[opendtv] Re: Rules which applied to CATV systems in the past
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:23:17 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> The analogy of Aereo to the early CATV systems and building antenna
> systems falls apart once the content leaves the home...
Excellent point. I'll buy that. So now we can shift our attention to that
"outside the home" aspect, since the in-home use of the Aereo signal should be
non-controversial, being similar to a building antenna, *and* since the Supreme
Court decided that even the PVR aspects are not an issue.
So here's a bit of a cheap shot. If I buy a portable TV, do the broadcasters
need to know? Should I be given some sort of permission to use their signal
outside the home? As long as I am in the local market area, at least, Aereo
reception should not have been be an issue.
So to be logical and fair, was that the only beef? Streaming outside of the
local market? That could have been remedied at the IP layer, by forcing Aereo
to implement a geo-location filter when streaming to subscribers on the move.
And by the way, at most, that complaint would be from the broadcasters in
markets the Aereo subscriber is visiting, rather than from his back-home
broadcasters who are enjoying the higher Nielsen ratings.
Now look at FCC 12-126. This is the ruling that permits cable operators to
encrypt all of their channels, including the basic tier (which also carries the
FOTA channels in the market). So you read all this bla bla bla on how great
digital encryption is for MVPDs.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryption-prohibition
Then the FCC addresses cable customers. The bottom line is, the FCC requires
the six major cable companies to make basic tier channels available to standard
devices, such as IP, ClearQAM, or what have you, even if this means that the
clear in-home network signal may originate at an in-home rented MVPD's box.
Read this:
"22. Contrary to Boxee's argument, nothing in Section 624A requires that
consumer equipment compatibility be achieved by means of a hardware-free
solution. Under the equipment measure we adopt today, the vast majority of
consumers will be able to access service that is encrypted using a commercially
available security technology or via equipment with standard home-networking
capability in much the same way they do today. In fact, if this standard
home-networking capability is connected to a wireless home network, the
consumer experience could improve because consumers will be able to access
basic service tier channels without physically connecting a device to a coaxial
plug from the wall. Thus, mandating a hardware-free solution is not necessary
to protect consumers in the context of the instant proceeding."
So here's the question. When FCC mandates that the MVPD make the broadcaster's
content available as IP to the in-home network, does the FCC require that the
MVPD get permission from the broadcaster? Doesn't look like any such
requirement exists. So if a service such as Aereo, which only relays FOTA
channels, and not even the rest of an MVPD's basic tier, does what the FCC
tells the cable companies to do, why should Aereo not be allowed? It makes no
sense.
This is a really good read of the current situation. One can only wonder why so
many people cave in.
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=student_scholarship
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:
