[opendtv] Re: Bundling and competition
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:22:02 -0400
On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> I can't believe you said that.
>>
>> Your stated vision of the future of the TV in your family room is one
>> that is made possible by a WIRE that delivers streams of broadband
>> data to your TV
>
> Uuuuh, hardly.
>
> All I need for my (fixed) TV is a broadband connection to the Internet. The
> totally orthogonal point being, how best to get a competitive broadband
> connection? Is it best wired or is it best wireless?
>
> Clearly, whether mobile or fixed, the most competitive solutions are always
> the ones that don't tie you to that monoplistic infrastructure! That's one of
> my main points to Prof Negroponti. The other being, it was all a matter of
> technological innovations, not mere accidents.
Perhaps we have found the big disconnect in Bert's brain that keeps these
arguments going. To paraphrase a now famous political statement:
What difference does it make? I say "a wire that delivers streams of broadband
data to your TV," Bert says "All I need for my (fixed) TV is a broadband
connection to the Internet."
And it is also clear that to get this broadband connection Bert must tie his TV
to "that monopolistic infrastructure," be it the local cable company or telco.
I'm sure Nicholas would be as confused as I am.
> And a side point is, the contribution of the wireless aspect of RF comm
> channels used to be a lot higher than it is now. In most cases now, aside
> from satcomm, the wireless contribution is only for that last-mile, or even
> last-few-feet link. All of the heavy lifting is done by the backhaul
> networks, which tend to be fiber. So it's really incorrect to say that even
> mobile solutions, e.g. cellular, are "wireless." Cellular is nothing without
> the backhaul network, and that ain't predominantly wireless by any means.
Absolutely correct. The major difference here is that we pay for the bits we
use with wireless broadband, while we pay for the pipe when we get wired
broadband to the home; and we "control" the wireless (WiFi) link in the home.
It is also clear that any shift to OTT video, and away from MVPD video
services, will be dependent on unmetered broadband to the home that will
continue to arrive via fiber/wires. PERHAPS we may see a wireless link to the
home at the neighborhood level in the future.
>
>> The only argument left, is whether we will need ANY wires, if spectrum
>> is used in an optimal manner in the future.
>
> Yeah, but mostly that's what one calls "arm waving." Ideally, everything,
> including power distribution, would be wireless. I object to these vague
> "optimal manner" allusions, which get thrown about but add little. You mean
> "optimal," or you mean "imaginary"?
I though I was being generous with this one, but Bert took this too literally.
Clearly the wireless link is just the "last mile." It could be a wireless link
from a pole in your neighborhood, or a bit farther using a point-to-point
technology that allows for massive spectral re-use. But the near future seems
very predictable:
1. Gradual improvements in wired broadband to the home, with continued
build-out of infrastructure from the backbone to the in-home POP, to deal with
the massive bottlenecks associated with the shift from dedicated video networks
to broadband OTT;
2. Gradual improvements in wireless broadband for mobile devices - but the bits
will still be metered.
>> You did it again. OTA TV is not even trying to compete. It is there
>> primarily to guarantee that lucrative second revenue stream from the
>> MVPDs.
>
> You're confusing "business models" with technology. OTA TV has multiple
> different TV networks/station groups all using their own distribution medium,
> and yet all capable of deploying their signal to the same locations. Pretty
> hard to get that kind of competitive environment with cable or even DBS.
> There is no single entity that can keep a market hostage. E.g., EVEN IF OTA
> TV were available by payment, there would be no single MVPD capable of
> extracting those higher monthly rates. Only if you set up OTA TV in an obtuse
> way would the customers have to be dependent on just one organization.
Can you please explain the difference between tuning to a broadcast channel via
an integrated ATSC tuner or your cable/DBS remote?
Never mind the fact that ATSC may not be as reliable as an MVPD in some
geographic areas. All MVPDs now offer local stations; there may be a few
markets that are not served by both DBS systems. What you typically do not get
(by design) from an MVPD service is duplicated signals from adjacent markets.
Broadcasters may compete via content with other stations in their market, but
they do not take kindly to the idea that you might watch the same content from
a station in another market, as Bert is able to do sitting between DC and
Baltimore.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: