[opendtv] Re: Netflix hits record high on subscriber surge | Fox Business
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 08:20:34 -0400
On Jul 26, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Wait, you were telling us that Comcast would block access to Netflix
if they could get away with it.
The point is, Comcast, or any MVPD that adds Netflix to their walled-in
offerings, have a monetary reason to do so.
Ya think?
They benefit. And if they are permitted to do so, by this FCC, then why would
they allow their subscribers to access Netflix in less lucrative ways?
The economic benefit Bert. And the fact that they would be pilloried by just
about everyone - especially the vast majority you believe support Title II
style Net Neutrality.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but a very large percentage of your "vast
majority" is stealing their TV fix from companies like Comcast. They just use
the authentication credential of their parents or a friend.
Obviously Comcast wants people to buy both ISP service and a MVPD bundle. VOIP
too - THAT IS THE BUSINESS THEY ARE IN!
It just makes sense for them to collaborate with Netflix to offer this very
popular service to their customers WITHOUT having to switch the inputs on the
TV to a connected TV device that ALSO offers competitive MVPD bundles like
Sling, Sony PSVue, Hulu and DirectTV Now.
But if a customer decides they do not need a MVPD bundle, or they want to
switch to a VMVPD service Comcast still wants the $70-80/mo revenue for the ISP
services needed to stream OTT services reliably with high quality.
You probably don't remember, as a you were a cord never, But it was not that
long ago that the Comcast MVPD service cost considerably less than this.
They wouldn't. They would be doing exactly what they've ALWAYS done in the
past. Ram content down the throats of the loyal Craigs of the world, let them
pay for it whether they want it or not, and do not give them options.
Like they ram HBO and Showtime down their customer's throats?
Give it up Bert. What the "wouldn't" do is block access to Netflix via their
ISP service.
Jeez! Anyone awake there? Without a neutrality mandate, just block that
Internet stream, or make it sufficiently painful to watch. Why not?
It is called NET NEUTRALITY Bert.
It is the culture of the Internet - which was working just fine - that prevents
this kind of anti-competitive behavior. And when the Title II decision is
replaced with the former light handed regulatory regime, it will be the threat
of anti-trust enforcement that will maintain the Internet culture.
The FCC is blessing such arrangements. Make more money offering Netflix along
with TV service.
No Bert, the FCC is not blessing such arrangements. They do not, and should not
be telling companies how to run their business and who they can make deals
with. That is the legacy of the heavy handed regulatory culture of the last
century where the FCC decided what companies could do with their spectrum, or
what businesses a telco could enter.
But you just stepped into your own trap.
BEFORE the Title II decision, everyone was making deals as the Internet grew.
The marketplace was driving the innovation and the deals.
AFTER this decision, it only took a few months for the FCC to propose a wide
ranging regime to determine technology winners and how copyright would be
managed. They did this by expanding their failed attempts to unbundle MVPD
STBs, into a proposal to create a connected device standard and mandate how
these devices would handle copyrighted content.
Convince the loyal subjects to submit, make them rent your STB, make them pay
for TV service, as their only viable way to get Netflix or anything else, for
that matter. Honestly, Craig, THINK.
I THINK YOU are delusional.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
