Too painful to continue...
Regards
Craig
On Mar 11, 2016, at 8:43 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier 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.
I'm saying, first related to the STB issue, that the FCC, including O'Rielly,
did not get this point. And that's easy to demonstrate. Their regulation for
a QAM STB might just become worthless in short order. Why wouldn't it? People
have already been migrating to Internet TV, including with streaming boxes,
with connected (smart) TVs, and with handheld devices, ALL of which bypass
any legacy STB. The MVPDs have ALREADY deployed TVE. So this supposed attempt
to overreach would be legislating something that soon goes unused. Totally
ineffective attempt, yes?
But I'm not sure why you find this so hard to accept. It took a fair amount
of repetition and reworded explanations before you understood what I was
getting at, right? How many times did you respond with "QAM is used," Craig?
Or similar words.
We agree that the FCC does not need to regulate new OTT
services. We disagree about why they are doing this.
And related to the OTT issue, O'Rielly was doing a bit of rhetorical
flourish, as people in political arguments love to do. He's simply
exaggerating, including OTT sites when they were never an issue, to
strengthen his point about overreach. The NPRM is very clear in its
description of a VMVPD being something that mimics the legacy MVPD model,
with a lot of emphasis on "linear channels." That alone shows legacy
thinking, for at least two reasons. One, the FCC seems unaware of the fact
that the majority of TV viewing is not done by appointment anymore. So why
the emphasis on yesterday's viewing habits? And two, how come they don't
wonder why Dish never even bothered to ask them about details? Could it be,
they don't NEED any such regulations?
So even in this VMVPD issue, any sort of "overreach" becomes pointless.
Companies, including content owners themselves, ALREADY go about using the
Internet for TV content distribution. Without having to be coerced.
O'Reilly may well be making much ado about nothing.
O'Rielly and Wheeler too, for that matter. What they need to focus on is
guaranteed neutrality. I get that O'Rielly wanted to talk about overreach. He
should have explained the ineffectiveness of any such attempt, rather than
simply saying that regulation is bad.
I guess there are no issues with hacking of supposedly secure
financial systems and Internet servers. There is no identity
theft.
And this is Craig, doing his own bit of rhetorical flourish. First of all,
any type of Internet hacking, such as those you list, is going to be a lot
harder to do than stealing content from an STB, Craig. And more importantly,
what a specious argument for retaining legacy STBs, when the MVPDs are
already streaming anyway. That excuse falls flat on its face.
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?
Show me anything I wrote that limits the technique to only in-home devices,
Craig. The hardware address of the viewing device goes with it, Craig.
It can be solved with proper encryption/authentication
certificates.
He simply said that there are potential risks and software
solutions can make easy targets.
We are past the stage when everyone watches TV in the living room, by
appointment. So regulations and security concerns that address only in-home,
by appointment viewing, with the old-standby STB, show simply LEGACY
THINKING. If it's an attempt to overreach with regulations, it will soon be
ignored regulation.
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.
Yes, and we still do. So I will repeat my point. When you trot out your
example about suggestions you made that went unheeded, it proves nothing to
me. So, use some other example.
The fact that DBS does not provide broadband is IRRELEVANT,
False. It matters a lot, and it shows why the DBS companies are moving to
Internet distribution, one way or another. People want broadband more than
they want MVPD service, Craig. That's why it matters. DBS becomes a
transitional solution, now past its prime.
Obviously there is a lack of "real" competition. The reason is
regulatory capture and overreach.
Pay attention, Craig. BULL SH*T. This is simply your inability to understand
cause and effect, and proclaiming something as fact. As I have repeated
multiple times, if wireless broadband can become cost competitive with cabled
broadband, then competition will improve. Until such a time, explain how
"regulatory overreach," as opposed to citizens themselves, is preventing
dozens of companies from installing cables through neighborhoods.
It is the constituents who get pissed when their properties get torn up.
There's no overreach at all, if this is minimized. Citizens would revolt if
their politicians allowed unfettered access to their properties by anyone,
Craig.
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,
Why write pointless words, Craig? Do you really fail to understand why a
neutrality mandate is needed if competition is inadequate for the pipe? Do
you really fail to understand that a mandated-to-be-neutral pipe can carry
competitive services? Is it hard to understand that regulated public highways
can carry many competitive services, Craig?
No Bert. We have anti-trust laws
Anti-trust laws are totally irrelevant to this problem. You might want to
apply anti-trust laws to the collusion going on behind the scenes, for the
limited-use little streaming boxes you love. But in this instance, no one is
preventing plentiful competition among cabled broadband systems, other than
citizens themselves. Anti-trust laws are inapplicable. The telephone
neutrality mandates, instead, are an exact fit.
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.
