longer have that
technically mandatory local monopoly distribution pipe, which gave them that
easy way to collude with other content owners, to create bloated bundles. The
FCC is hardly "allowing" any "amassing" of anything. The FCC wants to remove
one anachronistic, anti-competitive element, which however is removing itself
anyway! I don't understand how you keep winding your way back to the congloms,
which have ALWAYS been more numerous than your local distribution pipe options.
Really weird.
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:
