[opendtv] Re: Painful explanation of TVE
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 02:06:46 -0500
On Mar 10, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
If you were right, there would have been no need for the STB order
or the MVPD NPRM.
Bingo (assuming you mean VMVPD and this new STB order). Exactly what I said
many times.
Yes you have said that this attempt by the FCC to extend their regulatory reach
is unnecessary. But that has nothing to do with my response.
We were discussing "the need for regulation," and my contention about executive
branch overreach and the propensity to regulate everything the agencies can get
their fangs into. When I wrote "if you were right," I as responding to your
excuse that this is just legacy thinking. You wrote:
I think the simple explanation is usually the correct one. From reading the
FCC blogs, there are enough internal inconsistencies to suspect that legacy
thinking is the problem. An inability to grasp that once they, the FCC, have
mandated a neutral Internet, the rest of it falls in place. VMVPDs,
non-standard STBs, the need to fuss over QAM "channels," become irrelevant.
Clearly the FCC either cannot grasp that they do not need to regulate, or they
are using this opportunity to extend their reach, over both legacy MVPDs and
the new Internet competitors.
They are not stupid Bert. This is intentional, as O'Reilly stated.
Sorry, Craig, but I explained exactly what didn't track. I guess I'm not as
keen on vague, generic, broad brush, anti-regulation rhetoric as you are.
It did not fit with YOUR view of the situation.
We agree that the FCC does not need to regulate new OTT services. We disagree
about why they are doing this.
O'Reilly may well be making much ado about nothing. Then again he's not stupid
either - his experience working with the other Commissioners on these
proceedings caused him to raise legitimate concerns, several of which I find
very believable.
The issues he raised about security, preservation of advertising,
and the potential for theft of service are very real. The use of
"borrowed authentication credentials" to access TVE services is
very real,
And easily resolved.
Really?
I guess there are no issues with hacking of supposedly secure financial systems
and Internet servers. There is no identity theft. Napster did not disrupt the
music industry. And theft of MVPD services never happened.
I guess this never happened:
http://satscams.com/?p=100
Or this:
http://www.wired.com/2008/05/tarnovsky/
For now, OTT services, including TV Everywhere, are living with the low grade
security - simple user names and passwords. Clearly they could move to more
secure techniques - perhaps encrypted keys in secure enclaves of the processors
- a technique now gaining traction with smart phones and tablets, akin to the
chips in new credit cards.
Kinda like Cable Card...
;-)
To say that O'Reilly is raising unfounded concerns is to ignore reality.
The legacy STB is no solution, since people want access from more places than
just home. The borrowed credentials problem can be solved several ways. For
instance, allowing only one user at a time, with that set of credentials.
Like Dish Sling?
Not much comfort if you are trying to access a service you are paying for only
to find that a hacker or your Millennial son is locking you out.
It can also be solved, more cumbersomely, by listing the hardware addresses
of devices from the subscriber household, and allowing just those.
Fine for the box connected to the TV in the family room. What about my iPhone,
my iPad, or a laptop being used outside the home?
This too is a solvable problem. I've enabled multiple devices to access my
iTunes music for years. It is a bit cumbersome, and it can be hacked fairly
easily.
It can be solved with proper encryption/authentication certificates. O'Rielly
correctly stated that STBs were a thing of the past. He should have stayed on
message.
He simply said that there are potential risks and software solutions can make
easy targets. As you saw with links about hacking DBS systems, even
sophisticated card-based security can be hacked.
It's like this, Craig. You went to the FCC with some thoughts, which you have
expressed on very many occasions. The FCC dismissed some of what you told
them they should do. They did remove Table 3, but they didn't go far enough,
according to you, on removing other standards. Your reaction to this was that
the FCC must have been listening to "special interests." Why else would they
ignore all your great ideas, right? Hey, maybe the "special interests" had
some pretty good ideas too!
No Bert. The FCC turned the entire process over to special interests. First the
Advisory Committee, then the ATSC, both of which were headed up by a former FCC
Chairman who became a K Street lawyer representing the special interests.
That's how the system works in DC Bert.
Fact is, what the ATSC and the FCC did was eminently reasonable, for what is,
after all, a one-way broadcast medium. Including the ATSC retaining Table 3.
We disagree.
I was following this very closely, Craig. If I had seen that the ATSC and/or
FCC had ignored establishing standards all the way up, I would have said,
these guys are clueless. This will never work. Which is why, when you revert
to that story, I always react as I just did this time. If you want to express
how bad "special interests" are, then use a good example.
And you would have been wrong. Then again, it took a decade to make it work,
and less than another decade to figure out the standard is obsolete and they
need to do what we asked for in the first place.
Three is under the most ideal conditions, plus DBS does not provide broadband.
No. Three exists for about of 95% of U.S. homes. The fact that DBS does not
provide broadband is IRRELEVANT, despite the fact that both Dish and AT&T offer
DBS bundles with broadband.
So in fact, often one choice only for legacy MVPD service, and for wired
broadband, most often, one choice only. That's not competition.
Pay Attention!
Obviously there is a lack of "real" competition. The reason is regulatory
capture and overreach. The reason is that politicians/governments are feasting
on the content and distribution oligopolies - they do not want competition.
This is clearly by design, as I have pointed out.
Hardly "by design." Unless you mean that "by design," people refuse to have a
dozen companies digging up neighborhoods to lay cable. "By design" sounds
like next thing, you'll warning us about those black helicopters, Craig. Come
now.
Give it up Bert.
You are the one championing the wonders of the neutral Internet and the
competition it enables. Never mind that the preferred broadband pipes are
operated by a regulated monopoly, and the content owners are unwilling to make
popular TV programming available in a manner that would promote real
competition.
Obviously there are more competitors. Verizon and AT&T both offer FIOS systems
in some markets. Google Fiber exists in other markets. Funny thing though...
They all sell non competitive TV bundles and their broadband pricing is
evolving down the same path.
Yes, possibly wireless broadband will provide adequate competition in
broadband access. So far, it's not good enough.
Why would this change anything? The FCC is now trying to regulate broadband.
You can see where that got us with MVPD services. And Internet access does not
solve the content oligopoly problem.
It was indeed working fine, until the conflict of interest occurred with
streaming TV.
Except that did not happen. In reality the marketplace WAS working. New peering
agreements were created and OTT companies started paying for the normal costs
of their business.
And we do have laws to protect us from this. The one that applies here is the
neutrality mandate that was placed on telephone service, about 110 years ago
initially. For exactly the same reason.
No Bert. We have anti-trust laws and other legal means to deal with bad actors.
The neutrality mandate on phones may well have been necessary 110 years ago. It
is not necessary today. Yet a 110 year old regulatory regimen is now being
applied to broadband, with Net Neutrality being used as the excuse for
unnecessary regulation.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
